Of course there’s a work ethic difference. Whether it’s a good or bad one for either side is up to you to decide.
-
-
Replying to @vgr
Well, I dunno...I think it'd be pretty challenging to "reprogram upper" and upper-middle class people to consistently put in a hard day's work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fmailhot
Now your biases are showing through. Most “working rich” upper middle and upper class people work horrendously hard, like 100-120 hour weeks, barely any sleep They enjoy it more than poor people who are forced to the same effort, but they aren’t lazy unless it’s inherited wealth
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
Maybe you can clarify your assertion that there are class-based differences in work ethic. Is it the rich or poor who don't work as hard? Also, [citation needed] re: your assertion that most "working rich" (whatever that means) work 100+ hr weeks. I'm...skeptical.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fmailhot
Why do you think it’s a difference in how hard they work? It’s attitude, style, anxiety levels, career expectations, competition/cooperation balance, backstabbing vs. mutual aid etc. A function of the kinds of roles the classes usually have
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
That was your assertion, not mine. The post I initially replied to pretty plainly reads like you take work ethic (and financial planning & education plans) to be class-based "attitudes".
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fmailhot
You’re still talking past me. I think you are assuming I’m implying the poor are lazier or something. I’m saying nothing of the sort. Just that the classes have different work ethics. Not better or worse.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Hm...it seems like you may be using "work ethic" to mean something *other* than (roughly) "level of [sustained] effort". I'd argue that's pretty non-standard, and now it's not clear to me what you meant at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fmailhot
Your sense of the term is very weird. Most uses I’ve seen simply mean an ethos of work. Like Weber’s protestant ethic. Good/bad is a further qualifier. Jobs differ in the conscientiousness, imagination, risk-taking they need. That’s what defines associated effective work ethics.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
Literally nobody I know uses the term that way. "Work ethic" is used to mean "how hard/long a person is willing to work", and nearly always has a value judgement attached. What you're defining sounds like "work style" or maybe "cognitive/affective engagement".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
When people use it that way, they usually qualify a work ethic as good/bad or say he/she lacks a work ethic. I think your reference set is all people who share a work ethic and differ only in how well they work by it. “Good vs. bad apple” != “apple vs orange”
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.