I used an immense amount of personal time and money to make me a better employee, it was called getting a degree from a university.

I still sometimes spend a bit of personal money and time to tinker with technology, sometimes on the basis that it'll probably be good to know some of this stuff. It's like being surprised a chef likes to experiment a bit in their kitchen at home.

Their point is with total job security there's no real drive to actually be good at your job and little incentive to improve. Just be good enough to not be labeled entirely incompetent and truly unfit for the job, not any better. Would you go to a doctor who hasn't bothered learning anything new about medicine for decades and still practices like it's the 1950s, or one which continually evolved their practice to stick with modern times? Would you want to go to a doctor who truly didn't care about being a halfway decent doctor? Would you prefer a policeman who truly didn't care about being a halfway decent policeman? Teachers who just don't care about being decent at teaching, only the bare minimum to not get fired?

▲

latexr an hour ago | parent [-]

> I used an immense amount of personal time and money to make me a better employee, it was called getting a degree from a university.

You went to university to become a better employee?! Please don’t take this the wrong way, but I find that notion profoundly sad. Most people I interacted with in college did it for the experience, and I’m happy to report many are better people for it.

But hey, I’m not going to criticise you for doing that, you made your choice about what was right for you and that’s all I’m saying, that it is a good thing that people Have that choice. It’s good that you can do that if you want but also not do that if you don’t want.

> I still sometimes spend a bit of personal money and time to tinker with technology

So do I. And it’s always best when I can decide to do it or not do it, depending on the rest of the context in my life.

> It's like being surprised a chef likes to experiment a bit in their kitchen at home.

No, no, it’s nothing like that. Because I’m not at all surprised that people do it (like I said, I do it myself), all I’m saying is that it seems positive to me that you have the choice.

> Their point is with total job security there's no real drive to actually be good at your job and little incentive to improve.

Aren’t you yourself proof that that is not true? And nothing indicates those people aren’t getting better, they’re just not doing the specific thing the other person suggested as a means to that end. That’s not at all the same thing.

> Would you go to a doctor who hasn't bothered learning anything new about medicine for decades and still practices like it's the 1950s, or one which continually evolved their practice to stick with modern times?

Ooh, boy. If you think most doctors out there are continually improving, I have some very bad news for you. Those who do are the exception, not the norm. Also, 1950s? Come on, let’s please make coherent arguments. That would mean they’d been practicing for seven decades, making them close to centenarian. If such a doctor is still able to stand and be rational and practice medicine coherently, you should at least be curious about listening.

▲

vel0city an hour ago | parent [-]

> You went to university to become a better employee?!

Not the sole reason, no. But it's not like that wasn't a reason, it was certainly a big one. And that's an incredibly common reason to go. And no, I didn't even get a degree in the field I'm working in currently, but the things I learned getting the degree have definitely helped me be far more effective at work.

> Aren’t you yourself proof that that is not true?

No, because I'm not a government employee with near total job certainty. If I'm not keeping up, I'm falling behind, and will likely find myself replaced in short order. There are millions of people in the world who can do what I do, and what I do can be done practically anywhere there's a data signal.

But make me a government employee who practically can never be fired, well, that sure changes incentives doesn't it. Why spend any second to improve when there's no downside to stagnate?

> nothing indicates those people aren’t getting better, they’re just not doing the specific thing the other person suggested as a means to that end. That’s not at all the same thing.

Sure. Believe what you will. I've worked with countless people who have this mentality. Giving these people more job security guarantees they'll care even less about their job performance and growth. Having the job is 100% about getting a check on the pay period, not about actually doing anything useful.

If someone doesn't think €20 and a few hours spread over a month isn't worth it to be better at their job, I can't imagine they're really working hard at improving any other ways.

> If you think most doctors out there are continually improving

I don't think that. I agree many stagnate. And I usually choose to avoid those which seem to be stagnating. Is it a good thing so many in that industry stagnate? So much better for everyone isn't it, having nearly incompetent doctors everywhere.

▲

latexr 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

It’s honestly a bit hard to continue the conversation with you, because it already seemed to me like some of your arguments where bordering on bad faith in the previous comment (but I gave you the benefit of the doubt) and I get that impression in this comment as well. But I don’t want to have an internet argument, I don’t care about “winning”, I want to have a conversation. I sometimes fail at that and I don’t like when that happens, so I’ll try to cover broad strokes instead of quoting specific sections.

You seem to be suggesting that being a government employee gives you near total job certainty and that to have that job security you need to be a government employee. That is not the case. At all. Maybe where you live, but certainly not everywhere. And yes, I am keenly aware of highly incompetent people (in healthcare no less!) who have job security. Is that a good situation? No. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making it a free-for-all where everyone is stressed all the time and can be kicked to the curb on a whim isn’t a better way to properly advance a society. Not if you care about something other than the unfettered pursuit of profit, anyway, and I believe we should care about more than that.

Because you edited your previous post, I’ll point out that I find the new examples (teachers and cops) to be even worse. Policemen are notorious for abuses of powers with no repercussions, I honestly don’t know what to tell you if you’re not aware of that. Teachers get the short end of the stick, and the best ones are seldom recognised. Again, if you're not aware of that I’m not really sure what to tell you.

Also, of course it’s not good to have incompetent doctors, and of course that was not the argument. I invite you to steel man if you want to have a productive conversation. Nowhere am I saying unrestricted job security is the right solution, I am instead pointing out that giving all the power to the employer causes worse problems, and that in general we should care about people’s well-being instead of trying to “advance” and being afraid of “being left behind” all the time. That’s not healthy, and it is stupid to chase “progress” if not to improve lives.

	▲	vel0city 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> The whole attitude of "I landed a job with job security, so I am not doing a thing more than I have to" is what drives germany into the ground I'm not in Germany, but I definitely see this attitude in lots of positions in what I see as jobs with excessive job security. > Policemen are notorious for abuses of powers with no repercussions So wouldn't it be good if they potentially had less job security so they'd actually face some real repercussions for their bad actions? Instead they often have some of the strongest job protections out there. They can sometimes even murder people and still collect a full paycheck while cooling off for a few weeks. > Teachers get the short end of the stick, and the best ones are seldom recognised I agree. And once again, lots of job security programs ensure the ones continuing to scrape by get promoted and kept while those actually trying just face burn out. I definitely think teachers in general should be paid more and should have good incentive systems (of which there are lots of bad incentive systems, it's a tricky thing to do well in this space). > in general we should care about people’s well-being instead of trying to “advance” and being afraid of “being left behind” all the time. I truly do agree we should try and have a good balance of work/life, and I do agree tons of people in places like the US are way too overly focused on the work side of that. I'm just pointing out when you focus too much on the other side, all your industries are no longer competitive on the global marketplace and you'll find yourself a lot worse off. Having people who aren't effectively incentivized to improve (for whatever improve means in context) is not a good thing, I think we can both agree on that. FWIW, that kind of near total job security leading to not caring about improving isn't inherently a government job kind of thing. I've known lots of people in private industry be effectively the same. The real connection is places with extreme bureaucracy. And I'm definitely not trying to bash all government employees, many truly are hard workers who care.