Posted by terps21234 on 8/16/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cmac4567 on 8/15/2015 8:28:00 AM (view original):
Wondering if these guys saying they don't use work computers for game playing has ever paid a bill or check their balance or used the "company equipment and internet" for something personal other than game playing? Its personal use no matter if its checking bills or playing a game. Also I for one have used my personal equipment on my time at home and not get paid for it. So if I use their equipment on my break I do not feel guilty at all because I take way more phone calls after hours for work and don't get paid.
I wish I worked at a company that had 100% efficiency where they got 100 % work for my hours and I got 100% of my off time to myself.
I really doubt that you do either but if you say you do that's awesome. Glad you work "far more than a normal work week" Most of us do. I also travel over 300 days a year on top of working more than a normal work so your not special a lot of us work more than 40 hrs.

Paying a bill or checking a balance on a work computer seems at best quite risky. Even if you have an employer who has already said they don't care, you have no way to know if your transaction is secure. Many workplaces monitor what is on their computers, which means someone (and perhaps several someones) can view everything you look at - including your account information, balances, etc. I've never done anything personal on a company computer for that reason among others.

I don't my equipment or work from home unless I'm getting paid for it. While I absolutely give my best efforts while being paid for it, I expect to be paid for my work and don't work unless that happens. My volunteer time is better spent for worthy causes, not for my employer.

I don't believe one wrongful action justifies another, and as such, I would not attempt to justify using company equipment because they have asked me to work and not get paid for it. I would simply tell them I expect to be paid for my work.

I sympathize with those who do not have good work situations such as the one you describe here. Your employer is taking advantage of you because they believe they can - and they're right if you don't say something about it. Of course it's your life and your job so it's up to you.

I give my best effort at my job, and when I"m not working, that is my time - unless I"m getting paid for it.  I would never allow my employer to expect me to work for free.

I get paid for my work which is far more than a normal work week. While perhaps many people on this forum also work many hours, I don't believe most people do so.  It is also worth noting that some who work extra hours may not have to do so if they were more efficient.

I'm not sure why you would reference whether or not I'm special when I never brought that up in the first place - although it is worth pointing out that I clearly have different views on work than many others here.

There you go again stating that you don't believe many people work many hours. STOP with your bullshit high horse. You have no idea what people do and who they work for. TRUST ME my work is way more important than yours. If you need a ladder to get down from that horse let me know, I can lend you one while I'm at work because I don't do anything. YOU must be some sort of executive, (CEO, Director, COO, CFO) by the way you are talking. 

Yes, I don't believe most people work over 40 hours per week. 

I don't need to be of any particular job to have my opinion, and there is no high horse.

Please stop making ridiculous assumptions in order to cast aspersions onto me simply because you disagree with my point of view.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/15/2015 12:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/12/2015 8:08:00 PM (view original):
No offense to anyone, but I don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to play games (any games, not just WIS) while at work. 

I'm an incredibly busy person myself, working far more than a normal work week. I could log on at work because we do not have any such monitoring or blocking software and no one would care - but I don't, because to be honest I have too much work to do.  Evidently not everyone's schedule is so busy, but even if I wasn't so swamped all the time, I still wouldn't play games at work, because  while I enjoy the games and like having fun as much as anyone, my background is that work is time to be productive, not play games. Again, no offense to anyone else.

So please forgive me if I am not overly sympathetic to this situation, but if I had that much free time to play WIS at work, I'd be asking my employer for a raise since I would be so productive as to get my work done and have that much time left over.

haha, you're a grade A sucker.

Please explain your comment.

Just the whole "if I ran out of work to do then I'd find my boss and ask for more work" type of song that you're singing. I pretty much agree with the whole notion of fair compensation and time resource management, but were you draw the line seems almost naïvely idealistic. I don't know where you work or what you do, and it may be different in your case, but if you knew how most companies viewed labor and human capital, then you might not owe them as much as you think that you do. Though, given your comments in general, I'd be willing to bet we probably disagree on several topics.

Of course I would ask for more work if I run out of work and I'm still being paid to work.  Doing anything less isn't giving my full effort.

I am fully cognizant of how many companies view labor and human capital. This is why I don't tolerate things such as those mentioned before, where a worker isn't being paid for work they perform.

A worker gets paid by their employer at the agreed upon compensation for performing the work. I have a problem with employers who don't pay when they should or the amount they agreed to, and I also have a problem with employees who don't perform the work they agreed to perform (i.e. taking time to play games when they should be working).

I'm fine with disagreeing or agreeing with you, or anyone. We all have the right to believe what we wish.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/16/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
this whole work argument is ridiculous. shawn, i agree with some of what you said, but really, its not particularly relevant and FYI you do come off the wrong way. easy to do on the forums but i don't get why you are devolving the discussion into something detailed about your own job, which is absolutely not relevant in any way.

at work, by law, you get some time off - in most states, thats 30m lunch and 2 15m breaks. a lot of people at my work skip the 15m breaks and have a working lunch at their desk. but if they sometimes want to take their legally mandated break, at their desk, surfing the internet - who the hell is anyone to tell them that's wrong? and FYI - only our salary folks have the OPTION of skipping their lunch. our hourly folks aren't even allowed to skip, they get called to HR if they do, because the company could get in trouble otherwise. of course, i agree if its work time and someone is on HD for an hour, its an issue. but for you to assume that is what people are doing, when they bring up using HD at work, its just very narrow minded of you (and entirely unproductive).

It is only possible for me to "come off the wrong way" if you assume things I did not say and do not mean. Take what I say for what it is.

I'm discussing what is relevant to the topic and responding to what others have to say.

I have no problem with breaks. Take your breaks. Just use your own device/connection if you want to use the internet on those breaks.

No company should be forcing employees to take breaks. In fact, if someone works through a break, they should get to leave early to make up for it, and it should be their choice.

I'm not assuming anything. People have specifically been discussing using work devices/connections for HD, and that's what I've been addressing.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/15/2015 12:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/12/2015 8:08:00 PM (view original):
No offense to anyone, but I don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to play games (any games, not just WIS) while at work. 

I'm an incredibly busy person myself, working far more than a normal work week. I could log on at work because we do not have any such monitoring or blocking software and no one would care - but I don't, because to be honest I have too much work to do.  Evidently not everyone's schedule is so busy, but even if I wasn't so swamped all the time, I still wouldn't play games at work, because  while I enjoy the games and like having fun as much as anyone, my background is that work is time to be productive, not play games. Again, no offense to anyone else.

So please forgive me if I am not overly sympathetic to this situation, but if I had that much free time to play WIS at work, I'd be asking my employer for a raise since I would be so productive as to get my work done and have that much time left over.

haha, you're a grade A sucker.

Please explain your comment.

Just the whole "if I ran out of work to do then I'd find my boss and ask for more work" type of song that you're singing. I pretty much agree with the whole notion of fair compensation and time resource management, but were you draw the line seems almost naïvely idealistic. I don't know where you work or what you do, and it may be different in your case, but if you knew how most companies viewed labor and human capital, then you might not owe them as much as you think that you do. Though, given your comments in general, I'd be willing to bet we probably disagree on several topics.

Of course I would ask for more work if I run out of work and I'm still being paid to work.  Doing anything less isn't giving my full effort.

I am fully cognizant of how many companies view labor and human capital. This is why I don't tolerate things such as those mentioned before, where a worker isn't being paid for work they perform.

A worker gets paid by their employer at the agreed upon compensation for performing the work. I have a problem with employers who don't pay when they should or the amount they agreed to, and I also have a problem with employees who don't perform the work they agreed to perform (i.e. taking time to play games when they should be working).

I'm fine with disagreeing or agreeing with you, or anyone. We all have the right to believe what we wish.

So, if you were getting paid $7.75 per hour to scrub sh*t out of toilets and you ran out of toilets, you'd rush to find your boss so he could show you more bathrooms??? I'd get it if somebody were getting paid $20 per toilet, but that's not the world we live in, is it???

It's also just as naïvely idealistic to claim that a person scrubbing sh*t out of toilets for $7.75 per hour 'agreed upon' that price with their employer.

Which is just a few reasons why this notion of production for productions sake rings very hollow to the majority of people.

>>> edited in <<<

And not to be cynical, but stuff precisely like "Of course I would ask for more work if I run out of work and I'm still being paid to work. Doing anything less isn't giving my full effort" is why I called you grade A sucker. Giving your 100% best at all times is something only kids playing little league are expected to believe in.

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/16/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
this whole work argument is ridiculous. shawn, i agree with some of what you said, but really, its not particularly relevant and FYI you do come off the wrong way. easy to do on the forums but i don't get why you are devolving the discussion into something detailed about your own job, which is absolutely not relevant in any way.

at work, by law, you get some time off - in most states, thats 30m lunch and 2 15m breaks. a lot of people at my work skip the 15m breaks and have a working lunch at their desk. but if they sometimes want to take their legally mandated break, at their desk, surfing the internet - who the hell is anyone to tell them that's wrong? and FYI - only our salary folks have the OPTION of skipping their lunch. our hourly folks aren't even allowed to skip, they get called to HR if they do, because the company could get in trouble otherwise. of course, i agree if its work time and someone is on HD for an hour, its an issue. but for you to assume that is what people are doing, when they bring up using HD at work, its just very narrow minded of you (and entirely unproductive).

It is only possible for me to "come off the wrong way" if you assume things I did not say and do not mean. Take what I say for what it is.

I'm discussing what is relevant to the topic and responding to what others have to say.

I have no problem with breaks. Take your breaks. Just use your own device/connection if you want to use the internet on those breaks.

No company should be forcing employees to take breaks. In fact, if someone works through a break, they should get to leave early to make up for it, and it should be their choice.

I'm not assuming anything. People have specifically been discussing using work devices/connections for HD, and that's what I've been addressing.

"It is only possible for me to "come off the wrong way" if you assume things I did not say and do not mean" - what the heck are you talking about? that literally makes no sense, i dont think you understand basic logic and reasoning. the other possibility is that you are talking like an arrogant blowhard and that we are talking you exactly at face value.

"No company should be forcing employees to take breaks" - you really have no idea what you are talking about on this one. there are these things called laws, that put requirements on businesses. there are these other things called unions, that are groups of organized labor, that put other requirements on businesses. both laws and unions put requirements on businesses surrounding breaks and overtime. i'm sorry to say this like you are a five year old, but you are showing incredible ignorance to some really basic concepts, so i figure i have no choice. you apparently think you are very smart, and maybe you are, but that doesn't mean you are knowledgeable about the situations everyone else is in.

edit: you say you don't make assumptions, but they are implicit everywhere in your posts. you say a couple posts above that you are also not ok with employers not paying employees when they should be but are also not ok with employees playing games when they should be working. why are you assuming anyone here is playing games while they should be working? why are you assuming its not while they are on break or lunch? also, you say here, play your games on break, but don't use a company device. why? what difference does it make? there's just a clear lack of logical flow to your arguments, its really more a collection of loosely related statements that really don't work together to make a point. 

This reminds me a little bit of He Who Must Not Be Named.

Posted by llamanunts on 8/16/2015 8:04:00 PM (view original):
This reminds me a little bit of He Who Must Not Be Named.

i was thinking the same thing.... for posterity, i better make this my last post in the thread ;)  (unless it goes back to a discussion about getting around the new changes maybe)

Damn you llama, I was about to ask if the was he who must not be named

****, I'll say it:

Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman, Candyman............*******.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 4:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 3:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 11:25:00 AM (view original):

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/15/2015 12:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/12/2015 8:08:00 PM (view original):
No offense to anyone, but I don't understand why so many people feel it necessary to play games (any games, not just WIS) while at work. 

I'm an incredibly busy person myself, working far more than a normal work week. I could log on at work because we do not have any such monitoring or blocking software and no one would care - but I don't, because to be honest I have too much work to do.  Evidently not everyone's schedule is so busy, but even if I wasn't so swamped all the time, I still wouldn't play games at work, because  while I enjoy the games and like having fun as much as anyone, my background is that work is time to be productive, not play games. Again, no offense to anyone else.

So please forgive me if I am not overly sympathetic to this situation, but if I had that much free time to play WIS at work, I'd be asking my employer for a raise since I would be so productive as to get my work done and have that much time left over.

haha, you're a grade A sucker.

Please explain your comment.

Just the whole "if I ran out of work to do then I'd find my boss and ask for more work" type of song that you're singing. I pretty much agree with the whole notion of fair compensation and time resource management, but were you draw the line seems almost naïvely idealistic. I don't know where you work or what you do, and it may be different in your case, but if you knew how most companies viewed labor and human capital, then you might not owe them as much as you think that you do. Though, given your comments in general, I'd be willing to bet we probably disagree on several topics.

Of course I would ask for more work if I run out of work and I'm still being paid to work.  Doing anything less isn't giving my full effort.

I am fully cognizant of how many companies view labor and human capital. This is why I don't tolerate things such as those mentioned before, where a worker isn't being paid for work they perform.

A worker gets paid by their employer at the agreed upon compensation for performing the work. I have a problem with employers who don't pay when they should or the amount they agreed to, and I also have a problem with employees who don't perform the work they agreed to perform (i.e. taking time to play games when they should be working).

I'm fine with disagreeing or agreeing with you, or anyone. We all have the right to believe what we wish.

So, if you were getting paid $7.75 per hour to scrub sh*t out of toilets and you ran out of toilets, you'd rush to find your boss so he could show you more bathrooms??? I'd get it if somebody were getting paid $20 per toilet, but that's not the world we live in, is it???

It's also just as naïvely idealistic to claim that a person scrubbing sh*t out of toilets for $7.75 per hour 'agreed upon' that price with their employer.

Which is just a few reasons why this notion of production for productions sake rings very hollow to the majority of people.

>>> edited in <<<

And not to be cynical, but stuff precisely like "Of course I would ask for more work if I run out of work and I'm still being paid to work. Doing anything less isn't giving my full effort" is why I called you grade A sucker. Giving your 100% best at all times is something only kids playing little league are expected to believe in.

I would have to be incredibly desperate to take a job scrubbing toilets for such a low wage. In fact, no one should be working for such low wages - they should not exist. The federal minimum wage in America should be much higher than it currently is based upon inflation alone. That's another issue, but is true regardless.

To your pointed question, I ask one of my own: What is the alternative? If I do not ask for more work, either A. the work is finished and I will not be paid any further, or B. more work exists and I am simply being lazy by being unwilling to perform it. Assuming I want to get paid for more than the work I've already done to that point (a reasonable conclusion if in fact the wages were so low), A is unacceptable. No matter the work, B is unacceptable. Therefore I repeat: What is the alternative?

No, we don't live in a world where people typically get paid $20 per toilet (though perhaps they should be - again, another discussion). However, you state this as though it has any bearing on the matter at hand when it does not. The work is the work, regardless of the rate of pay.  I always perform to the best of my ability at any given time regardless of the compensation.  Doing less is shameful laziness and an attempt to mask it with the excuse complaint about compensation.  If I am not happy with the compensation, I'll try to negotiate to make it better. If that doesn't work, I will find a different job.

It's not naive or idealistic to say someone agreed upon that price - it is simple fact, or they would not be performing the work in exchange for that compensation.  They could negotiate a better rate, or failing that, reject the job altogether.  This is not to say I agree with such a low form of compensation - see my statement above about minimum wage.

When I agree to perform a job for compensation, I agree to be productive for production's sake.  If it "rings hollow" to me, I should not take the job, and I should let someone who is willing to give it their all have it instead.

No one is entitled to a job, much less a good job. If you are going to do the work, do it to the best of your ability all the time.

I'm very reasonable on this. If someone who works for me told me they're deliberately not working very hard because of X excuse, I would ask what it would take to get them to work to full capacity. If it's doable, I'll make it happen and ask them to fulfill their end of the deal by working to full capacity. If it's not doable, I'll tell them what I can get them and ask them to work to capacity for that. If they won't agree, I'll ask them to resign so I can find someone who will.

Your statement here: Giving your 100% best at all times is something only kids playing little league are expected to believe in.

THAT attitude is exactly why America is seen as a joke by many other cultures and countries.  It's why other modern countries are overtaking America in many ways. While they are putting forth their best effort, Americans are making excuses and acting like only children should believe in giving the best effort.

I'm not saying that to be mean or anything of the sort - it is simple fact. The work ethic in America - not that of everyone, but of many - is abysmal when compared to that of others.

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/16/2015 7:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by shawnfucious on 8/16/2015 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by gillispie1 on 8/16/2015 2:00:00 PM (view original):
this whole work argument is ridiculous. shawn, i agree with some of what you said, but really, its not particularly relevant and FYI you do come off the wrong way. easy to do on the forums but i don't get why you are devolving the discussion into something detailed about your own job, which is absolutely not relevant in any way.

at work, by law, you get some time off - in most states, thats 30m lunch and 2 15m breaks. a lot of people at my work skip the 15m breaks and have a working lunch at their desk. but if they sometimes want to take their legally mandated break, at their desk, surfing the internet - who the hell is anyone to tell them that's wrong? and FYI - only our salary folks have the OPTION of skipping their lunch. our hourly folks aren't even allowed to skip, they get called to HR if they do, because the company could get in trouble otherwise. of course, i agree if its work time and someone is on HD for an hour, its an issue. but for you to assume that is what people are doing, when they bring up using HD at work, its just very narrow minded of you (and entirely unproductive).

It is only possible for me to "come off the wrong way" if you assume things I did not say and do not mean. Take what I say for what it is.

I'm discussing what is relevant to the topic and responding to what others have to say.

I have no problem with breaks. Take your breaks. Just use your own device/connection if you want to use the internet on those breaks.

No company should be forcing employees to take breaks. In fact, if someone works through a break, they should get to leave early to make up for it, and it should be their choice.

I'm not assuming anything. People have specifically been discussing using work devices/connections for HD, and that's what I've been addressing.

"It is only possible for me to "come off the wrong way" if you assume things I did not say and do not mean" - what the heck are you talking about? that literally makes no sense, i dont think you understand basic logic and reasoning. the other possibility is that you are talking like an arrogant blowhard and that we are talking you exactly at face value.

"No company should be forcing employees to take breaks" - you really have no idea what you are talking about on this one. there are these things called laws, that put requirements on businesses. there are these other things called unions, that are groups of organized labor, that put other requirements on businesses. both laws and unions put requirements on businesses surrounding breaks and overtime. i'm sorry to say this like you are a five year old, but you are showing incredible ignorance to some really basic concepts, so i figure i have no choice. you apparently think you are very smart, and maybe you are, but that doesn't mean you are knowledgeable about the situations everyone else is in.

edit: you say you don't make assumptions, but they are implicit everywhere in your posts. you say a couple posts above that you are also not ok with employers not paying employees when they should be but are also not ok with employees playing games when they should be working. why are you assuming anyone here is playing games while they should be working? why are you assuming its not while they are on break or lunch? also, you say here, play your games on break, but don't use a company device. why? what difference does it make? there's just a clear lack of logical flow to your arguments, its really more a collection of loosely related statements that really don't work together to make a point. 

What I said makes perfect sense. If you take what I say at face value, it is not possible to view it in the wrong way. It is only when you add in your own presumptions that this is possible.

You haven't taken me at face value yet. I haven't said a single thing out of arrogance, so please stop with assuming I have.

In my opinion there should be no law  which restricts an employee from opting to end early or come in late rather than taking the breaks.

I have no problem with most unions. In most cases when you see a union, it means a business tried to take unfair advantage of its (usually lower level) employees. Occasionally groups of employees with no need to unionize do it anyway, but by and large, unions exist to keep companies in line after they tried to cross said line.

I'm well aware of these situations. You don't need to inform me of any of them. 

I don't make assumptions. There are no implicit assumptions. I have only responded to what has actually been said.

Employees should not use a company device on break time because unless they have received specific permission to do so, it is a form of theft.  Put another way: What if someone just randomly walked into your home, sat at your computer and used your internet? Would that be OK with you? Same type of scenario.

If you don't see how my statements work together to make a point, that leaves two possibilities. Either A. I have no been clear or B. you didn't understand something despite my clarity. If it is A, I apologize, as I have tried to be clear. Please ask whatever questions you have to clear things up. If it is B, then please re-read what I've said and try to understand. If you still cannot, again, ask your questions and I will try to make it clear.

Yep, sure seems like Etta is back. Pretty soon he'll be posting during the day but he'll tellis he is on vacation.

To reduce post length and/or size, this is a direct reply to shawnfucious (please feel free catch yourself up):

Okay, as much as I really want to pick apart much what you're saying, I'll try to resist that urge. Luckily, your very first short paragraph(s) totally betray not only what you've previously said but most of your following arguments. Even though you might not be desperate enough to scrub toilets for that much money and nobody should have to work for such a low wage (let alone having to clean toilets at the same time) as you claim....however, there are people that desperate and the federal minimum wage is somewhere around that price. So no, even by your own admission it's not a negotiated price, its an unlivable (and unethical as you seem to hint) wage dictated to people to people with relatively few options. And since this wasn't clear in my last post: this does not just go for the low classes and working poor. Not to mention that due to the decline of manufacturing and organized labor in America, the ability for most middle-class people to actualize the idealism your expounding has actually declined as well. Next, round all that out with what terps & billyg were saying and you'll have a better picture of why almost nobody buys your propaganda ideas about production for productions sake. We're not your employees, so spare the rest of us your midday peptalks.

I found this short paragraph very informative, "If someone who works for me told me they're deliberately not working very hard because of X excuse, I would ask what it would take to get them to work to full capacity. If it's doable, I'll make it happen and ask them to fulfill their end of the deal by working to full capacity. If it's not doable, I'll tell them what I can get them and ask them to work to capacity for that. If they won't agree, I'll ask them to resign so I can find someone who will." I mean for real homie, how many times do you think this actual scenario has played out since the beginning of the industrial revolution??? I see what you're getting at, but again even this example is a highly idealized form of labor restructure on an individual level.

However, you really betray yourself with those last two short paragraphs. They mean that either (a) you really are a grade A sucker who most likely never got past that 'if only everybody tried their hardest then everything would be great' nonsense, (b) you most likely don't have a comprehensive understanding of the workforce and its relation to the economy, or (c) your parroting the talking points of some political standpoint. And here is just one of the reasons why: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/09/02/the-average-work-week-is-now-47-hours/  . I'll summarize it for you, of full-time employees the average work week is 47 hours...and guess what, it's been like that for while now. Wait, you say earlier that you believed most people didn't work 40 hours a week, right??? Not only that, americans' take vastly less vacation time than every industrial country, and that's just among the people that get paid vacation.

So, if some gangster sitting in a cubicle farm somewhere wants to spend an hour a week at work (out of the extra seven he or she probably isn't getting paid for) playing Hoops Dynasty...then I say go for it, brah.

Posted by nachopuzzle on 8/16/2015 11:30:00 PM (view original):
To reduce post length and/or size, this is a direct reply to shawnfucious (please feel free catch yourself up):

Okay, as much as I really want to pick apart much what you're saying, I'll try to resist that urge. Luckily, your very first short paragraph(s) totally betray not only what you've previously said but most of your following arguments. Even though you might not be desperate enough to scrub toilets for that much money and nobody should have to work for such a low wage (let alone having to clean toilets at the same time) as you claim....however, there are people that desperate and the federal minimum wage is somewhere around that price. So no, even by your own admission it's not a negotiated price, its an unlivable (and unethical as you seem to hint) wage dictated to people to people with relatively few options. And since this wasn't clear in my last post: this does not just go for the low classes and working poor. Not to mention that due to the decline of manufacturing and organized labor in America, the ability for most middle-class people to actualize the idealism your expounding has actually declined as well. Next, round all that out with what terps & billyg were saying and you'll have a better picture of why almost nobody buys your propaganda ideas about production for productions sake. We're not your employees, so spare the rest of us your midday peptalks.

I found this short paragraph very informative, "If someone who works for me told me they're deliberately not working very hard because of X excuse, I would ask what it would take to get them to work to full capacity. If it's doable, I'll make it happen and ask them to fulfill their end of the deal by working to full capacity. If it's not doable, I'll tell them what I can get them and ask them to work to capacity for that. If they won't agree, I'll ask them to resign so I can find someone who will." I mean for real homie, how many times do you think this actual scenario has played out since the beginning of the industrial revolution??? I see what you're getting at, but again even this example is a highly idealized form of labor restructure on an individual level.

However, you really betray yourself with those last two short paragraphs. They mean that either (a) you really are a grade A sucker who most likely never got past that 'if only everybody tried their hardest then everything would be great' nonsense, (b) you most likely don't have a comprehensive understanding of the workforce and its relation to the economy, or (c) your parroting the talking points of some political standpoint. And here is just one of the reasons why: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2014/09/02/the-average-work-week-is-now-47-hours/  . I'll summarize it for you, of full-time employees the average work week is 47 hours...and guess what, it's been like that for while now. Wait, you say earlier that you believed most people didn't work 40 hours a week, right??? Not only that, americans' take vastly less vacation time than every industrial country, and that's just among the people that get paid vacation.

So, if some gangster sitting in a cubicle farm somewhere wants to spend an hour a week at work (out of the extra seven he or she probably isn't getting paid for) playing Hoops Dynasty...then I say go for it, brah.

well said

Nacho just delivered the final blow.