/lounge/ - Lounge

The 2024 wagecuck experience. There are retard-niggers out there who will try to convince you this is better than subsistence farming.

>>72608
Don't you want to contribute to society anon? It's tremendously important for The Economy that you dance around like a moron and greet people at walmart.

Get a jerb you lazy do nothing bum!

>>72608
All that money, all of it, hundreds and thousands of not millions of dollars, not used on a raise for their workers so CEOs can keep a few million and their kapos (HR) can make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Death to america

I didn't watch the video but I hate kikes and faggots

>>72696
An appropriate response when it comes to most situations you're likely to run into these days.

I was recently thinking about how a time-based wage is one of the worst things kikes ever came up with(seeing as the person who supposedly came up with it was a New York Jewelry merchant, this is pretty likely). Back in the day your pay was based on output. You work as much as you require, and the faster you work the more you make in a shorter time period. Now you are a time-rented whore, and working faster is only something done to your own detriment.

>>72744

depends on how the output is measured. some output can only be measured after the fact through analytics and then you still don't know who exactly to reward.

and then there are managers who measure "productivity" by lines of code sharted out as the "output". in sovietistan productivity was also measured by how many warped crap quality items could be made within the 5 year plan over anything else.

i'll take my time based wage and do the work at a sane pace, demanding some quality and forethought (no mr product owner, we won't start 'cooooding together something' wasting the project budget and adding shit to the framework until you are able explain what the 5 partitions of the data you want tracked are and how and if they they actually cover our current use cases in a mutually exclusive way).

>>72744
We have a service economy, time-based wage is what makes most sense for most jobs. And in my current job even if I'm WFH I still have to get frequent input from coworkers, I can't "work faster" when I have to wait for the team and we can't be working (or at least available) at random hours.

>>72746
This probably wasn't as much of a problem when you were something like a tradesman or selling your own produce, not working a "service sector" job. Of course people would still rush or half-ass things.
>i'll take my time based wage and do the work at a sane pace
That's the thing. Most people don't have the luxury of a "sane pace". Employers generally expect you to break your back for them. They want to squeeze as much as they can get from you for as little money as they can get away with. They get more time and more work out of their employees with this arrangement.

>>72749
>Employers generally expect you to break your back for them. They want to squeeze as much as they can get from you for as little money as they can get away with.

Generally true. Employers have this attitude that a wagecuck is "stealing" their time unless he's actively engaged in work continuously.

>They get more time and more work out of their employees with this arrangement.

This is not true. Employees work a lot harder if you treat them well and end up doing a lot more real work. Most of the time when managers try to squeeze wagecucks they just end up doing pointless busywork to "look busy". There's only a certain amount of work a human being can do in a day before he mentally just checks out and his productivity tanks.

Employers generally know this. It's been well discussed in the business community a long time. But they'll still torture and squeeze their wagecattle even if it makes them less productive because being an employer isn't about making money. It's about power, and a boomer lording it over a bunch of slaves. That's also why workplaces tend to be filled with people who don't seem to really do anything at all useful, like secretaries and HR people. They're just there as toadies for the boss to make him feel more powerful.

>>72751
>That's also why workplaces tend to be filled with people who don't seem to really do anything at all useful, like secretaries and HR people. They're just there as toadies for the boss to make him feel more powerful.
The American corporation works very similar to the mafia, to the point where it imports itself to other countries, like the Cosa Nostra.

Your CEO is the mob boss, and his directors are capos, and you kick up to him, and he kicks up to them. Your HR people are the made men, they're thugs, they're enforcers. You're an associate. Some associates will become made men (aka, will go the corporate route where they will enter the HR/director/stakeholder sector), but it's very rare. None of these people actually do any of the 'street level crime' of production, etc, or at least don't do most of them; that's you. The closest HR people do is their protection rackets; HR is literally a protection racket - 'you better hire us, you wouldn't want anything bad to happen, like someone accusing the company of being racist and getting sued, right?'

You're the associate whose job is to keep the whole ponzi scheme afloat, because corporatism puts growth over profit and inflates itself, like the mafia, which is just a crime ponzi scheme. This is why the Yakuza in Japan run like literal shadow corporations with (what used to be) thousands of members.

The issue is, these people will inflate and tank entire economies and use you, their associates, their low level street thugs, to do it and toy with your livelihoods over theirs.

>>72757
Good metaphor.