U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Callace]

Yeah, except when the employee accepts the job because he thinks the experience he gets from doing it is valuable enough for him to perform the work.

I mean, they both benefit if that's what the employee thinks. I don't work right now where I could earn the biggest bucks. I work at a place with lower wage, but because it's relevant to my education and career, the addition to my CV means it's more valuable for me to work here than at another place I used to work at before.

Diurdi, the US already has that. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying that the benefit has to be *measurable*. It can't be subjective. Subjectivity isn't worth anything in that situation. It has to be time towards a certification, skilled-job program, college credit hour, SOMETHING. Otherwise it is worthless. Your individual opinion isn't going to change that.

No one even wants to work without receiving training or money in return. That you would suggest otherwise is just bizarre.

[Deleted]

Diurdi, the US already has that. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying that the benefit has to be *measurable*. It can't be subjective. Subjectivity isn't worth anything in that situation. It has to be time towards an certification, skilled-job program, college credit hour, SOMETHING. Otherwise it is worthless. Your individual opinion isn't going to change that.

No one even wants to work without receiving training or money in return. That you would suggest otherwise is just bizarre.

I would instantly accept a temp job for an entry position at the Finnish Central Bank for example, and I would do it for free.

And it's completely foolish to say that it can't be subjective. Value is subjective. Who are you to decide for me what is valuable for my future career? People choose what jobs to seek, not just based on wage, but a lot of subjective factors as well. Heck, the value of the wage is subjective as well.

[Callace]

A lot of people would call 'experience' and 'references' as proven benefits. I think you should step outside of your narrow perspective and allow for the idea that not everyone thinks like you, and that people don't need you looking over their shoulder to make sure that they're not 'taken advantage of.'

Narrow must signify "taking place on the planet Earth". Are you looking for cheap labor or something? I don't see you offering your services for free.

[bergmann620]

Who are you to decide for me

The essence of libertarian vs progressive.

[Callace]

I would instantly accept a temp job for an entry position at the Finnish Central Bank for example, and I would do it for free.

Vaunted institutions are limited by the refinements of the workload as well as payola. Take Blizzard for example. They could easily afford to hire many more interns and staffers. The reason they don't? They would get in the fucking way.

Who are you to decide for me what is valuable for my future career?

If you lived in the U.S. and wanted a similar position at a U.S. bank, they would offer you educational credit that you would actually use. I'm sure a lot of people want to work for free at places like say...NASA, but again, read my above comment.

[ptwonline]

And the end result is going to be that it'll be even harder to start a career in that field.


Jesus christ, don't you guys think about what you're saying? If law firms suddenly have to pay proper wages to interns, the end result is that they'll take much fewer interns.

And this results in a fucked up situation, where young people wishing to start a career are willing to do intern work at much lower compensation, and the employer is willing to hire the person at the price the person is content with - Yet they can't because of people like you. People who think you know what's best for the rest of us, when you have no clue.

If law firms were not allowed to exploit internships as sources of cheap/free labor, the industry definitely would change. There will still be the demand for lawyers so there will NOT be a decrease in law jobs. The routes to getting those careers will simply look different, and will not be nearly as exploitive as it is now.

There is definitely a place for internship, but there needs to a be a balance of competing interests. Internship rules could lead employers to abuse it by simply classifying almost whoever they want to as "interns". Internships could also replace actual paying jobs which is bad for the economy. Generally speaking, IMO it needs to be a pretty limited time period and tied to a formal education/training system of some kind.

[bergmann620]

Narrow must signify "taking place on the planet Earth". Are you looking for cheap labor or something? I don't see you offering your services for free.

If you offered me a chance to work at Bungie, MS, Blizzard, Google, etc for 6 weeks for free, I would do it in a HEARTBEAT if I could afford to. If I were 16-20, I would have been able to afford to.

I'm probably past that point in my life, but, luckily for me, I am capable of making that decision for myself.

[Callace]

If you offered me a chance to work at Bungie, MS, Blizzard, Google, etc for 6 weeks for free, I would do it in a HEARTBEAT if I could afford to. If I were 16-20, I would have been able to afford to.

I'm probably past that point in my life, but, luckily for me, I am capable of making that decision for myself.

I totally agree, but there is a problem with that sentiment. Read my above statement:

Vaunted institutions are limited by the refinements of the workload as well as payola. Take Blizzard for example. They could easily afford to hire many more interns and staffers. The reason they don't? They would get in the fucking way.

They wouldn't have room for you even if they didn't have to pay you. Overstaffing becomes a liability when the task is a matter of refinement.

[Deleted]

Vaunted institutions are limited by the refinements of the workload as well as payola. Take Blizzard for example. They could easily afford to hire many more interns and staffers. They reason they don't? They would get in the fucking way.

No, the Finnish Central Bank takes on "summer workers", but there's a limited number of those so only folks with the absolute highest grades/references get the positions. It's pretty freaking sweet for your future to have that as a job experience.

My point was that there are people who would be willing to work for free, because the value of the experience is high enough to justify it. Not that all instutions would hire endless amounts of people if it was free labor.

[Callace]

I worked for Rockstar games on contract as an advertiser while they were still on the rise, freelance event coordination.

They could afford to pay me and they did. At the time, there were a lot of similar positions, and anyone who exerted enough effort could land one.

There was no reason for them not to pay me.

[Lenonis]

This conversation really seems to have lost sight of the fact that demand drives jobs, regardless of pay. A company isn't going to hire 100 free workers if they don't have anything for them to do...

[Callace]

No, the Finnish Central Bank takes on "summer workers", but there's a limited number of those so only folks with the absolute highest grades/references get the positions. It's pretty freaking sweet for your future to have that as a job experience.

My point was that there are people who would be willing to work for free, because the value of the experience is high enough to justify it. Not that all instutions would hire endless amounts of people if it was free labor.

And my point is that there are enough institutions that offer internships with experiences that are actually accredited towards something, that there is no reason for people to want to work for nothing. And I won't deny the exceptions, but honestly, I don't think they are limited strictly by matters of money. Simply dropping a regulation won't give you a shortcut to what you're seeking.

[bergmann620]

I totally agree, but there is a problem with that sentiment. Read my above statement:

They wouldn't have room for you even if they didn't have to pay you. Overstaffing becomes a liability when the task is a matter of refinement.

That is understood. There are, however, many, many people who see dozens of other companies that don't suffer from that 'problem' in the same light.

I just don't see this as a problem that warrants government intervention.

It's just a different viewpoint- you look at it from the top down- people need to be paid enough to afford what they deserve and what they are entitled to. I look at things from the other side- what you earn determines what you are entitled to.

When you look at it your way, it will never be enough. I feel badly for people that fall into that trap. I don't feel badly because I am forced to drive a used car, because I couldn't buy a new house, or because I have to clip coupons. It's the way it is. There have ALWAYS been poorer and richer people, more and less talented people, more and less industrious people. I don't think those on the bottom of the list should starve/die, but I also don't think they should be living high on the hog when I'm working my ass off to feed it.

---------- Post added 2012-06-12 at 02:40 PM ----------

And my point is that there are enough institutions that offer internships with experiences that are actually accredited towards something, that there is no reason for people to want to work for nothing.

If I were in that position, the hunger/drive to do it for free would be one of my competitive advantages. There would certainly be people that wouldn't or couldn't do it. That betters my chances.

[Bobdoletoo]

All the Obama hate is kind of weird....

It is faster to make a mess then to clean up a mess

Bush and the Republicans (both back then and now) where the ones that made a huge mess and Obama is the person that has to clean it up.

How can there be a mess, the government has thrown more money at it's problems then any administration in history. What mess? The private sector is doing fine.

[Callace]

That is understood. There are, however, many, many people who see dozens of other companies that don't suffer from that 'problem' in the same light.

I just don't see this as a problem that warrants government intervention.

It's just a different viewpoint- you look at it from the top down- people need to be paid enough to afford what they deserve and what they are entitled to. I look at things from the other side- what you earn determines what you are entitled to.

When you look at it your way, it will never be enough. I feel badly for people that fall into that trap. I don't feel badly because I am forced to drive a used car, because I couldn't buy a new house, or because I have to clip coupons. It's the way it is. There have ALWAYS been poorer and richer people, more and less talented people, more and less industrious people. I don't think those on the bottom of the list should starve/die, but I also don't think they should be living high on the hog when I'm working my ass off to feed it.

I think the exceptions are few enough that they can be worked around in most cases. I see deregulating internships as a green light for companies to make free labor the norm, which would pose an enormous problem to people just trying to eek by and do something with themselves.

As for entitlement. I think the whole concept is just a bogus and unnecessary abstraction. "Earn" and "deserve" are simply a mutual agreement between two forces. If regulation is necessary to keep one force from becoming marginalized despite their own initiative, then so be it.

[bergmann620]

As for entitlement. I think the whole concept is just a bogus and unnecessary abstraction. "Earn" and "deserve" are simply a mutual agreement between two forces. If regulation is necessary to keep one force from becoming marginalized despite their own initiative, then so be it.

First off, I don't see it as an abstraction.

Second off, if regulation is the answer, it begs the question:

Considering the fact that there is MORE regulation than ever before, a minimum wage, very limited unpaid internships, etc, etc... Why do we simultaneously have exploding wealth differentials, high unemployment, and seemingly less life satisfaction (even in the face of the highest absolute standard of living across the board)?

It seems that more government regulation is tied to less personal regulation (responsibility). You could make the case that minimum wage statutes, increased protections, etc are primary contributors to the downfall of unions and the protections they offered.

[Deleted]

And my point is that there are enough institutions that offer internships with experiences that are actually accredited towards something, that there is no reason for people to want to work for nothing. And I won't deny the exceptions, but honestly, I don't think they are limited strictly by matters of money. Simply dropping a regulation won't give you a shortcut to what you're seeking.

But if you don't study anymore? In Finland we do not get any accreditation btw, people are willing to work for shitty wages if the job is relevant for their careers.

[ptwonline]

How can there be a mess, the government has thrown more money at it's problems then any administration in history. What mess? The private sector is doing fine.

The private sector is doing fine...if you're an owner. If you're a worker it's been pretty mediocre at best. But private sector employment has been bad since Clinton left office. The only thing that kept Bush's job numbers afloat were the higher levels of public sector hiring. Public sector has shrunk under Obama.



If public sector hiring under Bush had been the same as it has been under Obama, unemployment would have soared under Bush. The private sector recovery has been faster under Obama.

[Deleted]

As for entitlement. I think the whole concept is just a bogus and unnecessary abstraction. "Earn" and "deserve" are simply a mutual agreement between two forces. If regulation is necessary to keep one force from becoming marginalized despite their own initiative, then so be it.

But this isn't the case. Instead what we have is a third party deciding what's best for another person, even if that other person doesn't think that it is best for himself.

[Callace]

First off, I don't see it as an abstraction.

As far as the English language is concerned, it is not a concrete noun. I don't think it is a word that can be measured.

Considering the fact that there is MORE regulation than ever before, a minimum wage, very limited unpaid internships, etc, etc... Why do we simultaneously have exploding wealth differentials, high unemployment, and seemingly less life satisfaction (even in the face of the highest absolute standard of living across the board)?

Correlation isn't causation.

It seems that more government regulation is tied to less personal regulation (responsibility). You could make the case that minimum wage statutes, increased protections, etc are primary contributors to the downfall of unions and the protections they offered.

Union support diminishing because of labor laws I can see. There is some redundancy there. For example, when I worked as a strip miner, we didn't have to deal with unionization because MSHA was already very thorough (not that I see that as a negative, mining is extremely fucking dangerous work). Although the protections and wages that are offered by unions far exceed anything at the federal level, naturally.

---------- Post added 2012-06-12 at 07:02 PM ----------

In Finland we do not get any accreditation btw, people are willing to work for shitty wages if the job is relevant for their careers.

Then in your situation, you would have to decide on whether to roll forward with accreditation or backward with regulation. In the U.S. our career relevancy has already been pretty well codified.