Hillary Clinton uses slave labor

[Elok]

I don't disagree with the need to trim back abstract education in favor of work experience for most fields. My intended point, however, is that a college degree is at present mostly a proxy for social class, and internships go one better by essentially restricting field entry to the well-heeled. I don't think this is the main point of their overuse--it's probably more about cheap drudge labor--but at least in some circles it has to be regarded more as a side benefit than an unfortunate drawback.

Almost all of us would like to help the poor in the abstract, but in practice they tend to have a number of traits that make them undesirable as employees: drug problems, vulgar manners, attitude problems, hygiene issues, childcare difficulties, and so on. A young "go-getter," by contrast, is properly socialized in upper-middle-class values, has no real obligations preventing him/her from working late or coming in at weird intervals, and has been rigorously educated in the need to Not Make Waves, which ironically makes him/her a better peon than the actual poor, who are more accustomed to both self-interest and self-reliance. I don't think that's a coincidence.

[MRT144]

I don't disagree with the need to trim back abstract education in favor of work experience for most fields. My intended point, however, is that a college degree is at present mostly a proxy for social class, and internships go one better by essentially restricting field entry to the well-heeled. I don't think this is the main point of their overuse--it's probably more about cheap drudge labor--but at least in some circles it has to be regarded more as a side benefit than an unfortunate drawback.

Almost all of us would like to help the poor in the abstract, but in practice they tend to have a number of traits that make them undesirable as employees: drug problems, vulgar manners, attitude problems, hygiene issues, childcare difficulties, and so on. A young "go-getter," by contrast, is properly socialized in upper-middle-class values, has no real obligations preventing him/her from working late or coming in at weird intervals, and has been rigorously educated in the need to Not Make Waves, which ironically makes him/her a better peon than the actual poor, who are more accustomed to both self-interest and self-reliance. I don't think that's a coincidence.

I'd say that there is an even deeper problem as said by Steinbeck

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."

There is no solidarity because there is the delusional hope that this stifling poverty is only for now, despite ya know, no clear actionable way to make it a temporary thing. It doesn't help that we, as a society, seem to believe that it's better to let people die or go bankrupt and have permanent financial handicaps from cancer than it is to part a billionaire from their income or assets. I'm pretty much done believing that there is a greater good to how the status quo operates because it's unimaginable that this is simply the best we could do as a society.

[Elok]

On reflection, the attitude difference is probably the most significant factor. I've had two really crappy McJobs, pizza and gas station, and in both cases my less bourgeois coworkers had a markedly different attitude towards work than I did. I had a sort of ingrained compulsion towards a bare minimum of performance, even after it became obvious that much of what we were expected to do was pointless and stupid, and that our bosses were largely incompetent. I didn't work hard, exactly, but I did feel a need to not be dishonest, to stay with one employer, and to be generally polite. The po' folks, by contrast, viewed their employer largely as an entity which furnished them with cash, and were determined not to do any more work than was strictly necessary to remain employed. If they crossed the line and got the axe--which took doing, because modern labor law apparently requires you to document all but the most obnoxious misbehavior eight times before you're allowed to actually fire a misbehaving employee--they knew there would be another crappy job available somewhere else shortly.

Their attitude made far better sense than mine in their context, and protected them from any real exploitation. McJob creators put up with it because they have no real choice; "market forces," as HC would say. But it's obviously undesirable, and college and internships are an excellent way to make sure everybody has an attitude closer to mine than theirs. That it happens largely at others' expense is gravy.

[MRT144]

On reflection, the attitude difference is probably the most significant factor. I've had two really crappy McJobs, pizza and gas station, and in both cases my less bourgeois coworkers had a markedly different attitude towards work than I did. I had a sort of ingrained compulsion towards a bare minimum of performance, even after it became obvious that much of what we were expected to do was pointless and stupid, and that our bosses were largely incompetent. I didn't work hard, exactly, but I did feel a need to not be dishonest, to stay with one employer, and to be generally polite. The po' folks, by contrast, viewed their employer largely as an entity which furnished them with cash, and were determined not to do any more work than was strictly necessary to remain employed. If they crossed the line and got the axe--which took doing, because modern labor law apparently requires you to document all but the most obnoxious misbehavior eight times before you're allowed to actually fire a misbehaving employee--they knew there would be another crappy job available somewhere else shortly.

Their attitude made far better sense than mine in their context, and protected them from any real exploitation. McJob creators put up with it because they have no real choice; "market forces," as HC would say. But it's obviously undesirable, and college and internships are an excellent way to make sure everybody has an attitude closer to mine than theirs. That it happens largely at others' expense is gravy.

I think that it's interesting though that I know that I've treated **** jobs with a **** attitude and I treat my current job with a go getter attitude because a lot is expected of me, but I'm also rewarded well for it and I'm not in fear that I'll get ****canned for bogus reasons like so and so in a department doesn't like me. I always joked when I worked at Guitar Center that I'd do the job for less money and more time than my coworkers earning commissions if I had some long term security in it. I currently make less than people in the private sector doing the same thing as me and I'm fine with that because I don't want to be subject to the pressures of for profit company.

In a lot of ways I have the mentality and attitude of your illustrative poor person and this is in spite of my upbringing in suburbia with upper middle class parents.

I feel like what you said holds a lot of water and I can recognize people I worked with like that but I also think that a lot of people working in these positions are so much better suited for something beyond that. They need to be given a low stakes entry level position with a lot of rope to grow into the position.

[Hauldren Collider]

On reflection, the attitude difference is probably the most significant factor. I've had two really crappy McJobs, pizza and gas station, and in both cases my less bourgeois coworkers had a markedly different attitude towards work than I did. I had a sort of ingrained compulsion towards a bare minimum of performance, even after it became obvious that much of what we were expected to do was pointless and stupid, and that our bosses were largely incompetent. I didn't work hard, exactly, but I did feel a need to not be dishonest, to stay with one employer, and to be generally polite. The po' folks, by contrast, viewed their employer largely as an entity which furnished them with cash, and were determined not to do any more work than was strictly necessary to remain employed. If they crossed the line and got the axe--which took doing, because modern labor law apparently requires you to document all but the most obnoxious misbehavior eight times before you're allowed to actually fire a misbehaving employee--they knew there would be another crappy job available somewhere else shortly.

Their attitude made far better sense than mine in their context, and protected them from any real exploitation. McJob creators put up with it because they have no real choice; "market forces," as HC would say. But it's obviously undesirable, and college and internships are an excellent way to make sure everybody has an attitude closer to mine than theirs. That it happens largely at others' expense is gravy.

Their attitude did not make sense. As you will probably note, you are probably going to end up doing much much better than your McJobs eventually, and if they had the same attitude as you, so would they. My first job was a "McJob". My next job was as a software programmer. The second job would not have followed the first job if I hadn't worked hard at the first job and done more than the minimum to avoid getting fired.

The guy who runs the department I am joining at capital one is rich as ****. He doesn't have a college degree. He got to be rich as **** by working hard and starting a business and then selling it for a **** load of money. He's smart, but he's clearly not the type to do well in academia. I think that success is about attitude and hard work more than something like a college education--although the things you learn in certain college fields certainly have value. Look at all the people who have college degrees (even in useful things) and turn out as deadbeats.

[DaShi]

I am convinced that the main thing that sets me apart from my peers in my age group is that my father forced me to get a job when I was 15. That job experience taught me more than anything I ever learned in school. School was important--I learned some really important skills in high school, and in college and I couldn't have gotten where I am without that--but I'm hitting the ground running on graduation because I have actual paid work experience in a relevant field and you learn things there that school can never hope to teach you.

Seriously?

[C0ckney]

On reflection, the attitude difference is probably the most significant factor. I've had two really crappy McJobs, pizza and gas station, and in both cases my less bourgeois coworkers had a markedly different attitude towards work than I did. I had a sort of ingrained compulsion towards a bare minimum of performance, even after it became obvious that much of what we were expected to do was pointless and stupid, and that our bosses were largely incompetent. I didn't work hard, exactly, but I did feel a need to not be dishonest, to stay with one employer, and to be generally polite. The po' folks, by contrast, viewed their employer largely as an entity which furnished them with cash, and were determined not to do any more work than was strictly necessary to remain employed. If they crossed the line and got the axe--which took doing, because modern labor law apparently requires you to document all but the most obnoxious misbehavior eight times before you're allowed to actually fire a misbehaving employee--they knew there would be another crappy job available somewhere else shortly.

Their attitude made far better sense than mine in their context, and protected them from any real exploitation. McJob creators put up with it because they have no real choice; "market forces," as HC would say. But it's obviously undesirable, and college and internships are an excellent way to make sure everybody has an attitude closer to mine than theirs. That it happens largely at others' expense is gravy.

in my experience a lot of working class people have that attitude. but there are many who work menial jobs and take it seriously, perhaps thinking that it will lead them somewhere; they soon learn. well, some of them anyway.

one of my terrible jobs was as a cleaner at tesco in neath. on my first day there i asked the manager what he wanted me to do. he showed me some filthy metal stairs in the stockroom and told me to clean them. i said ok and then what? he said just do the stairs for now. i cleaned the stairs to a reasonable standard and had a little look round for the manager, i couldn't find him (it was about 4am), so i carried on cleaning the stairs. some hours passed and i continued cleaning the stairs until they were spotless. it was the end of my shift then and i went out to find the manager, this time successfully. the conversation went like this:

m: where have you been?
c: i've been cleaning the stairs.
m: all this time?
c: that's what you asked me to do...
m: well i didn't see you; you couldn't have been doing anything.
c: if you go and look at the stairs, you'll see what i've been doing.
m: i'm not happy. you're here to work you know, blah blah blah

so i thought to myself, if i'm going to get in trouble for doing nothing, then i may as well actually do nothing. the next day i came in with two big fat spliffs rolled up and, after 10 minutes desultory sweeping in the aisles, went out the back and sparked one up. another lad saw me and we shared the joint, with him promising to bring one in the next day, which he did. i spent the next month out the back of neath tesco getting extremely high with micky and few other boys, occasionally gliding down the aisles for 10 minutes or so to make it look as if i were doing something.

[giblets]

What a ****ty manager

[DaShi]

Bad employees can always be traced to bad management. Most managers confuse being a boss with being a leader.

[C0ckney]

Their attitude did not make sense. As you will probably note, you are probably going to end up doing much much better than your McJobs eventually, and if they had the same attitude as you, so would they. My first job was a "McJob". My next job was as a software programmer. The second job would not have followed the first job if I hadn't worked hard at the first job and done more than the minimum to avoid getting fired.

i've had loads of crap jobs, between 30 and 35 i'd say; i've done a bit of everything. and i can tell you that your performance in your one and only menial job, beyond not doing anything outrageous enough to get sacked, has nothing to do with getting your second. literally millions of people do at least tolerably well in crappy jobs, and it does not lead them to anything other than keeping said crappy job, or getting another crappy job. what makes you different is the the fact that you're reasonably intelligent, from a well off bourgeois family and have a good degree. to put it another way, you had a very good start in life and you have managed not to **** it up.

more generally, this idea that hard work leads to success is one of the most damaging there is. it's completely absurd - let's consider how absurd for a minute: there are millions of people working in, say, bangladeshi factories, who work much harder than anyone on this forum will ever work, but how many of them will become rich or successful, or even do much more than obtain the necessities of life? it may not be zero; after all the lottery exists and people do from time to time benefit from some incredible and unlikely piece of good fortune, but it must be a number pretty close to that. yet people believe this myth and thus it has immense power. the most that might be argued is that hard work is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for success. and even this, frankly, is pretty shaky; how hard do the english aristocracy work, for example?

[Hauldren Collider]

Ask KrazyHorse if his wealthy upbringing is why he's making stacks now

Hard work might not always make you into Bill Gates, but it makes you do better than being lazy would. That's just obvious.

I know for a fact my performance in my first job led to my getting my second job. And subsequent jobs. If not because of the experience, then because of my references.

[DaShi]

HC's background already meant that he was in a different class from his coworkers. Everyone knew he had a large safety net to fall back on. To them he was little different than management. He was the other. They wouldn't even want him to slack off with them. It simply wasn't an option. As for management, he was already in their club, it was just a matter of time. Thinking that attitude is what brought him out of the McJob status is completely naive. If anything, it's more likely inherent biases and expectations gave HC more of a boost than his attitude.

HC, you can better evaluate the effect of your attitude on your career by comparing your results to those of your social and economic peers.

[DaShi]

Ask KrazyHorse if his wealthy upbringing is why he's making stacks now

Hard work might not always make you into Bill Gates, but it makes you do better than being lazy would. That's just obvious.

I know for a fact my performance in my first job led to my getting my second job. And subsequent jobs. If not because of the experience, then because of my references.

You really have no clue what you are talking about. Your perspective is highly skewed.

[C0ckney]

What a ****ty manager

he was an idiot. although he wasn't the worst i've dealt with, believe it or not.

[C0ckney]

Ask KrazyHorse if his wealthy upbringing is why he's making stacks now

Hard work might not always make you into Bill Gates, but it makes you do better than being lazy would. That's just obvious.

I know for a fact my performance in my first job led to my getting my second job. And subsequent jobs. If not because of the experience, then because of my references.

you don't know what you're talking about. your experience in a menial job is totally different from most people's experiences in such jobs because your circumstances are totally different from theirs.

dashi put it very well.