Not sure how to approach solving the problem, but a good starting point is, if you have to have a policy that your employees have to act nice in certain ways beyond the natural niceness levels of random pairs of humans, you're creating an invisible dignity deficit
-
Show this thread
-
That, or you're somehow hiring exactly the wrong people. Like selecting the naturally rudest sorts of people for waiter jobs. Which is... not smart. Selecting for natural cheery/nice temperament otoh is fine. But demanding 15 pieces of flair means you're doing dignitynomics wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
And if otoh, your mix of incentives draws only the desperate who will comply with any kind of absurdly dignity assaulting policy, it means you're a predatory business. You're arbitraging baseline levels of misery/desperation and externalizing the costs.
1 reply 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
A much more explicit example of this is if your employees have to seek social welfare like food stamps to make ends meet in your full-time job. That's a straight-up subsidy you're taking advantage of. The state keeps 'em breathing, you suck out what life remains in them.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
There's an argument to be made here that this is the main problem with inequality. It is a condition stabilized by an accumulating dignity deficit problem that will blow up in our faces at some point and destroy wealth.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Now of course, there is such a thing as a reasonable expectation of respect for dignity that can get very unreasonable indeed. Here the US actually has good priors: nobody is any better or worse than anyone else.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Explicitly classist societies like India have historically had dignity levels and you only have a right to the dignity default of your level. This creates a sclerotic, compartmentalized economy, effectively regulated by dignity boundaries. Economies of scale are lost.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
But a reasonable response here is to let the market handle it. You can choose whatever dignity ideal you like, and jobs will be designed not to knowingly assault or drain your dignity. By not demanding pieces of flair etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
But you don't have the right to be employed at your chosen arbitrary dignity level far out of the 3-sigma bounds of humanity. You only have the right not to have it callously assaulted by work that is structurally blind to the fact that you are maintaining a dignity state at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @vgr
By the same token, those who surrender a basic dignity level for employment have no right to be free from mockery for having done so, however much essentially mercenary professionals insist that they have a right not to be socially identified as whores and pimps.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Possibly you could make a case for that, but legitimizing mockery for its own sake (as opposed to as a weapon of the weak to protect their interests) seems... unnecessary. You might as well argue women who commit adultery should be stoned.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
I am arguing precisely for delegitimizing any claim of the dignity-sellers larger than "I made a lot of money."
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.