For a time I did some job stacking, but quit after some time one of the jobs. What killed it for me were the meetings. Most of them, I'd say 90%, completely useless, but it was not only the time spent on meetings, it is also the fact that a half-hour meeting steals your productive soul for at least a couple hours. I've never found something more demotivating, more detrimental to focus and concentration than useless meetings.
A meetings-heavy job easily robs you of at least 50% of your productivity.
Loads of nurses accept bonuses contingent on serving a certain amount of time in a given place or hospital system. Then they leave and take another job before their time has been served. You know what happens to them? Also not prosecution or even civil clawback.
I get it. We have more people than we know what to do with but kneecapping guys who will work as hard as they have capacity to, doesn’t make someone else more useful all of a sudden.
If people like Vaish had even a drop of self-awareness and integrity, they would admit that they respond to Tortuga this way because they are extremely high in conscientiousness, and therefore are suspicious of all attempts to act or seek status "outside the system".
In Vaish's case specifically, since he is an H1B immigrant, he as a lot of material incentive to try to follow the rules and pretend that taking such a stance is more ethical than other choices. Plus, he is engaged to (are they married yet? Would it even be appropriate to call what they have marriage?) to a 'woman' who is literal embodiment of the hyperized HR mentality gripping our society. The fact that Walt aggressively hit on his fianceé is a direct reminder that he is too feeble to inspire real desire in her.
The job of most public intellectuals is to defend the integrity of existing systems (whether or not that starts out as their goal, that is what it tends to become), so someone who intentionally chooses to brand against that all while admitting it's self-serving is triggering; because it shines a light on their own self-serving behavior; but as impotent intellectuals, they have to be much more indirect about their ambitions. Rather than embracing being rapacious alligators or whatever.
It's all a signaling game, the idea that the money from these companies is not tracking any underlying value does not enter in as a consideration. The worst part is that the behavior of people like Vaish provides cover for those who do fraud the system, but are polite enough to hide it behind existing social norms. (Ask him whether he thinks Walt or SBF is more evil, and watch him waffle and squirm trying to justify his answer.)
I’ve listened to their podcast and liked it. They had a disagreement on a certain issue I’ll leave out and thought his response was great. I also like and respect Regan. I’m sure I have disagreements with both.
Having said that, I can totally wrap my head around not wanting to expand the amount of disciplines open to fraud but job stacking is one of the last places I’d look because I have have hundreds of people report to me over the years and have taken action against every person who knowingly got in the way of getting things done. I honestly don’t think I would tolerate ANY form of drag from someone so congrats to them is they somehow made me richer and also someone else.
I would probably focus on red tape, NGO’s education, public health, environmental causes, social justice, medicine, etc.
They can discuss anything they like but I think that the job stacking thing is small potatoes and I have trouble finding a victim unless, of course, you think someone else who is not doing one of those jobs somehow deserves it more than the person currently doing it.
Not for nothing, someone worked for my friend and was job stacking and he didn’t even have to fire her. He was on her case about productivity and HR swooped in after taking a look at her activity.
Would be better if we emphasized merit but instead we’ll argue about whether strong people are too strong.
We should all stop pretending like the system doesn't function as a nightmarish monster designed to eat people. The mercenary mindset (within general legality) is the only ethical option when dealing with a system that uses ethics as a facade to crush people under its brutality.
A good, concise article on the topic. Moralizing objections to Job-Stacking are generally absurd convolutions of wage-cage mentality, as if jobs are in themselves precious, scarce commodities needing fair distribution rather than agreements to mutually provide value between manager and laborer.
While I have also argued that the business-side interest is generally to milk you of every productive drop for the least-cost possible, it isn't bad to still do the spirit of the job that will satisfy the relevant side of the contract. What is available to those with the will, discipline, and competency however is to discern what is that spirit-of-work to bowl a strike in your employment versus the Corpo-bumper tubes in that contract that could be safely ignored in sending the ball down the lane. If you can handle working multiple jobs while satisfying your employers and you want to do it, then I have found no real moral objection to it.
For those hungry for another cool-kid nonsense essay on the morality of substacking, my article is also available for perusal.
"Ironically, leftists of a generation ago would have agreed with me, but now that they control the institutions, they have become the establishments biggest supporters. Sad."
Some leftists, like me, would still agree with you
The truth is the vast majority of humans in general have no principles beyond power & immediate self-interest. This applies to the vast majority of the right & left.
The way one can discern the small minority of each side that actually has principles is which individual people stick by their views through thick & through thin, when it is disadvantagous to do so & harms their other possible motives such as ego.
It's less than 10% of both sides (& even less of “centrists”, who mostly are just taking the most agreeable position possible to avoid conflict).
I have a strange suspicion that the job stacking idea is actually an elaborate trap. It is supposed to provoke reactions that prove that the Left is now 100% on the side of Capitalism. This picture hints at it - blue hair is associated with feminism, which is Leftist, and here she is a corporate manager. (Does this happen in real life?)
I mean there is something utterly absurd for a Leftist to argue that sticking it to Capitalism is somehow bad. And perhaps the point is to point this out?
Capitalism somehow managed to hijack lots of Leftism... not all, but lots.
I am not taking the bait. Stick it to Capitalism. Use part of the money to support someone who is poorer than you. Donate generously to your local food bank or homeless shelter. Be part of a system of redistribution, of the best kind, the anarchist kind.
Did he have any problems getting the new job? How did he handle job history/references?
I imagine job stacking varies a lot based on the norms of the industry (my own career would be over if the like four companies that do what I do found I was double dipping).
But I can imagine some industries where nobody cares and don’t bother trying to find out.
I'd have to ask him, but I would assume he just listed only his original Job One for that period. It's pretty uncommon for tech for companies to want to contact your original employer, or even really to ask for references. So that is something to consider depending on the industry.
Yeah my own industry that wouldn't fly. I think the validity of job stacking ad advice depends on the nature of the industry and your personal career. The easier it is for hire/fire and anonymity the more it makes sense.
For a time I did some job stacking, but quit after some time one of the jobs. What killed it for me were the meetings. Most of them, I'd say 90%, completely useless, but it was not only the time spent on meetings, it is also the fact that a half-hour meeting steals your productive soul for at least a couple hours. I've never found something more demotivating, more detrimental to focus and concentration than useless meetings.
A meetings-heavy job easily robs you of at least 50% of your productivity.
Loads of nurses accept bonuses contingent on serving a certain amount of time in a given place or hospital system. Then they leave and take another job before their time has been served. You know what happens to them? Also not prosecution or even civil clawback.
I get it. We have more people than we know what to do with but kneecapping guys who will work as hard as they have capacity to, doesn’t make someone else more useful all of a sudden.
If people like Vaish had even a drop of self-awareness and integrity, they would admit that they respond to Tortuga this way because they are extremely high in conscientiousness, and therefore are suspicious of all attempts to act or seek status "outside the system".
In Vaish's case specifically, since he is an H1B immigrant, he as a lot of material incentive to try to follow the rules and pretend that taking such a stance is more ethical than other choices. Plus, he is engaged to (are they married yet? Would it even be appropriate to call what they have marriage?) to a 'woman' who is literal embodiment of the hyperized HR mentality gripping our society. The fact that Walt aggressively hit on his fianceé is a direct reminder that he is too feeble to inspire real desire in her.
The job of most public intellectuals is to defend the integrity of existing systems (whether or not that starts out as their goal, that is what it tends to become), so someone who intentionally chooses to brand against that all while admitting it's self-serving is triggering; because it shines a light on their own self-serving behavior; but as impotent intellectuals, they have to be much more indirect about their ambitions. Rather than embracing being rapacious alligators or whatever.
It's all a signaling game, the idea that the money from these companies is not tracking any underlying value does not enter in as a consideration. The worst part is that the behavior of people like Vaish provides cover for those who do fraud the system, but are polite enough to hide it behind existing social norms. (Ask him whether he thinks Walt or SBF is more evil, and watch him waffle and squirm trying to justify his answer.)
I’ve listened to their podcast and liked it. They had a disagreement on a certain issue I’ll leave out and thought his response was great. I also like and respect Regan. I’m sure I have disagreements with both.
Having said that, I can totally wrap my head around not wanting to expand the amount of disciplines open to fraud but job stacking is one of the last places I’d look because I have have hundreds of people report to me over the years and have taken action against every person who knowingly got in the way of getting things done. I honestly don’t think I would tolerate ANY form of drag from someone so congrats to them is they somehow made me richer and also someone else.
I would probably focus on red tape, NGO’s education, public health, environmental causes, social justice, medicine, etc.
They can discuss anything they like but I think that the job stacking thing is small potatoes and I have trouble finding a victim unless, of course, you think someone else who is not doing one of those jobs somehow deserves it more than the person currently doing it.
Not for nothing, someone worked for my friend and was job stacking and he didn’t even have to fire her. He was on her case about productivity and HR swooped in after taking a look at her activity.
Would be better if we emphasized merit but instead we’ll argue about whether strong people are too strong.
Insects: “JUST FOLLOW THE RULES!”
Tortugans: “Can’t, too busy stacking cash and quoting Pirates of the Caribbean, peace out.”
We should all stop pretending like the system doesn't function as a nightmarish monster designed to eat people. The mercenary mindset (within general legality) is the only ethical option when dealing with a system that uses ethics as a facade to crush people under its brutality.
A good, concise article on the topic. Moralizing objections to Job-Stacking are generally absurd convolutions of wage-cage mentality, as if jobs are in themselves precious, scarce commodities needing fair distribution rather than agreements to mutually provide value between manager and laborer.
While I have also argued that the business-side interest is generally to milk you of every productive drop for the least-cost possible, it isn't bad to still do the spirit of the job that will satisfy the relevant side of the contract. What is available to those with the will, discipline, and competency however is to discern what is that spirit-of-work to bowl a strike in your employment versus the Corpo-bumper tubes in that contract that could be safely ignored in sending the ball down the lane. If you can handle working multiple jobs while satisfying your employers and you want to do it, then I have found no real moral objection to it.
For those hungry for another cool-kid nonsense essay on the morality of substacking, my article is also available for perusal.
https://thenorme.substack.com/p/the-morality-of-job-stacking
"Ironically, leftists of a generation ago would have agreed with me, but now that they control the institutions, they have become the establishments biggest supporters. Sad."
Some leftists, like me, would still agree with you
The truth is the vast majority of humans in general have no principles beyond power & immediate self-interest. This applies to the vast majority of the right & left.
The way one can discern the small minority of each side that actually has principles is which individual people stick by their views through thick & through thin, when it is disadvantagous to do so & harms their other possible motives such as ego.
It's less than 10% of both sides (& even less of “centrists”, who mostly are just taking the most agreeable position possible to avoid conflict).
I have a strange suspicion that the job stacking idea is actually an elaborate trap. It is supposed to provoke reactions that prove that the Left is now 100% on the side of Capitalism. This picture hints at it - blue hair is associated with feminism, which is Leftist, and here she is a corporate manager. (Does this happen in real life?)
I mean there is something utterly absurd for a Leftist to argue that sticking it to Capitalism is somehow bad. And perhaps the point is to point this out?
Capitalism somehow managed to hijack lots of Leftism... not all, but lots.
I am not taking the bait. Stick it to Capitalism. Use part of the money to support someone who is poorer than you. Donate generously to your local food bank or homeless shelter. Be part of a system of redistribution, of the best kind, the anarchist kind.
So what happened to him after he got fired?
He had to get another job
Did he have any problems getting the new job? How did he handle job history/references?
I imagine job stacking varies a lot based on the norms of the industry (my own career would be over if the like four companies that do what I do found I was double dipping).
But I can imagine some industries where nobody cares and don’t bother trying to find out.
I'd have to ask him, but I would assume he just listed only his original Job One for that period. It's pretty uncommon for tech for companies to want to contact your original employer, or even really to ask for references. So that is something to consider depending on the industry.
Yeah my own industry that wouldn't fly. I think the validity of job stacking ad advice depends on the nature of the industry and your personal career. The easier it is for hire/fire and anonymity the more it makes sense.