You think the choices are work for Meta or starve?
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let’s go with that.
I don’t know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I’m not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It’s even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn’t afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there’s a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I’d even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton’s are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
There has to be a line somewhere
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Well evil is a ridiculous word, but yes they are immoral people the way I see it. That doesn’t mean I want them executed or put in prison. We should simply call something wrong when we think its wrong. Those people are hopefully going to grow and learn. I’m not going to give them praise or any social benefit until they do so, however.
All I’m doing is signalling that I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level. I don’t see why that’s such a cruel thing.
I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level.
My point is that not all may have a choice, because quitting your job can be scary in the most stable of times, let alone when people are being laid off left and right while small businesses get churned under. “I want to afford life” is a life choice only in the immediate, literal sense of choosing to live.
Hence my proposition to build a system that allows them to quit without jeopardising healthcare coverage, livelihood, all the things that make a person stick with a bad job.
Whoever stays when they don’t need to is definitely in the wrong.
Everyone has a choice, this isn’t slave labor. The most common argument I hear from these people is “I’m used to the amount I make, and I can’t go back now.” And again, they are not choosing between working at Meta and “being able to afford life”. These are supposed to be smart people, yet they actually can’t see any other choice?
Ego and greed drive people to these positions that they think they deserve, there is no moral justification here. Its a perfect example of the fuck-you-get-mine lifestyle that America promotes.
I’m not shocked that the people who work there have convinced themselves they are good people, but I am surprised at how many people on the outside will defend them.
I think you’re missing the core point: You assume finding a different job is easy for everyone, or even just possible for everyone. I don’t think that’s true. More accurately, I know that’s not true.
To quit without a new job lined up puts you in a precarious position, like jumping off the edge and hoping there’s somewhere to land. If you can’t be sure, you would naturally hesitate. That’s why I’ve been saying to create a safety net that allows them to jump off anyway because they know they’ll be caught and find their way to solid footing.
Those who could easily find stable employment that covers their expenses elsewhere absolutely should. I’m not defending them.
I’m defending those that you overlook because it’s easier to condemn collectively.
I’m not really convinced. I’ve quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars. These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
My guess is simply that I’m comfortable cutting expenses while most of these Meta employees aren’t. I dont understand why anyone would rather break their morals than cut expenses. Thats why I said they are greedy.
Okay, this got a lot longer than planned, so let me offer a summary of my goal first:
I’m mainly trying to argue that we should blame the root property (greed) and the enabling factors (system fostering fuck-you-got-mine), rather than a secondary property potentially arising from it, and to propose a solution thay would make that “potentially” irrelevant.
I’ve quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars.
That’s great and I love that for you.
But I can tell you for a fact that not everyone can do that. My wife had to quit hers for health reasons, and though she thankfully gets unemployment benefits (60% of her previous income here in Germany), it isn’t enough to cover her share of the rent, utilities and other regular expenses. We don’t have a house, we have a singular car we’re paying lease for (she needed it to get to her job, I use public transport), we don’t have kids.
If she hadn’t had good cause to quit, the benefits would have been suspended. If she didn’t get public healthcare through those benefits, the cost of her treatment would send us into debt.
She’s been applying for everything even remotely related to her qualifications (both because she risks losing her benefits otherwise and because those 60% are bad and she’d like to get a proper pay again). It’s not that she doesn’t have any qualifications, just that there’s not a lot of openings and presumably many applicants around here. Or maybe whatever AI companies use to screen applications decides she’s not a good fit? No clue. Most companies don’t even respond. The rest send a polite rejection letter that they went with someone else.
If I now quit my job for moral reasons (which I thankfully have little cause for), I’d be trading our future for a chance at a slightly worse and a risk of a much worse future. If I can’t find a new job in the time between handing in my notice and my last paycheck, I probably won’t get unemployment pay for a while, and we’d be living off of, at best, 30% of the income we planned our life with. We already don’t have much in savings to begin with due to an unrelated instance of life fucking us over.
I also know people from the US that stuck or are sticking with a job they hate because they can’t find any other job that’ll sponsor their healthcare, and they can’t afford to go without due to chronic issues.
These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
Financial freedom doesn’t strictly scale with income. If you earn more, you’re probably also more comfortable taking on debt (car, house) or higher expenses (like an expensive school for your kids). Finding a cheaper place to live isn’t always easy (the housing market is atrocious in some places, and I know that we’ve been looking in vain), particularly if it’s in range of decently paying employers; you may well need the car to get to work; taking your kids out of a school you can no longer afford is probably a bad idea both for their social development and their future prospects. And healthcare is still a fucked up thing that can pose a great risk.
Again, for many of the employees, there may well be concessions they can make that they choose not to, putting their own luxury before the ethics (or lack thereof) of Meta’s business practices. I’m not denying that nor defending them. I’m contending that not all will have that choice, and that we shouldn’t throw them under the bus with the rest when there is a more accurate option:
The root cause that makes the evil ones evil is their selfishness and greed; that is what we should condemn. It applies to plenty more people than just employees coming up with whatever justification to shut up their conscience. The remedy for this would be to strip them of the excess that keeps them there, which isn’t exactly trivial.
The contributing factor that allows Meta and other such companies to exist and do such evil is an economic and social power balance that has been steadily and politically shifted ever more towards corporate dominance. There needs to be a counterweight that enables workers to do the right thing, no matter their circumstances. Social security doesn’t (just) help the unemployed, disabled, or other people that can’t work, it also shores up the bargaining position of those who do work and want to work for fair conditions and with a clean conscience.
Once such a security exists, the question of separating the greedy ones from those staying out of dependency or insecurity becomes much easier. The lower the hurdles for leaving, the less of an excuse for those who stay.
And if Meta was then torn down, the question of stripping the greedy from their unjust gains would be resolved too.
Hence: Fuck greed, fuck the system that enables it and fuck whoever defends that system.
To the same degree that a livelihood equals wealth: Not really, but it seems like nuance is out of stock anyway. If we can only talk in absolutes, then sure, let’s go with that.
I don’t know the job situation wherever these employees live. You take for granted that there are plenty of jobs available, but given the current tide of layoffs and hiring stops, I’m not so confident.
I know people (my wife, some family, some close friends; some EU, some US; some tech, some other sectors) struggling to find a job, for all their credentials, because all their applications to just about any vaguely applicable position within the area they can reach are rejected (and for some of them, there are few positions to begin with). If they got a job anywhere that would pay them a living wage, they could hardly afford to turn it down.
It’s even worse in the US, where healthcare may be tied to your employer. One (western US) friend with chronic health issues had to stick with a toxic job for way too long because they genuinely couldn’t afford to quit. Hence, my point is that there’s a very real chance that some employees are trapped in their job, however gilded the cage may be.
Many employees may have the luxury of choice and choose money over morals, true. For some, the choice may have been a question of stability. If there was a reliable social security system to catch anyone that quits, I’d even agree that they all had the choice.
But as things are, I worry that painting all employees the same brush erases nuance and covers up the ugly systemic issues that enable the exploitation of users and employees alike, which we justly hate Meta for.
But then, I guess nuanced looks at contributing factors are hard and calling people morally bankrupt is more satisfying than acknowledging the morally expensive system that bankrupts people in the first place, morally and financially.
There is nuance, but some companies are far past that. Meta is one of them. Theres a bunch of other examples. I dont think walmart employees are morally bankrupt, however, because the Walton’s are. There has to be a line somewhere and some companies have caused too much harm on too large a scale.
The nuance isn’t about the fucked-upness of the company, but about the humans. The company is beyond redemption, no doubt.
Why? Why should we decide a point at which it’s okay to dehumanise people? What do we gain by simplifying economic and social complexities down to “they’re all just evil”?
Again, I care about fixing the system that allows things like Meta to exist (because cutting one head won’t kill the hydra) and trap employees (Meta and elsewhere) in fucked up dynamics where “just leave” isn’t a viable option.
If your necessities are taken care of either way and the choice is purely between excess wealth and ethical responsibility, sure, anyone who chooses to enrich themselves at the expense of others is a dick. If the company is torn down and they lose their job, no tear will be shed. But that basic security needs to exist in order to enable ethical decisions and put the onus on the employees for continuing to support a fucked up stain on human dignity.
Well evil is a ridiculous word, but yes they are immoral people the way I see it. That doesn’t mean I want them executed or put in prison. We should simply call something wrong when we think its wrong. Those people are hopefully going to grow and learn. I’m not going to give them praise or any social benefit until they do so, however.
All I’m doing is signalling that I disagree with those peoples life choices on a moral level. I don’t see why that’s such a cruel thing.
My point is that not all may have a choice, because quitting your job can be scary in the most stable of times, let alone when people are being laid off left and right while small businesses get churned under. “I want to afford life” is a life choice only in the immediate, literal sense of choosing to live.
Hence my proposition to build a system that allows them to quit without jeopardising healthcare coverage, livelihood, all the things that make a person stick with a bad job.
Whoever stays when they don’t need to is definitely in the wrong.
Everyone has a choice, this isn’t slave labor. The most common argument I hear from these people is “I’m used to the amount I make, and I can’t go back now.” And again, they are not choosing between working at Meta and “being able to afford life”. These are supposed to be smart people, yet they actually can’t see any other choice?
Ego and greed drive people to these positions that they think they deserve, there is no moral justification here. Its a perfect example of the fuck-you-get-mine lifestyle that America promotes.
I’m not shocked that the people who work there have convinced themselves they are good people, but I am surprised at how many people on the outside will defend them.
I think you’re missing the core point: You assume finding a different job is easy for everyone, or even just possible for everyone. I don’t think that’s true. More accurately, I know that’s not true.
To quit without a new job lined up puts you in a precarious position, like jumping off the edge and hoping there’s somewhere to land. If you can’t be sure, you would naturally hesitate. That’s why I’ve been saying to create a safety net that allows them to jump off anyway because they know they’ll be caught and find their way to solid footing.
Those who could easily find stable employment that covers their expenses elsewhere absolutely should. I’m not defending them.
I’m defending those that you overlook because it’s easier to condemn collectively.
I’m not really convinced. I’ve quit a job for moral reasons without anything else lined up, and I have a house, kids, and cars. These Meta employees make at least triple what I do, but somehow I have more financial freedom than they do? Explain that part to me.
My guess is simply that I’m comfortable cutting expenses while most of these Meta employees aren’t. I dont understand why anyone would rather break their morals than cut expenses. Thats why I said they are greedy.
Okay, this got a lot longer than planned, so let me offer a summary of my goal first:
I’m mainly trying to argue that we should blame the root property (greed) and the enabling factors (system fostering fuck-you-got-mine), rather than a secondary property potentially arising from it, and to propose a solution thay would make that “potentially” irrelevant.
That’s great and I love that for you.
But I can tell you for a fact that not everyone can do that. My wife had to quit hers for health reasons, and though she thankfully gets unemployment benefits (60% of her previous income here in Germany), it isn’t enough to cover her share of the rent, utilities and other regular expenses. We don’t have a house, we have a singular car we’re paying lease for (she needed it to get to her job, I use public transport), we don’t have kids.
If she hadn’t had good cause to quit, the benefits would have been suspended. If she didn’t get public healthcare through those benefits, the cost of her treatment would send us into debt.
She’s been applying for everything even remotely related to her qualifications (both because she risks losing her benefits otherwise and because those 60% are bad and she’d like to get a proper pay again). It’s not that she doesn’t have any qualifications, just that there’s not a lot of openings and presumably many applicants around here. Or maybe whatever AI companies use to screen applications decides she’s not a good fit? No clue. Most companies don’t even respond. The rest send a polite rejection letter that they went with someone else.
If I now quit my job for moral reasons (which I thankfully have little cause for), I’d be trading our future for a chance at a slightly worse and a risk of a much worse future. If I can’t find a new job in the time between handing in my notice and my last paycheck, I probably won’t get unemployment pay for a while, and we’d be living off of, at best, 30% of the income we planned our life with. We already don’t have much in savings to begin with due to an unrelated instance of life fucking us over.
I also know people from the US that stuck or are sticking with a job they hate because they can’t find any other job that’ll sponsor their healthcare, and they can’t afford to go without due to chronic issues.
Financial freedom doesn’t strictly scale with income. If you earn more, you’re probably also more comfortable taking on debt (car, house) or higher expenses (like an expensive school for your kids). Finding a cheaper place to live isn’t always easy (the housing market is atrocious in some places, and I know that we’ve been looking in vain), particularly if it’s in range of decently paying employers; you may well need the car to get to work; taking your kids out of a school you can no longer afford is probably a bad idea both for their social development and their future prospects. And healthcare is still a fucked up thing that can pose a great risk.
Again, for many of the employees, there may well be concessions they can make that they choose not to, putting their own luxury before the ethics (or lack thereof) of Meta’s business practices. I’m not denying that nor defending them. I’m contending that not all will have that choice, and that we shouldn’t throw them under the bus with the rest when there is a more accurate option:
The root cause that makes the evil ones evil is their selfishness and greed; that is what we should condemn. It applies to plenty more people than just employees coming up with whatever justification to shut up their conscience. The remedy for this would be to strip them of the excess that keeps them there, which isn’t exactly trivial.
The contributing factor that allows Meta and other such companies to exist and do such evil is an economic and social power balance that has been steadily and politically shifted ever more towards corporate dominance. There needs to be a counterweight that enables workers to do the right thing, no matter their circumstances. Social security doesn’t (just) help the unemployed, disabled, or other people that can’t work, it also shores up the bargaining position of those who do work and want to work for fair conditions and with a clean conscience.
Once such a security exists, the question of separating the greedy ones from those staying out of dependency or insecurity becomes much easier. The lower the hurdles for leaving, the less of an excuse for those who stay.
And if Meta was then torn down, the question of stripping the greedy from their unjust gains would be resolved too.
Hence: Fuck greed, fuck the system that enables it and fuck whoever defends that system.