Ok let me tell you something about actual academics and their working time. When I was doing my PhD at Uni Zurich, our institute wanted to look good on paper, so it had set one salary rate for researchers which was quite high. In reality, only senior scientist got this rate. For the rest of us, the salary was reduced, but this reduction was done not by introducing other salary rates, but by reduction in working time. So, for example, to get to PhD salary, you had 50% working time written in contract. In reality, your working time was still 100% (you had to sign internal sheet that stated actual time), although lets be real the expectation was 150%. But in every single statistic we would show up as part time workers. We paid taxes as part time workers too, and it really screwed up people on C permits, as they were not able to do full reductions for travel, lunch expenses etc. Also, we are not paid for overtime, there is no compensation for it, so you basically work long-ass days, often also on the weekends (i mean cells and mice dont care if its weekend, lots of experiments have specific timepoints). And for those who think PhD is just reading and writting, its not. Usually the professor has projects, you work on a project, in my field its a lot of physical work in laboratory. And sure, you need to read and write, but depending on your boss, the expectation could be that you do that on your ‘free time’. In my first years as a PhD, it was not uncommon to work 10-12h a day.
On paper our whole institute would look lazy AF, almost everyone but professors and senior scientists working 50%, 60%, 80%. Even when I become a postdoc, my contract still said 80%, just so the salary would be ‘the right one’.
And I know that our institute was not the only one doing fuckery like this. So when state does any kind of statistics on working time of academics, keep this in mind.
Whoever tells that we are lazy, can go and fuck themselves.
Good read. The whole debate also shows how many people can’t differenciate between “being present” and productivity (or value added/created).
The most recent advancements in AI have the potential to turn whole industries on their head. It’s critical that everyone understands what that means. Some people will tell you that your work is now worth less. However this is not true, work that still requires human labour increases in value because it is now an even bigger bottleneck: Let’s say your office job creates 10k in value a month. AI is introduced to your job, takes over half of your daily tasks and because it is more efficient, the total value output per month is now 20k. Your jobs productivity is now 4x, so you should actually earn 4x as much or 2x at half the working hours (because if your job is not done the opportunity cost is now higher). This is also what happened during the industrial revolution (first to third). Of course the numbers are a bit simplified.
Some industries and jobs will be affected more than others and some will become obsolete. It is important that a society as a whole prepares for it and access to education and training is paramount.
Now this part I’m writing with a small tinfoil hat on: Corporations/big business (and their political allies) don’t want that of course, they will tell you that instead of getting a 4x increase, you should only get half as much as before. So it is entirely possible that labour movements like in the olden days will be necessary again.
*yawn*
The right-wing is always searching for a new bogeyman to distract the voters from all their failures and scams.
Currently the EU doesn’t really work as a bogeyman anymore because they have successfully killed any chances for a good relationship for the coming years.
Foreigners/asylum seekers always work (and we’re already seeing a recent increase in agitation, probably because it’s an election year) but might not be enough.
So now the “cities” and the “academics” are the new target.
Because why not… the average right-wing scum neither lives in the city nor has education so it’s the obvious thing to do if your whole political programme is just based on exploiting the mental disabilities of your voters.
i did not even need to check the username to know who this article is from
Let’s face it: You work 20 hours a week, you live in a rental apartment, you don’t need a car because you live in the city, and you have enough of money for everything.
Opposite: You work 60 hours a week, you still live in a fucking rental apartment, you still don’t need a car and you have enough money for everything.
It was different for our parents. If they worked harder, they could buy a nice single-family home, put a car in front (or not, if it was close to the city). And yeah, they had more than enough money for everything.
Hard work doesn’t pay off anymore. So, why should you bother! Why should you give up your free time to have exactly the same no matter on how much you hustle?
6 comments
Ok let me tell you something about actual academics and their working time. When I was doing my PhD at Uni Zurich, our institute wanted to look good on paper, so it had set one salary rate for researchers which was quite high. In reality, only senior scientist got this rate. For the rest of us, the salary was reduced, but this reduction was done not by introducing other salary rates, but by reduction in working time. So, for example, to get to PhD salary, you had 50% working time written in contract. In reality, your working time was still 100% (you had to sign internal sheet that stated actual time), although lets be real the expectation was 150%. But in every single statistic we would show up as part time workers. We paid taxes as part time workers too, and it really screwed up people on C permits, as they were not able to do full reductions for travel, lunch expenses etc. Also, we are not paid for overtime, there is no compensation for it, so you basically work long-ass days, often also on the weekends (i mean cells and mice dont care if its weekend, lots of experiments have specific timepoints). And for those who think PhD is just reading and writting, its not. Usually the professor has projects, you work on a project, in my field its a lot of physical work in laboratory. And sure, you need to read and write, but depending on your boss, the expectation could be that you do that on your ‘free time’. In my first years as a PhD, it was not uncommon to work 10-12h a day.
On paper our whole institute would look lazy AF, almost everyone but professors and senior scientists working 50%, 60%, 80%. Even when I become a postdoc, my contract still said 80%, just so the salary would be ‘the right one’.
And I know that our institute was not the only one doing fuckery like this. So when state does any kind of statistics on working time of academics, keep this in mind.
Whoever tells that we are lazy, can go and fuck themselves.
Good read. The whole debate also shows how many people can’t differenciate between “being present” and productivity (or value added/created).
The most recent advancements in AI have the potential to turn whole industries on their head. It’s critical that everyone understands what that means. Some people will tell you that your work is now worth less. However this is not true, work that still requires human labour increases in value because it is now an even bigger bottleneck: Let’s say your office job creates 10k in value a month. AI is introduced to your job, takes over half of your daily tasks and because it is more efficient, the total value output per month is now 20k. Your jobs productivity is now 4x, so you should actually earn 4x as much or 2x at half the working hours (because if your job is not done the opportunity cost is now higher). This is also what happened during the industrial revolution (first to third). Of course the numbers are a bit simplified.
Some industries and jobs will be affected more than others and some will become obsolete. It is important that a society as a whole prepares for it and access to education and training is paramount.
Now this part I’m writing with a small tinfoil hat on: Corporations/big business (and their political allies) don’t want that of course, they will tell you that instead of getting a 4x increase, you should only get half as much as before. So it is entirely possible that labour movements like in the olden days will be necessary again.
*yawn*
The right-wing is always searching for a new bogeyman to distract the voters from all their failures and scams.
Currently the EU doesn’t really work as a bogeyman anymore because they have successfully killed any chances for a good relationship for the coming years.
Foreigners/asylum seekers always work (and we’re already seeing a recent increase in agitation, probably because it’s an election year) but might not be enough.
So now the “cities” and the “academics” are the new target.
Because why not… the average right-wing scum neither lives in the city nor has education so it’s the obvious thing to do if your whole political programme is just based on exploiting the mental disabilities of your voters.
i did not even need to check the username to know who this article is from
Let’s face it: You work 20 hours a week, you live in a rental apartment, you don’t need a car because you live in the city, and you have enough of money for everything.
Opposite: You work 60 hours a week, you still live in a fucking rental apartment, you still don’t need a car and you have enough money for everything.
It was different for our parents. If they worked harder, they could buy a nice single-family home, put a car in front (or not, if it was close to the city). And yeah, they had more than enough money for everything.
Hard work doesn’t pay off anymore. So, why should you bother! Why should you give up your free time to have exactly the same no matter on how much you hustle?
Tja…