You don't have a job until you sign a dozen different documents. You don't even get those dozen documents until you sign a letter. You can't even sign that offer until they give you a time-limited offer. This is because they're about to give you MONEY. The minute you give a company money, you get to dictate terms (or reject the terms offered). If that balance doesn't suit you, do something else. However, companies can do this to people all the time and are never black listed.
All due respect Klein, that's a very whitecollar attitude I'd know nothing about. People like myself don't have that option. You find a niche and you bust your ass and hope for the best but the best never comes and you're absolutely fucking right. They don't owe me anything but goddamn I wish I lived in a world where at least I could get an honest pay for an honest day. Am I the only bluecollar on Hubski? Is everyone else here so sophisticated that they can redefine their paradigm and change their status quo at a snap of the fingers? I'm talking about the working class. I'm saying the foundation of all this is based on slobs like me and we're starting to get very, very pissed off. And it will come to a head. Soon I hope.If that balance doesn't suit you, do something else.
Blue collar is as blue collar does. My dad was the first one in his family to go to college. His parents didn't finish high school. Their parents didn't have school. My mother? Well, her mother and father were kicked out of Harvard and Radcliffe respectively for "sexual indiscretion" and he went on to be the head of the AFL. You don't have options because you think you don't have options. You're 28. You're literate and you're frustrated. Get a nursing degree. White collar as hell and it's a growth industry.
It's subtle, but as William Ryan put it in his book (1970): By advising someone to change his behavior or attitudes when he complains about being mistreated or exploited by their employer, what you're really saying is: "The problem is not the system enabling someone to mistreat or exploit you, the problem is your own behavior and attitudes and being in this situation therefore is your own fault." In a society where unemployment is a thing and no job equals no decent living, simply suggesting career changes or additional degrees ignores the life realities of large parts of the population to an astonishing degree. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. The Wikipedia page about it puts it best right at the start: Another Wikipedia article for good measure: just world hypothesis So, good for you if the world feels like a just place. It means that you are more likely to be a happy person. But you see, people don't just decide they'd rather regard the world with more suspicion. Chances are, they've learnt just how much "justice" is worth in their own life. Things went well for you and your family? Awesome! This just simply doesn't mean that an exploitative system is not an exploitative system. There really are socio-economic realities involved here. People do not just limit themselves. Blue collar is as blue collar does.[...]You don't have options because you think you don't have options. [...]
Victim-blaming is cloaked in kindness and concern.
My dad was the first one in his family to go to college. His parents didn't finish high school. Their parents didn't have school. My mother? Well, her mother and father were kicked out of Harvard and Radcliffe respectively for "sexual indiscretion" and he went on to be the head of the AFL.
See also: Confirmation bias and Cherry picking (fallacy)
More recently, researchers have explored how people react to poverty through the lens of the just-world hypothesis. Strong belief in a just world is associated with blaming the poor, with weak belief in a just world associated with identifying external causes of poverty including world economic systems, war, and exploitation.
One recent summary of twin studies suggests that “economic outcomes and preferences, once corrected for measurement error, appear to be about as heritable as many medical conditions and personality traits.” Another finds that wages are more heritable than height.
Look, I was not trying to attack you personally. If I came across as ad hominem / slandering, and maybe I did, then I apologize. If you don't like the links, feel free to disregard them. I tend to add those to my replies so anyone who reads my comments can get an idea where I'm coming from. More importantly, people can point out problems with the concepts I'm building my opinion on. When that happens, I often end up having to adjust said opinions, which is great. That said, I really do believe that there is a fundamental problem with the way in which the responsibility for dealing with society's maldevelopments is shifted towards the individual - and that shifting quite often happens, as I pointed out, disguised as advice. The problem with said advice tends to be that, while it may make sense from the point of view of the adivce giver, it ignores the strict institutionalized restrictions imposed upon the actual options available to the receiver. This can actually be quite dangerous to the mental well-being of someone who is ultimately unable to compete against the odds stacked against him, but who may accept that he really is "the master of his own fortune". Such a person is going to internalize the resulting frustrations, which serves as a powerful individual depressant and at the same time does nothing to contribute to any change of the status quo. Now, if I know someone really well - his current socio-economic situation, his history, the entire framework he's dealing with - then I may actually be able to identify instances where it's really just a matter of him taking things into his own hands - "get busy livin' or get busy dyin'". Maybe you have that kind of relationship with camarillobrillo, in which case I jumped to conclusions and need to apologize again. My assumption, though, is that you don't really know too much about him or her. In which case there has to be some reason for your immediate assumption that "You don't have options because you think you don't have options" and "Get a nursing degree" are appropriate statements. The most probable reason I can think of in such an instance is that there is indeed some variety of just world fallacy in its broader sense at work. Your story about that family member who gets thrown out of college just to rise to the top also implied a "the strong overcome all odds" Neo-lib vibe to me. You know, that whole narrative which never fails to tell tales of the winners but tends to forget about the considerable number of players who have to lose so the jackpot can be worth it. Again, I may be wrong.
I appreciate the apology. Happy to discuss this like respectful adults. I agree with you - "bootstrapping" is a terrible way to approach societal change. When we're discussing policy it's unhelpful to suggest that people in dire straits because they lack a work ethic. However, we're not discussing policy here - we're discussing an individual with an individual problem. That this problem is common across a broad demographic spectrum is relevant to a different discussion. When you're talking to one person, "do something before you have to" is more pragmatic advice than "foment revolution." And when talking to another person, calling that advice "victim blaming" is going to open no one's mind. You say "it ignores the institutionalized restrictions imposed upon the actual options available to the receiver." What you mean is "it's too hard." Talk about "just world hypothesis" - you can either wait for it to get easier or you can accept the conditions on the ground and adapt to the best of your abilities. Regardless of what happens next, at least you tried. At least you took initiative. At least you attempted to make a change. Let's talk about emotional well being - is "sack up" really worse than "accept your fate?" I gave advice based on my personal experience. Nowhere did I attempt to argue that my experience was universal, nowhere did I make any sweeping statement about national or global demographics. I gave an individual answer to an individual question. You want to have an argument about policy, I want to give advice... and despite the fact that we agree about the issues, we're debating now. It's inappropriate (and inflammatory) to disregard my experience because it was my experience. It's also rhetorically incorrect. Anecdotal evidence is "Homeopathic remedies work; my buddy Joe tried Bach Flower Essences and they calmed him down." Testimony is "Bach Flower Essences work for me." You can impugn anecdotal evidence - there's no metrics, there's no repeatability, there's questionable provenance. You can't impugn testimony. All you can do is call the testifier a liar. Which you did. Did you mean to? It sounds like you didn't mean to. It sounds like you wanted to have a discussion about the impact of insensitive philosophy on sensitive psyches in a patriarchal economic system. Unfortunately, you accused me of victim blaming, told me to STFU and threw Wikipedia links at me. More than that, you ignored the arguments I was making to make the arguments you want to have: nowhere did I say I think the world is a "just place." To the contrary. My argument, as stated all over this thread, is that the world is deeply injust and that the article expects justice. We agree about broad strokes. I'm willing to bet that we even agree that it's better to do something than to accept your fate. So here's the question: What would you add here? Because honestly, I think you have some useful points to make, and you'll be a lot more successful if you don't attempt to dismantle me in the process.
I agree in principle. The problem here is that we both don't know nearly enough about the (individual) situation. "Do something" is unspecific enough. I agree, everyone in a situation they're really unhappy with should definitely do something about it. But without knowing them better, I can not go any further as far as individual advice (get degree x, try to find job y, join local support group z) goes. The advice I can give is 1) realize that it's more than likely not (only) your fault as an individual and 2) think about ways you can contribute to solving collective problems on a collective level. No, and in the spirit of a discussion between respectful adults I'd ask you not to tell me what I mean. What I mean is that the system can make opportunity costs and risks associated with meaningful individual change so high that it becomes unviable without external support. Simply add a few dependents to the equation and risks can become inacceptable from a purely rational point of view quite quickly. This has nothing to do with "too hard", which implies an unwillingness to exert appropriate effort. [...] When you're talking to one person, "do something before you have to" is more pragmatic advice than "foment revolution." And when talking to another person, calling that advice "victim blaming" is going to open no one's mind.
You say "it ignores the institutionalized restrictions imposed upon the actual options available to the receiver." What you mean is "it's too hard.
Let's talk about emotional well being - is "sack up" really worse than "accept your fate?"
Depends, really. If "sack up" equals "Bang your head against a wall" then there is a real possibility that accepting the nature of the wall and looking for doors and windows might be a good idea, after all. Again, I don't really think we disagree here. I'm just pointing out again that we should be very careful about supplying directions when we don't know where someone's personal walls are located. I gave advice based on my personal experience. Nowhere did I attempt to argue that my experience was universal, nowhere did I make any sweeping statement about national or global demographics. I gave an individual answer to an individual question. You want to have an argument about policy, I want to give advice... and despite the fact that we agree about the issues, we're debating now.
Yes, that's true. Well, mostly true, since I don't recall (had to check again) any request for personal advice. But that's okay, if I felt that I had relevant advice to offer, I'd do so, too. In general, I definitely do have a tendency to take an individual case and rush into a debate about broader issues from there. I need to work on making the distinction more clear. I'll also have to add that when I made my initial reply, I just had read a few discussions where the participants were engaging in - pardon my language - neoliberal cirklejerks. I suppose I was quite pissed, is what I'm saying. I remember thinking that I'd like to write in a neutral tone, specifically not ruining the discussion by making someone feel like I attacked them. Clearly, it didn't come out that way. In my defense, this stuff is much easier when I'm actually using my native language. All you can do is call the testifier a liar. Which you did. Did you mean to?
No, I did not mean to call you a liar. I also don't believe that I did. Instead, i disagreed about the implications as I understood them. The implication (as I understood them, and I don't think anymore that you meant that) being: Despite injustice and all the odds stacked against you, you can still rise to the top if only you play your cards right. (And if you don't, clearly there's something wrong with you, because others did.) It sounds like you didn't mean to. It sounds like you wanted to have a discussion about the impact of insensitive philosophy on sensitive psyches in a patriarchal economic system. Unfortunately, you accused me of victim blaming, told me to STFU and threw Wikipedia links at me. More than that, you ignored the arguments I was making to make the arguments you want to have: nowhere did I say I think the world is a "just place." To the contrary. My argument, as stated all over this thread, is that the world is deeply injust and that the article expects justice.
Yes, fair enough. Again, I wasn't really aiming at you - but I didn't do a good job at making that clear. I suppose anyone would have felt attacked, me included.
We're going to have to agree to disagree - you will never convince me that "do nothing" will ever be superior to "do something" and you will never convince me that I need to know the specifics of a situation to advocate "do something". Even "bang your head against the wall" entails effort, and effort beats inertia in all things.
Wait. Wait. Are you telling me....no you can't be, this is crazy. Are you saying... Are you saying that absolute statements are not only flat stupid, but also in practice often impossible? Dear God my life's work has been validated. Next you're going to tell me that in order for some people to 'win,' others have to lose! Let me try! "Everyone should be poor." Oh, no, that's not going to work, is it?
Most intelligent people with a little life experience are able to recognize "all or nothing" statements as inherently shallow, ill-considered viewpoints, complete with a few steaming ladlefuls of false dichotomy on top which, well, are false and create false "corridors of options" if you will. Of course the false narrowing of options ("white collar or blue collar, manager or non-manager, rich or not") is only added on top of our delicious, full-fat, total-junk logic dinner on special occasions, when we have been good children and politely not pointed out that our meal of rainpool-deep, high-school-stoner-level-of-insight, so-black-and-white-you-could-call-it-a-zebra-or-let's-go-capulets-and-montagues phrases weren't stated or even implied by the comment which elicited their outpouring. "You don't have to always be blue collar" is so very different than "Everyone should be white collar," but then again I guess it's harder to feed an audience on accurate interpretations than it is on combustive exaggerations. Those statements aren't made because that's what kb was saying. They're being made because, with a jump, two joints, and a tightrope, you can see how they kind of respond to him, and because it's way easier to distract the crowd with statements we are all heavily inclined to emotionally agree with than to realize there's actually almost nothing to see here except some dude on the internet saying "Hey! You're in a box! Yes I see that! Yes it's a box! Did you know though, maybe sometime you could try leaving it? There are other boxes, even!" Is it just me or has anyone else noticed yet how much I hate "only this or that," "all this or all that," "hugs don't save lives so they are pointless," rhetoric? "Boo, this article about privilege only makes white people feel better about themselves for reading about privilege. Articles like this are shit that should never be written!" Bitch, are you seriously saying that instead of discussing social issues and attempting to raise the public awareness of them, it would be better to never write about them because currently, the articles out there just aren't doing enough? Like, what, they aren't making white people feel bad enough for you? Are we going to get further in life and or maybe even just like any closer to an enlightened consciousness if we instead stop talking about shit with cuddly-pillow articles on Medium? No we are not. God, do I have to say Rome wasn't built in a day or do I have to point out that bricks go down one by one? Pet peeve. Rant out.
Thank you for clarifiying this for me. Good point(s), actually. One thing I'd like to mention is that, while "You don't have to always be blue collar" certainly is a valid enough answer, people who don't have a problem with their "blue collar" work but who simply demand "honest pay for an honest day" hold an equally valid opinion as far as I can tell. As long as society still needs its blue collar workers, I don't feel that "Well, maybe try not being one of those" is a satisfying answer.
I don't disagree with you there and I thought you made a valid observation higher in thread about how "If it's not working for you, get out" isn't always constructive advice or a feasible option. I will hazard that generally it is easier to change one's personal experience and surroundings than it is to change institutions and mass cookie-cutter treatment - however, the ease of a given option is not the only factor in whether it is the right/best/whatever option, or whether a person wants to choose that option at all. For the happiness of the one, the answer is probably to shoot oneself up and out of lower circumstances to better treatment. For the happiness of the many, the answer is probably more likely to be forced (encouraged, whatever) environmental &/or institutional change. One kind of such group advocacy is a union, of course, though I'm sure there are many methods. I am not sure though that an entire population can reach such satisfaction. Do some people have to be lower in order for others to enjoy the benefits they want? I suspect probably. I do believe all humans should be treated well and with respect, however, I do not believe that is where most humans' requirements for satisfaction end. In which case I wonder, how much lower - can a happy equilibrium be reached where no one is drastically down the an exaggerated bell curve and everyone is generally content? I think American society is a super drastic bell curve, and I'd like to believe such division is not necessary, helpful, or even good and etc. But I think it is not an easy thing, to try and convince people who have a very great lot, that they would be better off without their hoard and that helping others might yield more happiness. It is hard to tell someone they should not have what they are accustomed to. We tend to hold on, simply because we are used to having.
Yes, but was that through increased quality of life/standard of living, or institutional change? Ah right, in 1900 women couldn't vote, pretty sure we still were overrun with factories, pretty sure no minimum wage or maximum work hour laws, and did I mention the little children whose nimble fingers were so helpful in those cramped factory mechanics? Yes. (Oh and don't get me started about the truckers!) I feel like the technological achievements of the past 100 years were a significant factor in QOL improvement though, I mean in addition to our adoption of fair labor laws and so on. I would generally hope that as time progresses things get better. I acknowledge that's not always how it goes, but hey, one must have faith in the long-term market, natch?
The terms 'blue collar' and 'white collar' are always pejorative. No one aspires to being 'white collar'. They want to be well-compensated and have a job devoid of physical labor. Meanwhile, you call a garbage man 'blue collar' without recognizing that he might be making more than you. I wouldn't have used the phrase 'white collar' if camarillobrillo hadn't used the phrase 'blue collar' because it's loaded language that sends discussions spiraling off into irrelevancies.
While that is true, your actions create money for the employer. If you are working at a solid rate, why would an employer risk losing you for an unknown replacement? That seems to me to be as far as loyalty goes from employer to employee.
Let's say you make $10 an hour. That's your full paycheck - taxes and such come out of that. Meanwhile, your employer is actually paying about $5 an hour above and beyond that to employ you - taxes, infrastructure, what-not. Your take-home pay is $400 a week. That's $20,800 a year to you and $31,200 to your employer. Still with me? So. Let's say that your job can be done by someone a year newer than you for $9.90 an hour. To you, that's nothing. That's less than a buck a day. $4 a week, $208 a year. It's $312 to your employer. Still nothing, right? That isn't even a week's pay! to you, anyway. to your employer? It's half a week's pay. It's a one percent cost reduction. And if the decision is made by your boss' boss' boss' boss, that 1% could be across 2,000 employees and suddenly, amongst our $10/hour employees, the VP of Quality Assurance (or whoever) just saved the company over $600k. And he doesn't know you. He doesn't know your boss. He doesn't know your boss' boss. But he gets to claim that he reduced non-revenue expenses by almost a million dollars (because he'll fudge the numbers) without impacting EBITDA (because it's the only figure they care about). And you're out on the street, and so are two thousand other people, and it's all over a fucking dime an hour and it's grossly unfair, and it's inhuman, and it's all that's wrong about capitalism, and you can either write a book about how much it sucks and get a whole bunch of Stockholm Syndrome employees to piss and moan about how their job doesn't love them or you can recognize that some MBA four levels above you has utter and total control over your corporate fate and plan accordingly. I got laid off despite the fact that I was the only thing keeping $23m in contracts from crashing to the ground. Wanna see what that actually looked like? - $11m of that was CompUSA. They could get as pissed off as they wanted, they were dead 2 months later and no one was surprised. - $6m of that was American Eagle Outfitters. We'd taken the contract at a loss and the sales guy who bought it for us got fired, too. So despite the fact that I was busting ass to fulfill the obligations put forth by a VP, the president was cool letting it wither on the vine. I actually went to his office to try and get one of my contractors paid because we were 3 months late and he refused to do any work until we paid him... and was told that it was policy to let accounts age when there was a dispute even if it was unrelated to the performance of the contractor. - $4m of that was the N9ne group, whom hated what we'd done because another VP had picked a bad vendor that couldn't do the job (which I'd made clear months earlier). By firing me, my company got to force N9ne to pay penalties dissolving our contract. - $1m of it was work that my company had fucked up so badly for Jack in the Box that they fired our employer. I'd like to say I did my part to make things work, but the fact of the matter is I had to find a way to duplicate the performance of a $1500 part with a budget of zero and the fact that it cost the budget $40 was a strike against me. So from my perspective? The company lost $23m when they fired me. From their perspective? They had about $23m worth of contracts they needed to get out of and letting me go was expedient. They learned their lesson; they never tried anything complicated ever again. I was doing things like time-synchronized 4-screen multimedia installs with subwoofers and 40-speaker stereo (they asked, our sales guys promised); their bread and butter is 2 speakers and an iPod in the corner. They're still doing 2 speakers and an iPod. I'm no longer doing anything for them. In the end it worked out better for both of us but in the moment, they didn't so much as let me know "by the way, all this shit you're busting ass on, 'working at a solid rate', is supernumerary to our forecasts. Might wanna polish your resume."If you are working at a solid rate, why would an employer risk losing you for an unknown replacement?
Forgive me for the intrusion in this discussion, but the $10 an hour part, is that typical in the States? It just doesn't seem enough given what I imagine the cost of living must be like in the cities over there. I've lived in Australia, made less money than I do now in my home country and it still beat out what I've been hearing about the wages in America. And on top of that the cost of living in Australia is pretty high if you're unlucky/forced to live in the major cities. Genuine question, is it as bad in America as I'm hearing?
My comment, in brief: While that is one way to deal with these feelings (and possibly the most realistic), it isn't the only option. Nor am I attempting to say, "let us dictate terms to our prospective employers." I am saying, "Employers have the benefit of a power imbalance that is extreme to the point that they shit on employees and would-be employees almost inadvertently while attempting to hire them, and that is shitty." Sure it is insane to dream of unionizing job applicants and demanding hiring companies to inform applicants who aren't hired. Sure it is idealistic and stupid and not gonna happen. But maybe hopefully some of the people I point this out to will eventually become hiring managers. And maybe they will remember this anecdote and try, at least, to let their rejects know. The companies have more power because they have more power, but if we stop giving them as much power in our heads, (by doing things like thinking "loyalty to the company" proves anything, and that we should work 60 hours a week to prove we are good employees, and that if we don't check our email on weekends we are bad employees), then we at least benefit from giving them more power in practice than they actually have right to on paper. Recognizing the relationship is unfair, and how, is better than insisting it's not. a) statement that companies exert more power over prospective employees than employees do over companies coupled w/first person observation of said power
b) me saying, "wah wah, i don't like this, it isn't fair" If that balance doesn't suit you, do something else.
And I am saying that has never NOT been true.I am saying, "Employers have the benefit of a power imbalance that is extreme to the point that they shit on employees and would-be employees almost inadvertently while attempting to hire them, and that is shitty."
Don't worry Klein is just in his own little world where his view is the only one that matters. We need to stand up to employers and do something about this. It won't change until we make it change and blood will probably need to be shed as usual when someone is constantly being taken advantage of. No man should be at the whim of another man when their livelihood is on the line. And the stress it brings about isn't worth it. One day we will make this corrupt system collapse. On that day mankind will finally know what it is to be free once more. Keep fighting the good fight!!
That's part of the problem. There's no way to survive in the 21st century without giving up much of your freedoms and privacy to a company entity. There are too many people I know that are wage slaves and have very little hope of pursuing anything else. I recently got pushed back a month from being transferred full-time because they didn't want to spend the extra $1,000 dollars for a transferall fee (that's what they told me) while an acquisition is happening. Meanwhile, the CEO just got his multi-million dollar bonus and I just bought the office a new set of monitors and stands, a half-employee (friend of the CEO) a brand-new macbook pro, and serviced the CEO's daughter's laptops during work hours. You can't speak out on the bullshit or you're gone. You smile and nod. The worst part is that this isn't a bad job at all: probably the best I've ever had. The unbalance of power is very real. These are not healthy organizations and entities: They're just money-making machines that have no desires to make the world a better place.