The Non-Efficiency of Work

Discussion in 'Train of Thought' started by Jeffrey, Dec 1, 2008.

  1. Jeffrey Call me for a good time. Dial 1-800-Hotgirl (Not r

    I know I rarely make threads but due to the economic crisis I wanted to get people's opinions of work. Now it sounds simplistic but I was thinking is the idea of work as we know it essentially 'played out'? Here's what I mean. Most jobs either pay hourly or salary and in many jobs (not all) people spend part of the day doing nothing except waiting for the time to get off. The idea of this happening especially in office related jobs, to me, is a waste of efficiency. You are given a limited amount of time on this planet and with the time wasted at work could you not rest, take care of various duties, or countless other things? Also, what's in it for the business? By getting work done faster and letting people leave does that not decrease overhead costs which lowers your liabilities and in return increases your assets?

    Another portion of work that I have been curious about, and I have typed about it before, is the idea of age and work. Now, I'm all for staying active as you get older but when I talk about age and work I'm refering to people who have worked at a place for 20 or more years at the same place. Should there be an age limit on how long you can work at one place? I mean someone who has been at a specific place increases payroll and liability generally speaking and ideally wouldn't a younger person who is trying to make a place for themselves in the working world be able to use it more than the older person? After 20 years or more at the same place shouldn't you have what you are going to have in life for the most part?

    I'll stop right here and feel free to answer my questions, and furthermore feel free to add your own opinions about work, because I'm curious on this subject.
  2. Tentei No Mai Bitch Pudding!

    Oy, that's an interesting question! Well, with office jobs...most of the time it really is a waste of efficiency since you're just dwindling half (or even more) of the time with just...breathing and stuff if there's nothing office-y to do that's important. I learned my lesson from my internship as a page. All I really did was file, answer phone calls, and generic crap like that unless there was a "session" for me to intend which took up 90 percent of my office time (thus making me feel efficient). After the whole "session" event was done it was boring as fuck to the point that I pretended I had to run errands for the secretaries and senators and stuff (all I did was go to the bookstore and other palces, and still got paid for my time >_>).

    Oh, and I kind of do feel that a person should have a set limit on where he/she works if it the job itself is like...mid-level grunt work or office management. Give the young ones a shot at the top and let the old foggies learn a new trade which will help fight of the dementia (I'm half serious about that one .-.).
  3. PKT Forever /a/lone

    When I was working I made minimum wage but I worked my ass off all day in a dead end job while some people get most of the day to just slack off. It's ridiculous, I mean what's the reason to bust your ass when your superiors are lazy as fuck and aren't doing anything but hovering around watching things. If I had a company I'd let people spend their free time how they wanted to. A more relaxed enviroment but with more responsibility as well. More work but a lot more fun too.
  4. Archangel Sabre Well-Known Member

    We're living in an age where absolute efficiency isn't really necessary, so I suppose I don't see a problem with certain hours on the job simply being taken up by idly sitting around. Certainly it would be good if that time could be spent doing something, but often the only thing that needs done is someone sitting around on standby.

    And with people staying at a single career for decades on end, I don't really have a problem with that either. I've read that up to 50% of people have been at their current job for less than five years, which means that any more than that is beginning to lean towards the far end of the bell curve. If a person enjoys what they do, they should be allowed to do it for as long as they can and desire.
  5. Jeffrey Call me for a good time. Dial 1-800-Hotgirl (Not r

    I beg to differ with this statement. This economy is a prime example of things needing to be efficient as possible. In fact, I would even say that with the advancement of technology being efficient as possible at work is necessary. The whole point of technology and humans working hand in hand is so that the workplace can become more efficient and in return reflect the true strength of the economy. Much of the problem is that many people still continue to work like they did decades ago when human labor was 80% to 90% of total production. Now, with technology and all, human labor probably only accounts to 40% to 50% of production for a majority of jobs. Many of the labor intensive jobs were and always will be labor intensive such as construction, fast-food, post office workers, and custodians.

    Why just stand around and spend overhead on something that is usually taken care of? In most cases wouldn't you spend more money in overhead than in actual work? In most cases couldn't this be taken care of by a secondary person? In almost every job there is a back up person who is capable of doing what you do just in case things happen.


    Depends on the circumstances. The people I refer to are those who have been on jobs where they don't necessarily love the job but it provides them with such a stable paycheck that they never leave. Hell, sometimes people that even love their jobs should let it go eventually. I know that sounds bad but the working world is an evolution. At some time or another there has to be out with the old and in with the new. Now, I'm not saying all old is bad but this economy is a prime example of what happens when you have too much old.

    Many people of the baby boomer generation are stuffing up the workforce, and in all likely hood because of their neglect on savings they will also suck social security dry along with the government. There has to be a changing of the guard. Even in the biggest corporations this happens seeing as how Bill Gates is no longer CEO of Microsoft, the company he helped build, and was replaced by Steve Ballmer.

    Generally, I would agree with you here. However, I would come out and say that at least half of the population would rather be doing something else. However, you bring up a good point and that is the lack of available educational resources for older people generally over the age of 30. Now, what I mean is I believe there is a lack of advancement opportunities unless you are willing to spend lots of money and go back to college.

    You should not have to go back to college at 30 and you should not have to accumulate mass debt on top of housing, food, children, and many of the other ideal things that people at 30 or above have acquired. There should be another alternative to college especially for older people especially for those looking for a career change. Not sure if that was clear but much of the education around the world is centered around the young instead of all ages.
  6. Archangel Sabre Well-Known Member

    And things usually are as efficient as possible. In today's world the economy follows a very Darwinian-type process: the companies that do things inefficiently die while the efficient ones thrive. Ultimately it's up to the individual company to decide whether or not their manpower is used efficiently or not.

    Because things change. Just because the situation is fine one moment, doesn't mean you won't be needed the next.

    It's like when I worked at an amusement park stand, we didn't send everyone home just because there was nothing to be done at a given moment. Then if the park picked back up (which happened quite often) we wouldn't be able to handle it at all.

    I also don't really get what you mean by 'secondary person.' Is it really more cost-effective to hire two people to do one person's work, just so one of them can go home early when there's nothing to be done? That seems way more inefficient then just having the one person stick around for a few extra hours. Either way someone is going to be staying there, and there are going to be times when that someone will have nothing to do but wait.

    That's just it, though, if they want to leave they can go right ahead and do so at any time. If they don't like their job, they have no one to blame but themselves for sticking at it.

    I agree with that, but ultimately it's a decision to be made by the company and the individual.

Share This Page