[mlhpdx]

> This is an appealing narrative without evidence.

I had the same thought, but I’m grateful to the author for putting their opinions out for us to see.

It is an interesting quandary - getting “more” from someone, pragmatic or otherwise, raises questions. Is the premise that they aren’t providing value on a level with salary? Or, is it that the business has a right/obligation to extract more? The latter is offensive, fundamentally because “value” may be arbitrarily (perhaps capriciously) determined.

On the other hand, I find the folks suggesting that doing an hours work a day is fine. It’s not. That’s equally offensive.

[OkayPhysicist]

Labor relations are intrinsically adversarial. The employer wants to pay as little as they can get away with for as much work as possible, the employee wants to be paid as much as possible for as little work as they can get away with.

This article is written for the employer's side, trying to optimize their game. The employees trying to normalize working approximately nothing are optimizing their side.

It's not offensive, it's just economics.

[bb88]

Many employees are trying to minimize their work. (Do we really need to fill out 10 TPS reports that no one reads?) Often the ones who are doing the most menial tasks would definitely want to do something else more meaningful

Not everyone wants to work less. Many want a path to make an impact to the organization, but don't see how. They'd rather just be quiet engineers/accountants/office workers/etc.

[mlhpdx]

As an employer/owner/investor I’m not trying to minimize expenses I’m trying to maximize growth/value. Abusing people is not a path to success by that metric.

[fuzzfactor]

One disconnect is that most employers are not personally the owners, and most owners do not actually own as much as the investors.

No surprise they do it the other way around when they don't have the collective talent to maximize value and have it result in growth.