File: 1557761927012.png (2.52 MB, 1645x2061, 1645:2061, 1276305.png) ImgOps Google
To be devil's advocate, that 150 days is counting *all* days including weekends. So yes, it is quite a lot more, but it is also quite disingenuous to compare it to "8 days". It ends up being closer to 112 days versus 150. Which is still quite a disparity, but not nearly as dramatic.
File: 1557762849721.png (15.53 KB, 565x512, 565:512, This is the part where we ….png) ImgOps Google
Glad I don't match average!
File: 1557765324533.jpg (175.89 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Trash_UhOh.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
for once im gonna take out all 5 weeks this year.
and still have like 2 weeks left from all the years ive not used.
you guys really need the 5 week vaction
although ther´s a silly swedish expression. "a swede work fully 11 months, to take one month of vacation to renovate the house/garage/car/boat/garden only to go back to work for 11 months
File: 1557766596207.png (110.65 KB, 352x318, 176:159, everything is wonderful ya….png) ImgOps Google
By that same metric, surely European peasants in the medieval times would have observed the Sabbath more faithfully, thus not working on Sundays c:>>945975
...me neither :c>>945977>>945978
OOoo, Pony, do you know what that's worth?? OOoo, Heaven is a place on Earth!
They say in Europe, health comes first!
OOO, Heaven is a place on Earth!
...i don't think all my work vacation days I've -ever had- put together would equal five weeks...
File: 1557766972651.png (148.27 KB, 500x701, 500:701, Trash_kiss.png) ImgOps Google
File: 1557766999791.png (282.97 KB, 526x353, 526:353, Shy Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
i should not complain though. if i were a peasant, i would have to plow all day, and stuff. i think, plowing so much would be much more tiring. We count our blessings!
We are fortunate that we are not medieval peasants, all things considered!
File: 1557767019362.png (251.66 KB, 446x430, 223:215, huh 5.png) ImgOps Google
Stuff I spend vacation days on:
This year I moved, my internet needed to be disconnected and connected on new address = > technician visit only during working hours without option to connect from home
Ever July/August 1 week (2 weeks total) to spend with the kids for Summer vacation
About 2 days in easter vacation/2 days in Christmas vacation to spend with the kids.
Then I'd like to have some spare for other meetings/check ups and perhaps have the kids over during Spring/Autumn break
And technically I am not the main guardian to my kids now.
File: 1557785966189.png (434.52 KB, 652x565, 652:565, silly smile 2.png) ImgOps Google
Uh oh! Moony the not article reader!>>945983
That is a good point, epic!
File: 1557786498977.png (3.21 MB, 2480x3507, 2480:3507, 899536.png) ImgOps Google
File: 1557801356390.png (189.78 KB, 631x555, 631:555, Filly Fluttersmile.png) ImgOps Google
i did!! you are smart, anon! i read it... on reddit!!
File: 1557804740005.png (452.46 KB, 1600x1663, 1600:1663, img.png) ImgOps Google
This is why I hate society. As kids in school you get the summer off, vacations, holidays, and work less than 40 hours a week.
As adults, you basically just get weekends off? Where's the incentive to ever get a job/become an adult? At the very least, time off should remain the same from school to work. Ideally, however, it would increase, only working 20-30 hours a week...
I have given up on general society. It's obvious that perhaps only 5% of the general population in first-world countries care about people other than their immediate family/close friends. The solitary life is ideal for most of these kinds of people.
File: 1557805479097.png (157.54 KB, 435x360, 29:24, you are a wonderful pony.png) ImgOps Google
still smart! that counts! >>946079
well, the incentive is that you can earn the money you need to take care of others, instead of needing to be taken care of!
for me, i think, i need to earn enough to take care of my family... and that includes all of you.
File: 1557806241972.png (27.07 KB, 575x468, 575:468, Upgrade Complete.png) ImgOps Google
>>946079>As kids in school you get the summer off, vacations, holidays, and work less than 40 hours a week.
I get the same stuff as an adult in school! In fact, I arguably work much less than I did as a child.
File: 1557808448035.png (96.19 KB, 400x523, 400:523, _f2u__night_in_the_woods__….png) ImgOps Google
capitalism is broken!
File: 1557809450809.jpg (232.33 KB, 960x895, 192:179, iMP3Az1.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
And I'd imagine the peasantry are working much longer hours, anyway.
Not to mention what's to be said about the much heavier labor.
But, yeah, most people work rather lowsy jobs. They really ought to learn to negotiate for themselves better. Stop letting people exploit you.
If workers were a tad more picky about their work, we'd all end up a fair ways better off, honestly.
File: 1557814673547.png (5.46 KB, 552x552, 1:1, Okay, let's face it, this ….png) ImgOps Google
I work in a school as a lunch lady.
File: 1557814679484.png (123.38 KB, 384x383, 384:383, woop.png) ImgOps Google
>>946079>As adults, you basically just get weekends off?
As long as your boss doesn't ask you to come work the weekend shift as well, for no compensation of course.>>946108
Well, it's either work or be homeless.
Cause who's gonna pay the bills if you have no unemployment benefits to fall back on.
File: 1557814768401.png (11.01 KB, 178x305, 178:305, I don't know what I'm look….png) ImgOps Google
I've largely found that forming a union and trying to negotiate better conditions isn't as effective as someone who just care about their employees enough to offer better conditions in the first place.
File: 1557814854930.png (1.16 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, fs_aaaaa.png) ImgOps Google
Well, I work a simple job to pay rent, but so does everyone and it's just the background of life, not worth talking about. I'm really a scientist, founder of a school, and programmer, and when you have a profession you love, there's no need for vacation.
File: 1557835506853.png (434.52 KB, 652x565, 652:565, silly smile 2.png) ImgOps Google
i very much doubt they are working longer hours without electric lights, unless they were tending fields in the pitch blackness
Stop letting people exploit you surely must sound as odd to you as it does to me? But that i could choose not to be exploited! >>946083
i vote serf party every year :c>>946169>>946172
Sing it to the Battle Hymn of the Republic!
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone!
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone!
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own!
While the union makes us strong!>>946173
Well that sounds very nice, flower ^^ what kind of school did you found? Programming sounds fun, but i do not know how!
File: 1557837510766.png (188.86 KB, 500x680, 25:34, 1961921.png) ImgOps Google
Oh, it's a new kind of school, but really simple. It's a school where you learn things on your own by reading books (or online stuff) or doing projects. So even though I'm the founder, I don't have to yell at people to get things done, so it's pretty easy.
Some students like to be yelled at or told they are not good enough or too stupid and need to work harder, so it's not for everyone, and that's OK.
File: 1557849719233.png (30.99 KB, 323x292, 323:292, This is going to require a….png) ImgOps Google
I think exploitation is sort of required, even. Which isn't necessarily bad if you look at things more practically, in terms of what you want or need rather then "deserve". But in order to turn a profit something has to be exploited, and in our modern industries that's usually the worker. There aren't many natural resources left to harvest, and in some industries even those
workers are exploited.
I think OP article kind of crafs an argument against that.
Overall I don't think it's for the common best.
File: 1557857943435.png (234.12 KB, 600x848, 75:106, 57fabd6449a2c037d13b95d4ff….png) ImgOps Google
So long as you make sure that entity dies off as soon as it completes its goal, rather than floats around like a parasitic entity constantly leaching off of your workers, forcing them to give up large chunks of money or forcing them to take chunks of time off for fights they do not care in the slightest about.
I like the concept of unions. Collective bargaining is a good idea. But, my experience with unions, at least here in America, is that they're complete grade A cancer. It's to the point where I honestly could give less a shit if unions as a whole just didn't exist.>>946171
There's other options to "work a shit job" and "be homeless". Though it does depend on your location, some.
It's part of why I want a relocation fund for people. Basically maybe a thousand dollars or something like that you can use to pay for travel, shipping, and initial downpayment on rent, to get from a place with absurd costs of living and few good jobs, to a place with far better costs of living, and a fair few jobs in a growing market.
File: 1557858187386.png (474.07 KB, 800x1126, 400:563, Dragon Employee 3.png) ImgOps Google
True. If your company requires that kind of effort, they're a shit employer and a company that'd inevitably die out eventually, anyway.
Better to go find a competitor that'll treat your right.
But, if that's not an option, as sometimes is the case due to lack of experience and constant fuckups as an employee that'd make you unhireable elsewhere, some kind of joint bargaining is your only viable option.
'Course the low experience guys can always leave in a year or two, and the fuckups really only have themselves to blame, but, still.>>946176
They work from sunrise to sunset, I'd assume.
I don't think most people do that. I sure don't.
You might, but, you massively overwork yourself. I think personally you ought to find a different job, but, I understand you view it as important, so, I can't really blame you for it.
File: 1557859816503.jpg (27.44 KB, 486x440, 243:220, my hat is a book.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I wonder how it would really map
the size/success of a company versus the way theyr treat their everage employee.
Though, to be fair, bigger companies have less proper employees and do a lot of outsourcing to subcontractors.
The company pressures the subcontractors to meet the deadlines and it is wholy on the subcontracters to manage their employees.
It would be kind of like cheating.
File: 1557860056794.png (492.85 KB, 1280x906, 640:453, fs_pizza.png) ImgOps Google
I guess you prefer the standard system, and that's fine.>>946207
What does it mean, exploited?
I'll look it up. "make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource); benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them"
Guess it's about using up a worker or being unfair. Do workers deserve to set themselves to purposes other than that of their employer? I intend to attempt to in my life and it's a good thing for my kind, but I know about respecting human economic ways.
File: 1557862734789.png (13.75 KB, 345x382, 345:382, I feel the cosmos.png) ImgOps Google
>>946259>Basically maybe a thousand dollars or something like that you can use to pay for travel, shipping, and initial downpayment on rent, to get from a place with absurd costs of living and few good jobs, to a place with far better costs of living, and a fair few jobs in a growing market.
We have that already.>>946258
Well it doesn't really craft an argument that it isn't required. The notable differences between then and now as far as exploitation goes are:
1. People weren't necessarily trying to turn a profit so much as just support their community and fill their roles.
2. There were far more natural resources to exploit, especially as a ratio to people wanting to exploit them.>>946270>"make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource); benefit unfairly from the work of (someone), typically by overworking or underpaying them"
I suppose that's what it means by common usage, but I'd focus more on the first part than the latter portions. "Make full use of and derive benefit from." Human labor is still a resource and our society exists by exploiting that. Whether it's "unfair" or whether someone is overworked or underpaid is very subjective and not necessarily required for what I'd consider exploitation. If you're employer is making money by hiring you, then by definition they're exploiting you as a resource, and I think that covers almost every job there is.>Do workers deserve to set themselves to purposes other than that of their employer?
I'd say they do, and I'd also say that most can. I certainly have enough spare time to pursue other interests despite being employed.
File: 1557862976986.jpg (247.81 KB, 600x990, 20:33, 8751286cb9a8e86355feeb2fdc….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Do we? I've never heard of that. Is it in the US? How does one apply for it?
File: 1557863895671.png (17.92 KB, 439x460, 439:460, 280162__safe_solo_oc_artis….png) ImgOps Google
It's a tax refund thing. You just submit it with your annual tax report thing. I forget exactly what all is covered, but I know travel and moving expenses are covered, for sure.
File: 1557864108730.jpg (24.64 KB, 168x143, 168:143, 13.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I don't think I'd count tax returns.
You have to pay in to that, after all. That'd mean it's only really something those who make enough to pay in to taxes'd get.
The idea I'm trying to get at is specifically people who do not have the funds to move, and are therefor stuck in place unfortunately. This seems to just be a way to make it slightly more comfortable for the people who could afford to move, did so, and are wanting to skip on the taxes for it.
File: 1557864228108.png (279.81 KB, 972x986, 486:493, fs_clover.png) ImgOps Google
>>946277>Human labor is still a resource and our society exists by exploiting that.
I think you're saying, basically, that people must work, which I agree with.
Markets may result in mutual benefit. If I sell an old guitar, I am richer and have space in my apartment for other things I will use more often. Someone else perhaps can start to learn to play the guitar. Both are happy with the exchange.
At an extreme, someone sells their guitar at below market value because they are being evicted and have to live in their car. You can go even further and think of someone trying to get people evicted so they can buy underpriced property in bulk. People might then start thinking they are being exploited. Like you said, though, it's subjective to an idea of what's a fair trade. Even if my model, if someone is seen as having deserved eviction, then downsizing is part of their deserved punishment and they have no right to claim oppression.
File: 1557865684551.png (17.31 KB, 590x600, 59:60, Everything went better tha….png) ImgOps Google
Well it might be a tax credit, which wouldn't require you pay in for. I can't recall the details, like I said.>>946285>I think you're saying, basically, that people must work, which I agree with.
Mmm, not quite. That is
how our society exists, but our society could also change to accomodate people not working or people not making a profit. In fact, there's nothing saying our society actually has to exist!>Markets may result in mutual benefit.
I would agree! Which is part of why I say exploitation isn't necessarily bad or unfair. Take human labor again. It's a resource that can be exploited, but much like iron sitting in a mountain, it probably wasn't doing anything before. Despite being "exploited", it does
benefit me to go to work every day.
>>946286>nothing saying our society actually has to exist
Suppose if you go that far, then true, no behaviors are necessary.
OK. So, exploitation of human labor does not equal exploitation of laborers.
File: 1557868558741.jpg (105.69 KB, 380x395, 76:79, Twilight_and_Cadance_look_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Hmm. I might ask to use my sick days as an extra vacation this year, before I lose them.
File: 1557868809470.jpg (20.2 KB, 440x474, 220:237, Money Money Money Money Mo….JPG) ImgOps Exif Google
>>946287>So, exploitation of human labor does not equal exploitation of laborers.
Yeah, I think that's essentially what I was trying to say. To use another extreme example, a lot of companies are outsourcing jobs to places with much cheaper labor, and it's absolutely true that we're exploiting that otherwise untapped resource of human labor, and a lot of people would decry the fact that they get paid so little. Surely this is unfair if not unlawful?
But ultimately, as bad as the working conditions there look, and despite the fact that these companies are profiting off of the disparity betwen local and foreign wages, the workers are
benefitting from this trade. It's not slavery, factories are simply opened and people are allowed to apply. If it was really as bad as some people say, then they would simply continue living their lives as they were.
File: 1557871000561.png (30.34 KB, 200x303, 200:303, Five dollars.png) ImgOps Google
That is also an argument to be made, sure.
File: 1557874006843.jpg (65.78 KB, 736x729, 736:729, money.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I'd argue the problem is power consolidation. I think it's becoming more and more difficult to compete with giant corporations for a number of reasons. Between that, and the fact that enforcement of antitrust is a meme at this point, the really powerful companies have effectively found routes of eliminating any and all competition. They make mutually beneficial agreements with each other at expense of the consumer, E.G. price fixing agreements and agreeing on who gets what turf, they buy up any startups, merge or make agreements with competition, any small companies that don't get bought out they can just sue the shit out of with completely nonsensical lawsuits, which even if they lose will work, because the big company has resources and the small one doesn't, so it's just a matter of brute force. If by some crazy turn of events, even with all those advantages, the giant company STILL manages to go under, then the government will bail it out with taxpayer money. Seems you'd have to actively try to undermine yourself to fail under these conditions.
I get that the idea is to protect jobs, but we've undermined ourselves by making even the idea of a small business able to compete in corporate conglomerate space a joke. Sure, small businesses still have a niche in smaller niche markets that bigger companies don't see as worth their time, but i do think the current landscape of capitalism could use a hell of a lot more competition. There's a reason "diversify your portfolio" is a truism in the stock market, and as a biologist, i'm very familiar with a similar truism in evolutionary biology. You want your genetic diversity. The practical upshot of both is that putting all your eggs in one basket is liable to hurt you very badly, and it's a better strategy to have a lot of baskets with a varying amount of eggs, so if one fails, you're not completely screwed. Putting all our eggs in the basket of corporate consolidation means if the company goes down, we're less able to pick ourselves back up. The companies know this, and they use it to their advantage. It gives them a lot of power, which in turn allows them to provide a worse deal with the consumer and workers, E.G. higher prices, lower wages, worse product. I think at the VERY least, we need to not spend taxpayer money propping these companies up, and we shouldn't be afraid of them failing, because it's like being afraid of the pain of taking a splinter out. The longer we leave it in, the more these giant companies can keep providing us with less and charging more for it. The more the splinter infects the surrounding area. Power begets power, money begets money, and we should keep that in mind the next time a CEO of a billion-dollar company pleads poverty when the last time he did that he used the bailout money for executive bonuses. I think we need to foster a market that can allow big companies to fail, which will provide a power vacuum for smaller companies to happily fill. I think we need to foster a market that can allow small businesses to topple dug-in corporations if that small business has a better idea, better strategy, or can otherwise provide the consumer with better.
File: 1557874869517.png (1.78 MB, 1920x1088, 30:17, facepalm.png) ImgOps Google
Hell, i wouldn't even be that opposed to government nonintereference. Problem is government interference is as often used to prop up these monopolies/oligopolies than it is the keep them in line, with things like bailouts. Plus, bigger corporations are in a much stronger position in terms of being able to pay government fines and keep government regulations organized, and potentially find loopholes. A smaller company is much more likely to just overlook some obscure bylaw, having less manpower and/or time to cover that base, and then ALSO be less able to pay the fine, having less money to do so. So there's an argument to be made for deregulation being good for small businesses, too. BUT, the way things are setup now, we regulate in ways that bolster giant corporations, and we deregulate in ways the bolster giant corporations. It's like giant corporations are a toxic boyfriend/girlfriend to the enabling government.
>>946302>Problem is government interference is as often used to prop up these monopolies/oligopolies than it is the keep them in line, with things like bailouts.
But deregulatios had to come first. The power had to consolidate before these corporations could get large enough to the point that they could essentially buy out the government.
basically, deregulation leads to monopolies/oligopolies, which then, in turn leads to crony capitalism, partly because of how much wealth the corporations control but also because of how much economies end up dependent upon them for other things.
File: 1557876353325.gif (65.9 KB, 500x594, 250:297, blink.gif) ImgOps Google
I'd argue it could even be more organic than that. Although i'm not disputing your claim, i think there's some legitimacy to that argument. I think that as they become bigger, which can happen organically, governments and society at large become more and more invested in their success. More people want or rely on their products, more people are employed by them, more people have a vested interest in them not failing. As this happens, governments may shortsightedly think that it would be a good idea to let various transgressions slide, or to look the other way, for the purpose of those employed, and those who have become reliant on what they produce. Problem is of course, if you look at the bigger, more long-term picture, you can see that this only further cripples our ability to operate without them, as it gives them an advantage over potential competition, and that gives them even more power. You can see how this can spiral out of control. I think we've lived in the age of short-sighted politics for awhile, and this is one of it's drawbacks. I don't think the government is necessarily in the pocket of these companies, at least, they weren't necessarily that way in the first place, there is a short-sighted logic to propping them up that doesn't hinge on being shills. Not that it really leaves us in any better a position.
>>946307>I think that as they become bigger, which can happen organically, governments and society at large become more and more invested in their success. More people want or rely on their products, more people are employed by them, more people have a vested interest in them not failing.
Agreed. > As this happens, governments may shortsightedly think that it would be a good idea to let various transgressions slide, or to look the other way, for the purpose of those employed, and those who have become reliant on what they produce.
I would argue that it's not so much "thinking it would be a good idea" so much as "being stuck between a rock and a hard place". I think, even if
you knew what you were doing could only help in the short term, you sometimes have to work around the fact that in some situations, if you don't take care of the short term, you might not have any long term to speak of.
Sometimes, you're kind of playing a game of hostage negotiation with people who have a lot of power of the well being of the people you are supposed to be governing. >I don't think the government is necessarily in the pocket of these companies, at least, they weren't necessarily that way in the first place
As a whole? No, I don't think so. But I don't think it really matters if the government as a whole is in the pocket of big businesses, all it takes is having the right individuals in your pocket. And considering how much more costly it is to get involved in government via the democratic process, they don't even have to be sincerely corrupt politicians to be in your pocket.
File: 1557886221415.png (11.01 KB, 178x305, 178:305, I don't know what I'm look….png) ImgOps Google
I feel guilty sometimes knowing how hard other people are working and how easy I have it by comparison.
File: 1557892765120.png (17.92 KB, 439x460, 439:460, 280162__safe_solo_oc_artis….png) ImgOps Google
At least there's a bright side.
File: 1557894357075.png (50.42 KB, 599x466, 599:466, Put my cream all over that….png) ImgOps Google
Well that's certainly relatable. I'm having some chicken parmesan, myself. Just some frozen meal thing, but it's tasty.