Canadian Money Forum banner
3401 - 3420 of 4719 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
You trade your time and skills for certain work. It is as liberal as it gets.
Though you don't have to tell me HOW to do my job, as long as I do my job, so if I'm able to do my job from home, why would you FORCE me to get back in the offices?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
Though you don't have to tell me HOW to do my job, as long as I do my job, so if I'm able to do my job from home, why would you FORCE me to get back in the offices?
Because as seen by 2.7mln backlog in immigration and as seen as madness in service canada despite amount of passport applications being lower than pre-covid, public employees aren't able to do their job from home.

This discussion wouldn't exist if they were able or willing to work from home efficiently - but as seen from results, they aren't.

Feels like we are going in circles - the entire problem is that for public employees, as shown by the results, backlogs, lines, and overall chaos, work from home is not effective
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
If there isn't a 100% efficiency when working from home then yes, employer has all the right to ask you to get back to the office
Yeah but then first prove me that my efficiency dropped and then prove me that my efficiency at the office increases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
Because as seen by 2.7mln backlog in immigration and as seen as madness in service canada despite amount of passport applications being lower than pre-covid, public employees aren't able to do their job from home.

This discussion wouldn't exist if they were able or willing to work from home efficiently - but as seen from results, they aren't
Your beliefs of the causes of this (cause: work from home) are only your biased opinion with literally nothing to support it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
Literally in the article it pinpoints that as a reason.
It doesn't say that WFH is inefficient, it says that some jobs can't be 100% achieved from home. Obviously, there's some printing of confidential documents which can't be processed from home, so some jobs may require to go to the office once a week or maybe twice a week, but that's case by case depending on the job and most don't require to be in the offices or at least don't require to be all week at the office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
It doesn't say that WFH is inefficient, it says that some jobs can't be 100% achieved from home. Obviously, there's some printing of confidential documents which can't be processed from home, so some jobs may require to go to the office once a week or maybe twice a week, but that's case by case depending on the job and most don't require to be in the offices or at least don't require to be all week at the office.
If something can't be achieved in 100% then it is inefficient. Of course the baseline here is work from office.
You can't argue with the results - services are in absolute shambles and people need to get back to actual work, in a place where they can achieve 100% efficiency

You also neglect other advantages of being in the office - quicker access to resources, documents, better communication between employees, secure networks, better supervision.

Again, the results are undisputable - the federal employees responsible for immigration, CRA, and service Canada are doing terrible job while working from home
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Though you don't have to tell me HOW to do my job, as long as I do my job, so if I'm able to do my job from home, why would you FORCE me to get back in the offices?
It's kind of your employers perogative how you do your job.

But the reality is for a lot of jobs, they want you to do certain tasks in certain ways.
For other jobs they don't care as long as it gets done.
You can pick what type of job you want, but you can't force your employer to give you the job you want, instead of the job they need done.

It's funny, all these people who can't run their own operation all think they know what's best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
If something can't be achieved in 100% then it is inefficient. Of course the baseline here is work from office.
You can WFH 4 days doing the stuff you can do from home and then 1 day doing the stuff that requires to be in the offices and you end up achieving 100% of the job.

You also neglect other advantages of being in the office - quicker access to resources, documents, better communication between employees, secure networks, better supervision.
Those are definitely not advantages of being in the office. For jobs which can be achieved from home, there's only two advantages of being in the office and they are pretty much related:
  • Building humane relationships
  • Networking
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
You can WFH 4 days doing the stuff you can do from home and then 1 day doing the stuff that requires to be in the offices and you end up achieving 100% of the job.



Those are definitely not advantages of being in the office. For jobs which can be achieved from home, there's only two advantages of being in the office and they are pretty much related:
  • Building humane relationships
  • Networking
Clearly not, otherwise how do you explain the pitiful performance from public service?

And yes - what I listed are advantages of working in the office. Have you ever led multidisciplinary team working on a project or a task, especially if they have to use legacy documentation or safety sensitive information?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
Have you ever led multidisciplinary team working on a project or a task, especially if they have to use legacy documentation or safety sensitive information?
Legacy documentation you mean paper? Any efficient company is all numeric. Otherwise, yes, I've been leading multidisciplinary teams working with sensitive information for over 10 years. And all from home since the pandemic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
Blame capitalism for the situation we're in. If it wasn't for my 6-figures income to work only 10h a week doing what I call a bullsh*t job (aka management), I'd definitely not do this job and I'd help with services to the population. But why would I do that if I'm gonna get paid a third of my current income and work 4 times more hours? Capitalism isn't efficiently distributing the resources, it's only efficiently maximizing the profits. It's totally inefficient at distributing what people truly need. Because, yeah, taking care of profits is more important than taking care of people, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: sags

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,159 Posts
You can literally replace the word 'capitalism' with 'socialism' and end up with the same meaning.

You can blame socialism and handouts that are disincentive to work. You can blame unions that remove any accountability from employees. You can blame mortgage freezes, eviction freezes that remove consequence from not contributing to society.

Communism has been tried in multiple places and failed every single time. Capitalism isn't ideal, but it is by far, uncontestably the best economic framework that exists.


And to your previous message - it is a good thing if it worked in your specific situation. It didn't work ay my company, as performance dropped after 3 months for the reasons mentioned in previous post.
Clearly, it has also failed in public service as performance has dropped. So time to get people back to actual, efficient work and work through the immigration backlog, fix service Canada, and stop prohibiting healthcare workers from working.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Blame capitalism for the situation we're in. If it wasn't for my 6-figures income to work only 10h a week doing what I call a bullsh*t job (aka management), I'd definitely not do this job and I'd help with services to the population. But why would I do that if I'm gonna get paid a third of my current income and work 4 times more hours? Capitalism isn't efficiently distributing the resources, it's only efficiently maximizing the profits. It's totally inefficient at distributing what people truly need. Because, yeah, taking care of profits is more important than taking care of people, right?
Capitalism is good at creating wealth.
It's not perfect, but it makes more people rich, and even the "poor" in rich countries are rich by both global and historical standards.

Make no mistake, there are a lot of flaws with capitalism, it isn't perfect. But the other systems simply aren't very good at wealth creation.

The thing is, I'm much more happy to share my excess with people when I have excess.

Systems that focus on redistributing, rather than simply creating more, tend not to work.

I do blame capitalism for the great success we have.

If you make so much money only working 10 hours, you could easily do all that other stuff. Your success in the capitalistic system has let you earn the tools to help a lot more people. Look at how many people Bill Gates has been able to help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
Systems that focus on redistributing, rather than simply creating more, tend not to work.
Turns out the Nordic countries are the happiest in the world and they focus on a huge redistribution of wealth through heavy taxes. There's almost no homeless in Finland and literally no homeless in Helsinki.

Look at how many people Bill Gates has been able to help.
A few philanthropist billionaires is nothing compared to all the waste in this capitalist world. Also, philanthropist billionaires are a joke because all that money goes wherever those powerful individuals decide instead of where democracy would decide. They have more power than a whole population. I'm still waiting for Microsoft to poll their users asking them where should that philanthropy be spent and how much of their revenues should be redistributed.

How come LVMH is a $350B company with over 175,000 employees? All those workers are wasting their time creating non-essential luxuries which have literally no benefits to this world. And all the people buying LVMH are wasting their money on those non-essential luxuries.

Imagine if all the people producing those luxuries would instead spend their time on truly beneficial goods and services. Imagine if all that money went into education, healthcare, research, social programs.

Font Parallel Diagram Screenshot Circle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Turns out the Nordic countries are the happiest in the world and they focus on a huge redistribution of wealth through heavy taxes. There's almost no homeless in Finland and literally no homeless in Helsinki.
They're also capitalist so I'm not sure what your point is?

A few philanthropist billionaires is nothing compared to all the waste in this capitalist world. Also, philanthropist billionaires are a joke because all that money goes wherever those powerful individuals decide instead of where democracy would decide. They have more power than a whole population. I'm still waiting for Microsoft to poll their users asking them where should that philanthropy be spent and how much of their revenues should be redistributed.
It's funny how Bill Gates has managed massive progress in computers and in health, while the world governments, with much larger budgets and more people failed.
Why would Microsoft users decided the philanthropic efforts of the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation?

The quality of life for those under capitalism is far higher than those under other economic systems.
I really don't know what you are proposing.
Do you want to destroy capitalism, and make everyone poor like under communism?

How come LVMH is a $350B company with over 175,000 employees? All those workers are wasting their time creating non-essential luxuries which have literally no benefits to this world. And all the people buying LVMH are wasting their money on those non-essential luxuries.
Because they employ those thousands of peoples making stuff people want.
Saying that luxuries and art and culture have literally no benefits to this world is a very sad view of life.

Imagine if all the people producing those luxuries would instead spend their time on truly beneficial goods and services. Imagine if all that money went into education, healthcare, research, social programs.
Yes, perhaps we should all spend our days in drudgery producing just what some person decides we should make. Instead of producing what people actually want.

But going and spending billions or trillions on a Government space program, totally worth it.
I'd rather put Elon in charge, he did the same work WAY more efficiently.

The best thing about capitalism is that those who are good at creating value get more resources and can create MORE value.
This is value as chosen by the people, not strong armed by some authority who decides what's good for everyong.

It really sounds like you want to live in an authoritarian socialist state, myself I would not. I'd prefer a free state.

Now I'm not saying you can't choose to give your money away, or live according to the edicts of some chosen authority, I just kindly ask that you let me choose not too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
They're also capitalist so I'm not sure what your point is?
Yes, they are a social democracy, mixing both socialism and capitalism. I'm mentioning them because there's huge interventions from the government to help their people.

It's funny how Bill Gates has managed massive progress in computers and in health
Yeah because Bill Gates did this all alone, right? Why all that wealth went to him while we clearly know that this wouldn't be possible without the 200,000+ direct employees, let alone all the outsourced work and all the resources he needed. As if all the merits were on him.

The quality of life for those under capitalism is far higher than those under other economic systems.
I really don't know what you are proposing.
Do you want to destroy capitalism, and make everyone poor like under communism?
Tell me what is the quality of life of social democracies like the Nordic countries compared to more capitalist countries. Tell me the wealth gap and homeless rate of the Nordic countries compared to the more capitalist countries like the US.

Because they employ those thousands of peoples making stuff people want.
What people want and what people need are very different things.


Saying that luxuries and art and culture have literally no benefits to this world is a very sad view of life.
Don't put luxuries in the same basket of art and culture. That's a big mistake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,878 Posts
Yes, they are a social democracy, mixing both socialism and capitalism. I'm mentioning them because there's huge interventions from the government to help their people.
No they aren't.
Or at least they don't think they are
"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

Yeah because Bill Gates did this all alone, right?
Not at all, many people have worked, he's just the leader who is helping to make it happen.
Again, many chose to support his vision.

Why all that wealth went to him while we clearly know that this wouldn't be possible without the 200,000+ direct employees, let alone all the outsourced work and all the resources he needed. As if all the merits were on him.
Exactly, and many of those hundreds of thousands got wealthy too.
They chose to contribute to his mission.

The thing you miss about capitalism and market economies is that everyone gets to choose. I don't know why you don't like it.
Is it that sometimes we choose things you wouldn't?

Tell me what is the quality of life of social democracies like the Nordic countries compared to more capitalist countries. Tell me the wealth gap and homeless rate of the Nordic countries compared to the more capitalist countries like the US.
You sound like a Bernie Sanders supporter, who's using words and terms that may not be applicable.
Like sitting there calling the capitalist market economies of the Nordic countries socialist, even when they literally tell you you're wrong.

But if you want to massively redistribute wealth, go ahead, you are free to do so. Nobody is stopping you. But it really isn't about wealth redistribution, you want to redistribute MY wealth, not yours.
Losing some of your wealth is a small price to pay to get at mine, or those rich people.

What people want and what people need are very different things.
Yes, and when you're a child it's okay for an authority figure to decide for you.
But adults in our society get to decide for themselves.

Don't put luxuries in the same basket of art and culture. That's a big mistake.
Art and culture are "luxuries".
I considering taking resources and using them to form a piece of art a luxury. Or spending millions on performance art, only for a bit of enjoyment, or an amusement part.
They are luxuries, and since we're so rich, they're widely available.

To force some artificial distinction between art and culture at luxury level vs those not at that level is a weird distinction.
Tell me, what is the difference between a painting I made, and my cousin (a celebrated artist). Is mine just art, while theirs is "luxury"?
My car is transportation, but my neighgours with it's chrome is "luxury".

I really don't understand your world view.
 
3401 - 3420 of 4719 Posts
Top