• logen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    That everything I buy can be measured as totalCost/wages*0.82=hoursCost.

    I love measuring things in hours.

    Let’s assume I make 12/hr. Is 24 cans of soda really worth more (taxes) than an hour of work? 12 bucks might not sound too bad, but over an hours wages does.

    • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      24 cans of soda probably embodies a lot more than 1 hour total work to create for a lot of people. Planting and harvesting the coca, mining the bauxite ore and refining it into aluminum, etc etc. The main reason that much cola is available to you at that price is that the coca and aluminum probably come from somewhere where workers get paid a lot less than $12/hr.

      I’m all for people being paid more, but in a just and equitable world a case of soda would probably cost more than it does now.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s interesting. Comparing the time input across various income levels. Does that essentially mean the person getting paid more per hour has those being paid less working for them?

        • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          One of the functions of colonialism (in this case colonialism via exploitation of labor and resources of the global south economically) is to transfer wealth from the colony to the empire (we call these the Imperial Core regions).

          I’m going to use a really simplified example and some made up numbers to illustrate. Say a pound of coffee takes 1 hour of labor to produce. The people producing it in Ethiopia are being paid $1 an hour to produce it. A capitalist from the Imperial Core buys that pound of coffee for $2, ships it to the Core for another $1, and sells it for $5.

          The capitalist makes $2 and the buyer gets a pound of coffee for $5. Now imagine if the worker in Ethiopia is being paid $12 an hour. The capitalist cannot buy a pound of coffee for anything less than $12. After $1 shipping and his $2 cut (assuming he does not inflate his cut because he’s taking a percentage of the sale), the pound of coffee is now $15 to the buyer.

          The buyer does not have the Ethiopian worker “working for them” in the strictest sense, but the buyer does benefit from getting their pound of coffee for 1/3 the price they would otherwise have to pay.

          This is why Marxists say that the current living standards of the so-called First World are being propped up by the economic exploitation of the global south, even if the residents of the First World are not directly engaging in colonialism in the pith helmet and whips sense.

          • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Another thing to keep in mind is that imperialism also has the effect of driving down wages in the imperial core since the capitalist can pay their workers less if the price of basic, essential commodities can be decreased by super-exploitation in the imperial periphery. This is a major reason why real wages in the US have been stagnant for a while, for example. So this would have a counterbalancing effect on how much a first-world worker would need to pay proportionally to their income for a case of soda if the process of imperialism were ended.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wow I was really hoping for some kind of mathematical discussion but I should have known a Marxist would show up. It’s the only song we play any more.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They simplified it so it would be comprehensible for you, you dolt. They even wrote that at the beginning. If you really wanna get into the math, just read Das Kapital. Here’s a brief excerpt speaking about the price of linen

            • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right. Marxism famously doesn’t involve any mathematics. This is why Marxists find volumes II and III of Das Kapital to be light, easily comprehensible, reading.

  • incogtino@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your employer does not care about you. You are not important or irreplaceable

    Take your time and energy and put it into your life, not their business

    I have had coworkers die (not work related) and by the time you hear about it (like the next day) they have already worked out who will get the work done so the machine doesn’t have to stop

  • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’re not your friends, even if they act like that.

    The management just sees you as expense factor and does not care about you except for how to get the most work done for the least amount of money. Your team leader does not care about you and only cares if their numbers look good. Your colleagues do not care about you and only see you as competition or the idiot they can give their work to.

    If someone is nice to you they want something from you not because they like you.

  • Cool Beance@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s suffocating to be in a middle management position because you get squeezed by the higher-ups and your own team. If the higher-ups make a decision that your team dislikes or vice versa, you’re going to be in the shitter with whichever party suffered every time even if you had the best intentions.

  • Polymath - lemm.ee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The longer you work anywhere – and I mean ANYWHERE – the more you see the bullshit and corruption and crappy rules or policies and inequality all over.
    For me it has been about the 3 year mark anywhere I’ve worked: once you get past that, you fade away from “damn I’m glad to have a job and be making money!” and towards “this is absolute bulls#!t that [boss] did [thing] and hurt the workers in the process!” or similar

    • darkstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Funny, that’s actually what motivated me at my last job. Things were fucked up, but not so fucked up that it was overwhelming. It was the Goldilocks zone of just fucked up enough that I think I can not only fix it, but look good if I do. It was a fun journey, all told, but there were definitely frustrations, even ones that lasted years.

  • Signtist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Efficient workers get more work if you’re in the office. I work from home, and that allows me to work efficiently until my work is done, set up scheduled emails to go out at the time I would’ve otherwise been done, then do what I want until then.

    • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see your work doesn’t have invasive programs that check idle mouse and idle keyboard behaviors.

      this is an old one but i can’t help thinking, what if they installed it without my knowledge, after all, my work laptop was given to me already pre prepared by our IT department.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, looking busy is way more important than being productive a lot of the time. You always need to be doing something, so you just go through the motions of doing things because otherwise you’ll get shit from your employers. Waiting in good faith for more real tasks to emerge isn’t enough, so you must invent chores.

    At least, that was very consistently my experience in retail.

    • Noughmad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can confirm, not in retail but a fully remote programmer, managers are still very often concerned that “everybody has something to do” much more than “everything gets done”.

      • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Quiet quitting” is a term made up my small business tyrants in the United States to describe workers doing their job as it is described on the contract, and not going “above and beyond”. They somehow believe they’re owed more than they pay for.

    • Elw@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      100%. The rebranding of some HR departments as “People Officers” or “People Team” drives me bonkers. When push comes to shove, they will always protect the interests of the business before the interests of the employee. Full stop.

  • masquenox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I learnt meritocracy is a joke long before I discovered that it was literally invented to be a joke.