I'm sorry but who wouldn't? I would.
But in a society that advocates the hustle, I gotta get mine, right? /s
Doesn't a situation like this ask for social or government intervention?
This was the critical realization that took me from poverty to the middle class. Smile, pretend to be a bit naïve, extract what you need from the company (résumé fodder, etc) and move on.
I think about this every time someone advocates laissez faire (aka Freedom Markets™, corporatism).
Every game needs referees, a ruling body.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
I would argue that there is a non-arbitrary point below which someone cannot meet the items that produce a stable society. Things like being able to raise a family, save for retirement, pay for healthcare etc. When those things are absent people become more reliant on a government/society has to fill in the gaps. When people live paycheck-to-paycheck, depending on government subsidies, it certainly can affect social stability.
This branch of the comments is literally about software engineer pay. See four levels up: "If Facebook could get away with paying engineers $30K/year, no benefits, believe me, they would."
To which you replied, "It's potentially shortsighted to have that sort of myopic utility maximizing mindset…"
> I would argue that there is a non-arbitrary point below which someone cannot meet the items that produce a stable society. Things like being able to raise a family, save for retirement, pay for healthcare etc. When those things are absent people become more reliant on a government/society has to fill in the gaps.
I agree with this. But shouldn't we then be advocating for a government/society capable of filling in the gaps? Expecting individual citizens or corporations to do this out of benevolence seems like a poor strategy.
See my other comment above. There's reasons to believe both the state and the individual have a responsibility in fixing it for both ethical and practical reasons.
I don't think you're wrong or anything - as individuals they're obviously relying on those subsidies, it's just the perspective is weird. These people are clearly adding value to society (of the monetary kind, I don't want to get sidetracked by the moral aspect here) - they're just not in a position to claim it for themselves. Being unable to make long term plans is destabilizing: yep! The fact that the government happens to "pay" you, largely from your own tax bill: why is that destabilizing? That must be due to stigma or something, because there doesn't seem to be any underlying mechanic that makes sense.
Am I missing something?
I would say that most/all subsidies are in place because they are viewed as a social good. I would also say regardless of where that subsidy qualification point is, it can be destabilizing in the fact that it moves people away from self-sufficiency. When people feel financially insecure, they tend to avoid the kinds of choices that may lead to a more stable society...buying a house, starting a family, starting a business, etc.
Maybe I'm 180 degrees off here. There's certainly been an argument that government subsidies make a society more stable and not less. I've heard some even refer to it as "revolution insurance" for that same reason.
Here's a different take on it: subsidies tend to help both the upper and lower ends of the economic strata. The lower benefits directly and, in cases of business elite, they may benefit from effectively being able to maintain lower wages. So who gets pinched? The middle class, which I think most would feel are necessary for a stable society. Some of our biggest gains as a country came from when the middle class made the largest strides. Not sure I know enough to make that claim, but it's one that's bandied about.
Makes a lot of sense - but like you, not sure whether sense implies truth.
The original poster made two categories: Engineers and Moderators.
Engineers? Definitely years of training and education...
Moderators? What education is required to say "Does this post break community standards? (Check yes/no)"
It doesn't, but the potential trauma and psychological damage they might get from this kind of work should put it in the "high risk, high reward" category. I would never do a job like that knowing it could scar me for life unless the rewards were fantastic in that moment. And I believe that most people, knowing what this job entails, would say the same thing.
The way the article puts it, these moderation companies are looking for whoever they can to fill the chairs in order to meet their quotas, offering a seemingly larger paycheck for what they advertise as an easy job. They literally mislead people so they accept this job, and when the hired person finds out what it is really about, they are likely to be dependent on that income and can't leave the job. And as time goes, they get more and more damaged, to the point that the company eventually fires them, and they are left with no money, no psychological help and traumatized for who knows how long.
I'm convinced they would care if it affected those with higher education from wealthy families (i.e. those that become engineers and managers) more, but it doesn't, they are well protected.
Take climate change. Just because we advanced because of our previous attitudes about carbon doesn't mean it's a good idea to continue doing so in the same regard.
For instance, railroads were given huge land grants.
I consider the IT world, that i was part of, the most free experience in my life. No state was involved, contracts were enforced, people just got along. Plain level field. No one even thought of unionizing.
Just now it peaks around the corner again. Rules, bureaucracy, everything that slows you down to make your own thing. Can i do this, can i do that? Other people decide about what i do in my life.
Would you say the same thing about OSHA? Sometimes having additional safeguards in place are a good thing.
There's some examples from the labor movement in the U.S. that fit this sort of self-organizing regulation, although I don't know much on the subject.
Eventually, many of the privileges became federally codified rights under the Occupational Safety & Health Act signed by Nixon.
we have a whole host of workers' rights in the US because people were fighting for workers' rights in the US, some of whom were injured or killed.
(ed: clarity)