Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

"Nobody wants to work anymore."

People should be paid for their commute time as well. I know that I'm lucky it only takes 15 minutes to get to work, could not imagine having to spend an hour plus.

That is personal time being devoted to work, and typically no compensation.
 
That's why I have no objection to working from home. My daily commute is about 90 minutes...each way...if nothing gets screwed up.

3 to 3.5 hours dead time spent travelling each day... no thanks.
 
Yeah - In Paris you have people who commute 1h or more each way. Possibly 1h30 each way.
 
Well, my country is just not the best place to work. Politics and reasons aside (since I am tired of explaining it at this point), the economy has plummeted and become a weird train wreck. A "real job" will give you around 1~2 dollars per month, when everything costs AT LEAST that, one dollar or two.

My parents really push me into "doing something productive" I study my eyes off and then I work with English tutorings. My salary is 10 or even 20 times bigger and doesn't devaluate as fast. But even so, doing the math I would need 40 years to get a house of my own without spending a single buck. Also, not many people have money for English classes, some want to eat, or entertain themselves and it is valid.

So, why getting up early, working 8 hours somewhere and put more effort when I can make money comfortably from my own home? It is frustrating how my parents generation is like "we worked harder" but they seem to not understand that it was another era and now economy even devaluates the dollar faster than it is devaluated in USA!

So, I think that thanks to my whole background I would just take any job as long as it is actually worth my time, that I can AT LEAST sustain myself

However, that's just my outlook, tho
 
And I live in the capital. My friends in other states have it even worse economically and infrastructurally. More power outages, less water, even less gasoline. So yeah, we would mostly be eager to take the minimum wage jobs up there in USA
 
Well. Once Colombia, Equador, and Venezuela were known as the Great Colombia, but it was separated due to their differences (mostly it was unmanageable in terms of geopolitics as far as I remember) but that was after the indepedence, kinda 200 years ago or even more.

Venezuela was a very powerful country in terms of economy back there in Perez Jiménez's time if I remember correctly. The guy was a brutal dictator tho, in terms there was zero tolerance for crime, while he didn't allow free speech. Talk bad about anything and you would disappear, however, he seemed to know what he was doing.

Now, many people say "yes, but he was a dictator", the problem is that, Venezuela has always been having issues with criminality and the few instances that politics could keep things in check by that time was with said control.

There was a pretty good candidate, Renny Otolina. He was very correct but he was assassinated (his plane was sabotaged, possibly by the rival parties)
 
Yup, the problem is the culture, not everyone is course. "But if you can abuse the system you should do it" is a common mentality in Latin America. Some exceptions can apply on certain countries and not everyone is like that. But the mentality surely doesn't help at all.
 
The system is oppressive and abusive, so you might as well abuse it back.
I meant any system. For example, let's say your workplace gives you free food as a benefit. They would try to get as much as possible, even if mot all is going to get eaten. Or, let's say someone helps them with something and then they want you to "help" all the time (more like do all the job), not just THAT system, but any
 
As Linus once said the the Peanuts comic strip: "I love humanity! It's the people I can't stand!"
 
France gives you tickets to pay the restaurant at noon, but it's often not enough, or obviously more aimed toward Pizza hut, mac donalds or at best a sandwich than a balanced meal. Those who kep kosher, hallal... forget it, doesn't cover. I won't take a job that doesn't pay well if there's a long commute. But not everyone can.
 
More accurately, it’s more that people are sick of working meaningless thankless jobs for shit wages and being treated like trash by a culture that has promoted consumer entitlement and so on, all for a handful of corporate sociopaths who like watching their numbers grow.

Boomers and a lot of older Gen Xers seem to have never let go of the excess of the 1980s and still think it’s all about them.
 
More accurately, it’s more that people are sick of working meaningless thankless jobs for shit wages and being treated like trash by a culture that has promoted consumer entitlement and so on, all for a handful of corporate sociopaths who like watching their numbers grow.

Boomers and a lot of older Gen Xers seem to have never let go of the excess of the 1980s and still think it’s all about them.
+1 to this all the fucking way.

Because it's not just the work but the type of work, and this culture surrounding adulthood, careers, and fulfilment, this ambition I'm expected to pull out of my ass for an employment that makes me feel numb and worthless and unvalued.
 
Well, I'll try to avoid writing a thesis and say that I think both sides of the 'You're too lazy' and the 'No we just don't wanna be treated like shit' crowd have merit to their argument. Might sound like a cop out answer on my part but I will try to elaborate.

So for the 'This generation is lazy' crowd the nugget of merit to their argument that I can at least tie to my own anecdotal experience seems that the 'take advantage of the system' can kinda work both ways. My example is as follows: I worked a job in my early life for around 2 years at a restaurant, where when I started we were allowed to eat for free while we worked, even reasonably stop by and get a meal on our days off, and take breaks as needed as long as a defined list of tasks was completed. I worked night shift so we basically just had to wrap everything up by the end of the night. Well, we of course had someone who take that to the nth degree. A woman, whom I will just call Tracy, who had two children and a husband when I began working there. Tracy had a bad habit of coming in on her days off and essentially using the place as a food pantry. Leaving with, I do not exaggerate, trash bags full of food for her kids and husband. Early on during my time there, not much came of it, but by the time I left two years later Tracy had had 2 more kids and her actions had gotten so bad ownership threatened to just take away the free food and have us all pay full price which..... an overreaction if you ask me but when you have such a heinous single overreach even the tinythings that usually get waved off on occassion get brought up. I, myself, had taken a bit more than one meal on my days off to bring my family some treats, I admit it. Though I nnever left with bags full of food unless it was product being dumped anyway which we were allowed to take.

On the flip-side.

I think competitive people, by their nature, want to break and exploit systems. Put it this way: Think of a game like SimCities or other city managers. If you've played or even know of such a game I'll bet you know those people who have a 'perfectly optimized' city or what have you that is set up to squeeze every single possible Simoleon, point, gem, resource, etc out of it's populace. All for the dopamine hit of seeing a completely fabricated high score go up. What does this have to do with the whole 'We don't like being treated like shit' argument? Well, simple, if people who are utterly detached from their people/employees/etc will still milk those hypothetical people for absolutely no intrinsic benefit to themselves it is an absolutely MONUMENTAL and inhuman temptation to then expect them to all have the moral fiber to deny doing that when it directly means the betterment of their lives, their children's lives, their families lives, etc and I'd argue no-one should have to slave for a thankless job, period. But in a system of utter competition the most ruthless and least moral will, inevitably, thrive.


So with me breaking my word about not writing a lot I'd just like to end this by agreeing a bit with @TheDecker from what I have read through skimming and despite what my last bit there may have sounded like I'm not advocating for socialism or Marxism. History, past or contemporary, has proven it does not work. With the whole 'real socialism' idea thrown around being more accurately described as 'ideal socialism' and no system ever works to it's ideal capacity beyond, at most, the first generation to implement who might be true believers in it.

Anyways, thanks for reading this if ya did. If not I get it. Cheers.
 
I'll just paraphrase something I read once that is true for all generations...if you're willing to look at it (this is not word-for-word):

Your grandparents flipped burgers when they started out, but they didn't call it "shit and meaningless"...they called it "opportunity".

Just something to think about. If you're not willing to put in the hard work, how do you expect to reap the rewards that follow it?
 
I don’t care about rewards or status or wealth. I just want to exist for my 60-80 years without being stressed and tired. I see no point in building an immaculate sandcastle on the wet part of the beach while the tide is out.
This puts it perfectly. The promise of "opportunity" for flipping burgers is a joke nowadays. And I'm tired of being told I'm just not grateful enough for the bare minimum to survive. As if that's all I needed.
 
I'll just paraphrase something I read once that is true for all generations...if you're willing to look at it (this is not word-for-word):

Your grandparents flipped burgers when they started out, but they didn't call it "shit and meaningless"...they called it "opportunity".

Just something to think about. If you're not willing to put in the hard work, how do you expect to reap the rewards that follow it?
And how much was it paid back then comapartively compared to now? It's not the 1950s anymore. Also, that assumes that hard work always equates to success. Most of my generation, te millenials and older Z-folk saw that was a bust when the Great Recession happened.
 
And how much was it paid back then comapartively compared to now? It's not the 1950s anymore. Also, that assumes that hard work always equates to success. Most of my generation, te millenials and older Z-folk saw that was a bust when the Great Recession happened.
If you want to nitpick, I can't help you.

I'm more pointing out that perspective and attitude are what's important.

If you (and I'm using the generic "you" here) are going to sit back and think that the world owes you a living, you're in for a nasty surprise.
 
So with me breaking my word about not writing a lot I'd just like to end this by agreeing a bit with @TheDecker from what I have read through skimming and despite what my last bit there may have sounded like I'm not advocating for socialism or Marxism. History, past or contemporary, has proven it does not work. With the whole 'real socialism' idea thrown around being more accurately described as 'ideal socialism' and no system ever works to it's ideal capacity beyond, at most, the first generation to implement who might be true believers in it.

Anyways, thanks for reading this if ya did. If not I get it. Cheers.

If you look at every nation that called itself 'socialism', 'communism', etc, you'd see a pattern. Mainly, they were mostly monarchies, specifcially those with cultural pillars that leaned toward a centralized authority. In a sense, they were all nations who already had autocratic tendencies and culturally, that was what they were used to:
> Tsarist Russia was a semi(ish)-absolute monarch with the Tsar who's cultural power was backed by the Eastern Orthodox Church via divine right of kings and ruled with a heavily centralized auhtority because it was a massive nation with a colossal amount of people.
> Qing China is similar to Russia, just replaced the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Confucian teachings and divine right of kings with Mandate of Heaven
> Yugoslavia, well, was a mix of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic based cultures, with both churches being patriarchal and authority-based, under Tito who held it together.
> Southeast Asia, many of them were monarchies prior to colonization though they also became 'socialist'/'communist' because it wasn't the capitalist systmes that screwed them over by the imperial Europeans.

So yeah, claiming it's socialism's fault kinda ignores the bigger hisotrical perspective just to try and prove a flimsy political point.
 
If you look at every nation that called itself 'socialism', 'communism', etc, you'd see a pattern. Mainly, they were mostly monarchies, specifcially those with cultural pillars that leaned toward a centralized authority. In a sense, they were all nations who already had autocratic tendencies and culturally, that was what they were used to:
> Tsarist Russia was a semi(ish)-absolute monarch with the Tsar who's cultural power was backed by the Eastern Orthodox Church via divine right of kings and ruled with a heavily centralized auhtority because it was a massive nation with a colossal amount of people.
> Qing China is similar to Russia, just replaced the Eastern Orthodox Church with the Confucian teachings and divine right of kings with Mandate of Heaven
> Yugoslavia, well, was a mix of Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic based cultures, with both churches being patriarchal and authority-based, under Tito who held it together.
> Southeast Asia, many of them were monarchies prior to colonization though they also became 'socialist'/'communist' because it wasn't the capitalist systmes that screwed them over by the imperial Europeans.

So yeah, claiming it's socialism's fault kinda ignores the bigger hisotrical perspective just to try and prove a flimsy political point.

I agree centralization when taken to a high level is bad, absolutely. Ergo, I can't really see the logic in then saying I can endorse a mindset that requires a large degree of centralization.

But that's just my direct response and I don't want to get further off-topic.
 
If you want to nitpick, I can't help you.

I'm more pointing out that perspective and attitude are what's important.

If you (and I'm using the generic "you" here) are going to sit back and think that the world owes you a living, you're in for a nasty surprise.
All the attitude and perspective won't help people when it comes to certain circumstances or external factors. Attitude and perspective are shaped by experiences and my experiences have been that in the bigger picture, hard work isn't really rewarded as people tout it to be. And positive attitudes can become warn down if they and perspective do not match with what is going on in the real world.
 
I agree centralization when taken to a high level is bad, absolutely. Ergo, I can't really see the logic in then saying I can endorse a mindset that requires a large degree of centralization.

But that's just my direct response and I don't want to get further off-topic.
Except neither socialism nor communism requires centralization and actually is the opposite, going toward giving power to the people at large, That's the entire point. Problem is what happens when the people of that culture or group are conditioned or used to listening to a "big guy in charge" and thus give power to them. It's why caudillos happen a fair bit in Latin America; because of the patriarchal power dynamic courtedy of the Catholic Church and the pope.
 
Except neither socialism nor communism requires centralization and actually is the opposite, going toward giving power to the people at large.
That may be the romantic ideal of socialism, but the reality is significantly, jarringly different.

You have a look at ANY socialist/communist nation through history, and they all have one common theme: the ruling class lap it up, and everyone else gets whatever the ruling class deigns to hand out.

A socialist group might start with the ideal of giving everything to the people, but it never ends that way.

No economic system is perfect - they all have their flaws - but Marxism is the worst, followed by communism and socialism.
 
That may be the romantic ideal of socialism, but the reality is significantly, jarringly different.

You have a look at ANY socialist/communist nation through history, and they all have one common theme: the ruling class lap it up, and everyone else gets whatever the ruling class deigns to hand out.

A socialist group might start with the ideal of giving everything to the people, but it never ends that way.

No economic system is perfect - they all have their flaws - but Marxism is the worst, followed by communism and socialism.
"one common theme: the ruling class lap it up, and everyone else gets whatever the ruling class deigns to hand out."

That actually sounds like capitalism, with the people with capital investing and their associates being well, the ruling class. Look at the various East India companies, the Gilded Age within the US, the exploitation of many different continents just by one fueled by the need of making money and dick-measuring contests and so on and so forth.

The reality being that the accusations you're throwing at socialism/communism is actually what was caused by capitalism. Heck, you

Anyway, that's beside the point of the topic of the thread here.
 
Back on the topic on hand, I have worked various odd jobs and often I noted that even it's things like custodial work or so on, then it's pretty all right if you're paid well and treated all right. Work shouldn't be the end-all be-all of your life and the perpetuation of that mentality is a contribution to the burn-out and so on.

I never got the idea of having to work for decades of your life and then enjoying the fruits only when you're old and gray? Like, doesn't that seem like an outdated form of thinking?
 
Back
Top Bottom