Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Telecaster on April 25, 2015, 03:31:06 pm
-
This may be NSFW depending on where and for whom you work. IMO it hits its mark with precision.
https://medium.com/bad-words/the-asshole-factory-71ff808d887c
-Dave-
-
He made all that up didn't he?
Later!
Johnny
-
He made all that up didn't he?
The best critiques of reality often come in the guise of fiction. Though thinly veiled in this case IMO. ;)
-Dave-
-
It may sounds like I'm on the a££hole side but... This girl had two graduate degrees on what?
Because let's face it: a degrees on XII century wood chopping isn't worth very much on the job market.
What modern technology is teaching us is that almost always your passions won't fill your belly and, therefore, it is not wise to choose your professional education on this passions.
-
Brilliant essay.
The only fiction there might be that she got the job in the first place. She would be typically rejected as overqualified and too smart, too likely to rebel.
To link it to photography, it sounds like Peter Lik's drones (a.k.a sales associates).
-
He made all that up didn't he?
Perhaps, but unlikely, especially not "all."
I was once shooting inside a mall (for a client) and positioned myself and a tripod at the very entrance of a shop, trying to get the most of another shop across. A few minutes later, a sales girl comes to me and asks me to move away from the entrance. The reason: my presence and constant movement around the tripod was messing up with sensors inside the entrance that count visitors coming in. She further explained they get measured by the ratio of sales to number of visitors.
-
Brilliant and scary. Not far from reality. I'm truly thankful, I'm not that young anymore and dependent on a job for only five more years. Yes, that essay may exaggerate a bit, but only a bit.
-
I think it's exaggerated bullshit.
My bosses never behaved the way it is described, not would I have accepted it if they did.
The people that worked in the organization below me were not treated that way, nor would they have accepted it (and rightfully so).
I think at most there might be a small niche that works this way, but it will be a minority and not the mainstream, and individually they won't last long.
-
I think it's exaggerated bullshit.
My bosses never behaved the way it is described...
Are you a minimum-wage retail worker?
It just annoys me to no end when such smart-ass comments come from people who live happily in their bubbles and think the rest of the world is just like them.
My daughter spent a year working for Dunkin Donuts, starting at age 14. They allow them 100s per customer interaction, videotape it, analyze it and scold them if over. It did not matter if the customer was taking their sweet time discussing the order, asking questions or just slowly making up their mind. Her boss would observe her on remote monitors and call her to tell her she should not, for instance, keep her personal glass of water close to her, but in the area reserved for employees (she did it as she was the only one in the store and going away to sip from the glass would mean she would have to leave the store unattended). She felt like being in the Big Brother house all the time. He would call her to tell her he saw on the monitors she is not wearing a company-approved footwear (she was wearing Uggs in winter).
-
It just annoys me to no end when such smart-ass comments come from people who live happily in their bubbles and think the rest of the world is just like them.
It just annoys me to no end someone who doesn't know me passes bullshit comments like this and live in their bubble to think they know everything better.
Maybe you should follow your own advice: "When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks"
-
"Have you noticed, lately, that people seem to be more, well, assholish…than before? That everywhere you go, people seem to be meaner, nastier, dumber, angrier, more brutish?"
Actually, now that you mention it.....*no* I have not noticed that at all (except at the airport, but then again its always been that way at the airport).
-
"Have you noticed, lately, that people seem to be more, well, assholish…than before?..."
Actually, now that you mention it.....*no* I have not noticed that at all (except at the airport, but then again its always been that way at the airport).
Probabily it depends on how free someone is to choose the workplace to be: if your professionality doesn't allow you to choose a good job you're probably very frustrated and stuck with very frustrated people.
-
if your professionality doesn't allow you to choose a good job you're probably very frustrated and stuck with very frustrated people.
Maybe, but then how does one explain the exceptions: The friendly, energetic, warm person in a seemingly terrible job? Or the opposite exception: The rude jerk making six figures in posh surroundings?
-
Maybe, but then how does one explain the exceptions: The friendly, energetic, warm person in a seemingly terrible job? Or the opposite exception: The rude jerk making six figures in posh surroundings?
They are just that: exceptions.
-
They are just that: exceptions.
Well...yeah. I know that. I'm the one who identified them as such.
Then, I posed a question. "How does one explain them?" Perhaps there's more to one's attitude and behavior toward others than one's surroundings and circumstances.
-
Well...yeah. I know that. I'm the one who identified them as such.
Then, I posed a question. "How does one explain them?" Perhaps there's more to one's attitude and behavior toward others than one's surroundings and circumstances.
Of course there is more, but except for masochists no one will accept such treatement for long.
So, if someone can buy him/herself a better job sooner or later he/she will leave.
Those who stay usually don't leave because they can't leave.
-
I am with Slobodan on this. The life of the entry level worker has gotten MUCH worse since I was young. The biggest insult is the "just in time" model for minimum wage workers, where one is obliged to be available to work and to show up for a shift, but the employer decides at the beginning of the shift whether the worker is needed based on current activity and computer projections. So, 8 people are hired to be available full time, but on average work half time and thus are not able to get benefits or unemployment compensation or work other jobs or temp jobs that "may" conflict.
-
The life of the entry level worker has gotten MUCH worse since I was young.
I agree but I also have to say that (as I understand it) the rant is not about entry level worker but about a double graduate girl who cannot find anything better than an entry level job.
I suspect many would found perfectly right the treatment you describe when applied to some illegal mexican.
I also add that such treatment may not be all bad: it tells young people to educate themselves properly, instead of getting unsellable degrees.
-
I agree but I also have to say that (as I understand it) the rant is not about entry level worker but about a double graduate girl who cannot find anything better than an entry level job.
I suspect many would found perfectly right the treatment you describe when applied to some illegal mexican.
I also add that such treatment may not be all bad: it tells young people to educate themselves properly, instead of getting unsellable degrees.
It definitely isn't' about a double graduate, that's just tangential. It is about automatization of the process and work place that affects and dehumanizes entry-level positions the most.
Not all entry-level positions are a result of "getting unsellable degrees." As a matter of fact, it is in minority. A lot of people do it to support their families. Some teens do it to supplement their pocket money, some to help their families in financial dire straits (like my daughter). They are bright young people, doing well in school, and on their way to "sellable" degrees. They deserve a better treatment. Just like an illegal Mexican (or any other human) does.
-
What modern technology is teaching us is that almost always your passions won't fill your belly and, therefore, it is not wise to choose your professional education on this passions.
I disagree with this in part. In my direct experience modern tech can allow people to pursue their passions and make a good living from doing so in ways not previously possible. But it takes a particular kind of person—highly self-motivated & persistent—with the right mix of talents & skills, along with no small amount of luck, to make this work. There are other ways, however, such tech can be and is used—likely more common at present and not at all positive—which is what the piece is about.
IMO this all leads to considering further, longer-term issues. Given the tech-driven changing nature of the jobs market and the advances we're seeing across the board in efficiency & automation—and the accelerating decrease in the need for human employees resulting from this—what are most of the 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet gonna do when only a relative handful of 'em are needed to keep the whole shebang going? Will the result be some sort of dessicated J.G. Ballard-ish "a billion balconies facing the sun" scenario? An oligarchy of A$$hole Supremes? Something even more dystopian? More hopeful? Regardless, a fundamental reconsideration of what human society is and how it functions would seem to be in order.
-Dave-
-
Then again, nihil novi sub sole.. What some are experiencing today is just Taylorism in the age of the Internet.
(http://theredlist.com/media/database/muses/icon/cinematic_men/1910/charlie-chaplin-2/061-charlie-chaplin-theredlist.jpg)
-
Hi,
I would agree on many points. Times are changing. A couple of year ago I opened a Dell computer. All parts of it were made in China, well expect a plastic bag having the label "The contents of this bag made in China". First manufacturing moves to China, then development moves to China or India and any other country with skilled work and engineering force. I just saw a video selling satellite launch services by an Indian company.
The ghost left the bottle, we cannot put it back.
Giving members of the society access to great and useful education is important. It is also important that kids get marketable education. We also may need to lower the thresholds for entry in the job market. Times are changing leading to a need of change.
Best regards
Erik
I disagree with this in part. In my direct experience modern tech can allow people to pursue their passions and make a good living from doing so in ways not previously possible. But it takes a particular kind of person—highly self-motivated & persistent—with the right mix of talents & skills, along with no small amount of luck, to make this work. There are other ways, however, such tech can be and is used—likely more common at present and not at all positive—which is what the piece is about.
IMO this all leads to considering further, longer-term issues. Given the tech-driven changing nature of the jobs market and the advances we're seeing across the board in efficiency & automation—and the accelerating decrease in the need for human employees resulting from this—what are most of the 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet gonna do when only a relative handful of 'em are needed to keep the whole shebang going? Will the result be some sort of dessicated J.G. Ballard-ish "a billion balconies facing the sun" scenario? An oligarchy of A$$hole Supremes? Something even more dystopian? More hopeful? Regardless, a fundamental reconsideration of what human society is and how it functions would seem to be in order.
-Dave-
-
I disagree with this in part. In my direct experience modern tech can allow people to pursue their passions and make a good living from doing so in ways not previously possible. But it takes a particular kind of person—highly self-motivated & persistent—with the right mix of talents & skills, along with no small amount of luck, to make this work. There are other ways, however, such tech can be and is used—likely more common at present and not at all positive—which is what the piece is about.
I agree with you and that's why I wrote "modern technology is teaching us is that almost always your passions won't fill your belly": because technology has risen the bar so much that you have to be exceptional to earn a living with your passion.
The perfect example is photography: just a quick look at any photosharing site will show megatons of excellent photographers, so in order to make money on photography being "good" is not enough.
IMO this all leads to considering further, longer-term issues. Given the tech-driven changing nature of the jobs market and the advances we're seeing across the board in efficiency & automation—and the accelerating decrease in the need for human employees resulting from this—what are most of the 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet gonna do when only a relative handful of 'em are needed to keep the whole shebang going? Will the result be some sort of dessicated J.G. Ballard-ish "a billion balconies facing the sun" scenario? An oligarchy of A$$hole Supremes? Something even more dystopian? More hopeful? Regardless, a fundamental reconsideration of what human society is and how it functions would seem to be in order.
-Dave-
That's something that should take into account.
My opinion is that competition will require more and more minds, and technology is starting to allow science-oriented people to do what digital cameras did for image-oriented people.
The ghost left the bottle, we cannot put it back.
Giving members of the society access to great and useful education is important. It is also important that kids get marketable education. We also may need to lower the thresholds for entry in the job market. Times are changing leading to a need of change.
Yeaph, I agree completely.
-
Given the tech-driven changing nature of the jobs market and the advances we're seeing across the board in efficiency & automation—and the accelerating decrease in the need for human employees resulting from this—what are most of the 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet gonna do when only a relative handful of 'em are needed to keep the whole shebang going?
-Dave-
A couple thoughts....
First, this: http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=686686
Worker shortages are likely on the horizon.
Second, if higher education only has value as a 'trade school', teaching what somebody today predicts will be highly marketable skills tomorrow, why do even many high tech companies hire Philosophy and English majors in addition to the scores of engineering grads? Maybe because while the degree matters, previous accomplishments and the ability to think/innovate/drive results also matter, and because the future of work also will require strong interpersonal and communication skills, not just math and science. My experience with engineers tells me they might not always bring those interpersonal and communications skills. ;)
Just food for thought.
-
Hi,
Just having education is not enough, it needs to be relevant education that leads to jobs instead of unemployment. Slobodan is also right, that high education may be a hindrance to getting entry level jobs.
We are a tech company and we used to hire young persons doing simple, but still demanding work. Once a young chap applied for one of those jobs, denying that he had a master Of Science degree. He also said he used to worke in a storehouse, forgetting to say that he was developing software for storehouse management. Well, he got that job anyway.
On the other hand, my parent company has a policy to only employ people with at least high school and qualifications for higher study (that mean acceptable notes in math, physics, chemistry and languages). That also applies to cleaning workers.
We have many educations that lead to unemployment. Just as an example, training to be MUA (Make Up Artist) is very popular with young girls, but the market is small and all successful MU-artist have gone the long way. A good carrier is hard work or a lot of luck. I may add that I had a lot of luck.
Another point may be that a system with to many levels of supervision may just add overhead. It is nice, offering carrier options for the hard workers, but it may also be it leads to the effects mentioned by Slobodan et. al. A more flat organisation may be more efficient.
A final point may be that a market oriented society needs customers. So there needs to be a distribution of resources so folks get paid so they can buy the stuff that is produced . Work used to be the method of doing this, so a non dysfunctional labor market and decent salaries are important for a working market economy. Slobodan, who is an expert in economy may elaborate on that aspect.
Best regards
Erik
-
This may be NSFW depending on where and for whom you work. IMO it hits its mark with precision.
https://medium.com/bad-words/the-asshole-factory-71ff808d887c
-Dave-
hmmm... "bright young woman with two grad degrees" who wants to "Learn. Think. Reflect. Teach. Inspire. Lead. Connect. Imagine. Create. Grow. Dream. Actually…serve customers."... that is the problem, we create a lot of parasites - they want to earn degrees and then waste the resources with that useless "far niente", blah-blah-blah...
-
hmmm... "bright young woman with two grad degrees" who wants to "Learn. Think. Reflect. Teach. Inspire. Lead. Connect. Imagine. Create. Grow. Dream. Actually…serve customers."... that is the problem, we create a lot of parasites - they want to earn degrees and then waste the resources with that useless "far niente", blah-blah-blah...
More or less, my same exact thougth.
A couple thoughts....
First, this: http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=686686
Worker shortages are likely on the horizon.
With the education system laggins so behind the market requirements, I think you're right.
Second, if higher education only has value as a 'trade school', teaching what somebody today predicts will be highly marketable skills tomorrow, why do even many high tech companies hire Philosophy and English majors in addition to the scores of engineering grads? Maybe because while the degree matters, previous accomplishments and the ability to think/innovate/drive results also matter, and because the future of work also will require strong interpersonal and communication skills, not just math and science. My experience with engineers tells me they might not always bring those interpersonal and communications skills. ;)
You're right again.
The problem is many people think that non-technical education only will still get them a good job.
Which is, of course, almost always false.
-
A couple thoughts....
First, this: http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=686686
Worker shortages are likely on the horizon.
Yes, but to whatever degree this happens it's likely to be a short-lived phenomenon. In the longer term exponential advancements in automation and intelligent (not sentient…that's nowhere near the current horizon) robotics are more likely to eliminate entire job classes en masse. What happens when the only people you still need are those who decide what must be done and those creating & programming the devices to do it? And eventually you might not even need the creators/programmers…
Second, if higher education only has value as a 'trade school', teaching what somebody today predicts will be highly marketable skills tomorrow, why do even many high tech companies hire Philosophy and English majors in addition to the scores of engineering grads? Maybe because while the degree matters, previous accomplishments and the ability to think/innovate/drive results also matter, and because the future of work also will require strong interpersonal and communication skills, not just math and science. My experience with engineers tells me they might not always bring those interpersonal and communications skills. ;)
I'm a (now retired) techie who also has an English degree, so no argument there. :)
Regarding Eric's point about producers needing buyers who can afford to buy the stuff they produce is indeed correct. But the degree of automation I see coming eventually elimimates, amongst lots of other things, a large-scale market economy. Which raises questions of who controls various resources, and to what ends. Fortunately the universe is full of resources. Running short of something? Go out there, get more of it and thereby explode the zero-sum game. All you need is one Elon Musk for every 100 Peter Thiels and the latter are screwed.
-Dave-
-
Yes, but to whatever degree this happens it's likely to be a short-lived phenomenon. In the longer term exponential advancements in automation and intelligent (not sentient…that's nowhere near the current horizon) robotics are more likely to eliminate entire job classes en masse. What happens when the only people you still need are those who decide what must be done and those creating & programming the devices to do it? And eventually you might not even need the creators/programmers…
There still be need for people that are both creative and technically educated.
But yes, whole job classes will disappeared (which may not be that bad),
Regarding Eric's point about producers needing buyers who can afford to buy the stuff they produce is indeed correct. But the degree of automation I see coming eventually elimimates, amongst lots of other things, a large-scale market economy. Which raises questions of who controls various resources, and to what ends. Fortunately the universe is full of resources. Running short of something? Go out there, get more of it and thereby explode the zero-sum game. All you need is one Elon Musk for every 100 Peter Thiels and the latter are screwed.
I'm not sure the large-scale market economy is in any danger of disappearing: R&D is such a huge cost, for many products, that large scale economy is the only way to go.