If my time isn't free to use as I will it's work. I don't care if it involves zero physical strain or if I'm on a call or in a meeting. Being in a meeting is obviously work.
Your company is trying to get you to work as many hours as possible for as little money as possible, as a working person you should strive for the opposite. As a worker you are selling your labor (of which you possess a limited amount) and any rational actor in a capitalist society should attempt to maximize the gains on what they have to sell by charging the buyer as much as they can for as little as they can. I don't expect a large corporation to strive for less profit because they're "already making more than they did before".
To be clear I don't _like_ this state of affairs but so long as these are the rules ignoring them only deprives yourself and helps your company.
You are ranting, but not addressing the point that was made. The post above mine wanted work to become a "much smaller part of most people's lives."
I'm all for maximizing the earnings I make while working, and to be honest, sure, I'd like to build platforms and methods to earn passive income while I am not working. But I don't think it is necessary or required to somehow normalize a 20 or 30 hour work week. Further, I recognize that if my workday allows me to sit in a chair all day, as opposed to hard physical labor in harsh weather, then the moment my work ends, I'm physically capable of whatever leisure activity I want to enjoy. You might technically "work" by sitting in meetings for the same number of hours as people whose bodies are broken down by 40 due to backbreaking labor, but obviously you haven't "sold" your labor to the same extent.
Excellent party/social game. An additional variant we play with is to create an "Oops, All Spies" deck to throw in the random selection. Everyone believing that they are the only one who doesn't know the location inevitably leads to hilarity.
Because value is a combination of human labor AND the means of production and the means of production aren't owned by working people. I can start making cheeseburgers but McDonald's owns the efficient equipment, the marketing, the good locations to sell them, etc. such that I can't possibly make profit outside their system. So I'm forced to essentially rent space in their kitchen in order to be compensated.
The idea that because someone doesn't have specialized skills means that they don't deserve a living wage is a bit silly. You're appealing to free market principles as a justification of free market principles. You're attacking this specific person for her poor financial skills but ignoring the larger issue of ALL the people Yelp hires and pays less than $10/hr and all the people in the country in similar positions. As long as we accept that someone has to do these jobs and that the unemployed and underpaid have very little leverage then this has to be seen as a systematic problem and not an individual failing.
I never said they don't need to be paid a living wage. I said that they shouldn't expect to be making tons of money for that kind of work.
Based on her article, she made $19,064.24 a year, or $1,588.68 a month. Is that a lot of money? Not really, but you can make it work. The key is to actually live within your means. Cut the expensive cell phone bill. Get some roommates. Stop eating out and going out for drinks all the time. Sell your expensive car and get a cheaper one (or just bike if you can).
I agree that people should be paid a living wage, but I also think people should be responsible for what they do with their money. If you don't like your current job, work to find a better one. Don't just complain about it on the internet.
Did you consider that maybe making a tiny wage is better than no wage at all? Even in SF? Did you consider that maybe she has personal/family reasons to live where she does?
It just seems a little ridiculous to suggest someone just "get another job" somewhere else without knowing basically anything about their situation. It also deflects from the issue that Yelp is paying these ridiculously low wages to their full time employees.
Why not care about a name? To someone who cares about animal rights the name "Meat!" and cute little pictures of steaks trivializes and normalizes something they might find abhorrent. You wouldn't name your app "Abortion!" and if you find yourself saying "well, that's far more offensive than 'Meat!'" then that's just you assuming your values apply to everyone.
Also, there's a bit of a gap between being uncomfortable with something and being "impossible to keep happy".
They can of course name their app whatever they want, but it seems to me that if you're selling something as innocuous as a git hosting platform that you'd do your best to distance yourself from something so needlessly alienating to potential customers.
> Also, there's a bit of a gap between being uncomfortable with something and being "impossible to keep happy".
In may experience (everybody else's may of course vary!) people who are easy to offend are also difficult to please. I deal with difficult people in my day job, I like a break from them in my personal projects!
> but it seems to me that if you're selling something
Now that is a significant point - once you are actively selling on an open market then commercial concerns (if nothing else) dictate you be careful about naming.
Of course there is nothing to stop you haveing two names: the free-for-personal use "Agent Ransack" also goes by "File Locator Pro" for commercial licenses, presumably because the latter sounds more professional.
Your company is trying to get you to work as many hours as possible for as little money as possible, as a working person you should strive for the opposite. As a worker you are selling your labor (of which you possess a limited amount) and any rational actor in a capitalist society should attempt to maximize the gains on what they have to sell by charging the buyer as much as they can for as little as they can. I don't expect a large corporation to strive for less profit because they're "already making more than they did before".
To be clear I don't _like_ this state of affairs but so long as these are the rules ignoring them only deprives yourself and helps your company.