9 ms·

I don't know, why should we have to be "motivated" to get a job, when the company can just get rid of us at any time? What's the point? Seems like a double sta

I don't know, why should we have to be "motivated" to get a job, when the company can just get rid of us at any time? What's the point? Seems like a double standard.

ImageXav 3y ago
You could also leave the company at any point, so why should they hire you? There's got to be some give and take in a relationship with an employer. If you're feeling exploited, you're not in the right role. And that will show in the quality of your work. Work can be fun and interesting, and someone who enjoys what they do will relish the opportunity to learn. I know that for me interviewing, though tough, has always been an opportunity to solidify my basic understanding of the field I'm in. Maybe figure out what you enjoy, and find an employer who respects you equally?
- selestify 3y ago
  That’s a luxury only affordable when there’s a wealth of choices available. If my choice is between a boring job from an employer I don’t respect, or no job at all, I’m taking that job.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > If you're feeling exploited, you're not in the right role. I mean that's a good attitude, but really some industrues and some fompanies are exploitative. And I am not talking Cobalt mines or McDonalds. Look at the game industry- really good developers, much more skilled than average web dev, and they get shit pay and long hours. Why does anyone work there? People exploit their passion. So they are orthogobal concepts - maybe you are passionate, and someone takes advantage of that
  - JackFr 3y ago
    > Why does anyone work there? Ask them. They are choosing to work there. They have options. Also why is McDonalds an example of an exploitative company?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > Also why is McDonalds an example of an exploitative company? Because we (in UK) are paying in-work benefits to help people who work there survive. So the taxpayer is subsidising the labour costs of this business. If we didn't, there wouldn't be enough people willing to work at McDonalds. We should only pay benefits to people who are unemployed, a job has to cover costs of sustaining employees. The same pronpem is faced by british farmers - they can't exploit romanian students with schemes where they pay them below minimum wage by charging £50/day for libing on the farm in a tent. And there arent enough british folks who want to break their back for minimum wage.
      - JackFr 3y ago
        You aren’t subsidizing McDonalds labor cost. If McDonalds paid them more, they would be paying more than the revenue that’s attributable to them, and creating a net loss by hiring them and they simply wouldn’t do it. As a society we have decided that people deserve a livable wage. That is a good thing. Minimum wage laws are a distorting way to accomplish this because they put a cost that should be borne by society (no-skill workers should have a livable wage) and force it on industries that employ workers with no skills. Subsidizing the income through government transfers is frankly a more equitable means of achieving that goal. That being said, in such a regime however minimum wage laws are necessary, not because McDonalds is exploring the workers, but because they are likely to exploit the government.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > If McDonalds paid them more, they would be paying more than the revenue that’s attributable to them, and creating a net loss by hiring them and they simply wouldn’t do it. That only happens when McDonalds is paying exactly as much as the value they get back. Which is doubtful. If forced to pay more or shut down, your average McDonalds would prefer to pay more. They wouldn't be losing money.

I don't know, why should we have to be "motivated" to get a job, when the company can just get rid of us at any time? What's the point? Seems like a double standard.

ImageXav 3y ago

You could also leave the company at any point, so why should they hire you? There's got to be some give and take in a relationship with an employer. If you're feeling exploited, you're not in the right role. And that will show in the quality of your work. Work can be fun and interesting, and someone who enjoys what they do will relish the opportunity to learn. I know that for me interviewing, though tough, has always been an opportunity to solidify my basic understanding of the field I'm in. Maybe figure out what you enjoy, and find an employer who respects you equally?

selestify 3y ago
That’s a luxury only affordable when there’s a wealth of choices available. If my choice is between a boring job from an employer I don’t respect, or no job at all, I’m taking that job.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> If you're feeling exploited, you're not in the right role. I mean that's a good attitude, but really some industrues and some fompanies are exploitative. And I am not talking Cobalt mines or McDonalds. Look at the game industry- really good developers, much more skilled than average web dev, and they get shit pay and long hours. Why does anyone work there? People exploit their passion. So they are orthogobal concepts - maybe you are passionate, and someone takes advantage of that
- JackFr 3y ago
  > Why does anyone work there? Ask them. They are choosing to work there. They have options. Also why is McDonalds an example of an exploitative company?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > Also why is McDonalds an example of an exploitative company? Because we (in UK) are paying in-work benefits to help people who work there survive. So the taxpayer is subsidising the labour costs of this business. If we didn't, there wouldn't be enough people willing to work at McDonalds. We should only pay benefits to people who are unemployed, a job has to cover costs of sustaining employees. The same pronpem is faced by british farmers - they can't exploit romanian students with schemes where they pay them below minimum wage by charging £50/day for libing on the farm in a tent. And there arent enough british folks who want to break their back for minimum wage.
    - JackFr 3y ago
      You aren’t subsidizing McDonalds labor cost. If McDonalds paid them more, they would be paying more than the revenue that’s attributable to them, and creating a net loss by hiring them and they simply wouldn’t do it. As a society we have decided that people deserve a livable wage. That is a good thing. Minimum wage laws are a distorting way to accomplish this because they put a cost that should be borne by society (no-skill workers should have a livable wage) and force it on industries that employ workers with no skills. Subsidizing the income through government transfers is frankly a more equitable means of achieving that goal. That being said, in such a regime however minimum wage laws are necessary, not because McDonalds is exploring the workers, but because they are likely to exploit the government.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        > If McDonalds paid them more, they would be paying more than the revenue that’s attributable to them, and creating a net loss by hiring them and they simply wouldn’t do it. That only happens when McDonalds is paying exactly as much as the value they get back. Which is doubtful. If forced to pay more or shut down, your average McDonalds would prefer to pay more. They wouldn't be losing money.