= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
If some prospective employees are better than others, then that long line of people will still contain better and worse candidates, and employers may compete to get the better ones.
Yes, and in this context better means "willing to put up with abuse by bosses".
It presumably means some combination of that, speed, diligence, etc. I wouldn't expect abuse-tolerance to be a large fraction of what most bosses want, though no doubt some bosses are awful enough to prefer less profitable but more abusable employees.
Depends on the "abuse". Here it means practices that increase productivity at the expense of employee quality of life. For example, insisting that employees be willing to work odd hours on short notice.
Employers always compete for better employees, but they are, generally speaking, satisficers. The marginal benefit from having a high-IQ, very conscientious, giving-his-100%-to-the-job employee flipping burgers is not very high.