623
Anon envies his wife's make believe job
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
623 points (96.7% liked)
Greentext
3941 readers
1458 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
It's because anon can't spell than
Or she's paid for her skills/experience/contacts, and ~~he~~ anon doesn't have any of those.
edit: She probably makes lots of money for her employer in those 1 or 2 conversations per day
Doesn't make it not absurd.
Eh, I'm not pro-management or anything. Maybe anon should be angry at their higher-ups instead of being annoyed at the success of their wife
Doesn't seem to me like op is annoyed at wifes success. Op os annoyed that bullshit jobs make tons of money and the actual hard work only earns you a broken body, depression, and poverty.
You dont think laborers deserve ample time off and good pay?
Please explain your position.
Yes, I'm an actual monster. /s.
No! I was speculating about the anon's situation, as are you. Maybe they have a job at a factory, risking life and limb every day. Maybe they just dislike their boring office position. Maybe they dig ditches and their back will give out before retirement. We don't know. I did imply that they were unfairly compensated here:
And yes, I did read "My wife has a make-believe job and it's kinda annoying" as them being annoyed specifically at their wife rather than their own work situation. This is because they were disparaging their wife's job with "make-believe", which seemed dismissive to me. It doesn't seem like a stretch to go from "dismissive of their wife's job" to "dismissive of their wife". But I could see how you could interpret it the other way.
This may not be the case here, but I have noticed that there is a specific subset of embittered marxists (?) who believe that work is strictly either back-breaking and life-ruining, or "not real work".
The way it was explained to me once is that you're either selling your body or your brain, and selling your brain pretty much automatically makes you "small bourgeois" (because you're like the modern equivalent of a 19th century artisan) which is a social class supposedly directly opposed to the proletariat.
I think it's a fundamental mistake to try to fit a modern social class/role that didn't exist in Marx's time through a 19th century lens and that trying to make a hierarchy of working classes is wrong, but it's an interesting perspective nonetheless that at least explains some of the discourse we see in threads like this.
It's about the value of your work. Some people work their bodies and generate hundreds of dollars worth of value in a day. Some people work their minds and/or charisma and generate hundreds of thousands in value. Mastering a high value skill is a good way to move up in the world.
Of course all laborors deserve time off and pay based accurately on the value they generate. But if their value is based on their hours worked then their schedule will never be as lax as OPs wife.
Considering a ton of jobs rely on having absolutely shit pay in order for them to be profitable there needs to be a better way to calculate value. There are also a bunch of jobs where it isn't exactly possible to calculate the value generated. I keep a department running smoothly, work on communications between departments, and do a bunch of manual labor that is needed, but I'm only valued at the manual labor...
No one should be working full time and still be unable to be independent.
Why would it make it absurd? Those few conversations possibly bring the company incredible value. Just because someone works hard doesn't mean their job has incredible value, since effort isn't proportional to value.
Why is it absurd to be paid based on the value you generate?
We don't know who those customers are. If she's meeting with Google and Microsoft, or Walmart and Safeway, then "one or two customers" is huge.
Also, we are seeing an easy day for her. Many people are hired for when the shit hits the fan. If there's a huge recall that jeopardizes all the business with Walmart and Safeway, or some similar issue that affects Google and Microsoft, you better believe she's doing more than 2 hours of work. That's probably what she's waiting for.
That's a lot of assumptions. I think it's equally probable that in this insane reality we live in, she doesn't actually do shit and is basically paid so that her salary won't get cut from her department's annual budget.