Summations Only

It certainly means we should be skeptical when businesses show up with promises of "college credit" (that you have to pay for) and "experience" that will help you get a better job, all if you'll just agree to work for free all summer. I am, too. I think the best way to overcome it is to create an economy that approaches full employment. Trust me, with businesses scrambling to find people to fill all the positions they want to fill, nobody's going to care about gaps on your resume. That's what's so great about an economy roaring at full employment.But for whatever reason, you act like a jobs boom is somehow an impossible goal. It's not. It's easier, in fact, that instituting a program of welfare slavery. But maybe the benefits don't accrue from the work, but from the 20 hours a week of education or substance abuse counseling. And if that's the case, why bother with the work? Why not just have 40 hours a week of education? I feel like I laid out exactly that theory in Message 66. To sum up, if the work isn't so valuable that a company would pay someone to do it, then it's unlikely that the work is challenging enough to develop the worker's skills. Nobody is going to be impressed by your experience digging holes and then filling them back in.

Yeah, nice, Mod! All the best, etc.

But this is a non-solution to the problem at hand. Even a couple of months of unemployment can make landing a job difficult if not impossible. How long does it take to kick in? To show prospective employers that you can hold a job. More impressed than if you did nothing.And that's what this is all about. Unpaid work experience may not be as valuable in landing a job as paid work experience, but it is more valuable than no work experience at all.

Awesome. Did you take any good photographs? I was wondering if you had a reason for asking the question and, presuming that you did, I was asking what that reason was. I didn't think I'd need to explain the rather simple question 'Why do you ask'? We're in agreement there. I can assure you, that my position was not demolished. But I'm beginning to see a certain futility in the attempt to persuade you otherwise.So let us assume this is my position now, and we'll see where you agree and disagree:There are reasons other than money that might motivate a person to do work. One reason you might work with no pay, is because you want, for whatever reason, the experience of so doing. This might be like in the photographer example where you can get direct tips from the photographer and feedback of your own shots etc. Or you might do it to gain experience to give you better chances of finding paid employment in that sector.
The workfare scheme attempts to circumvent the problems the long term unemployed face by getting them some relevant and recent work experience to help them compete against those who also have said recent experience. It doesn't work all that well, for various reasons, but variations with added investments have worked quite well.If you want, you can believe I seriously thought one could become an experienced photographer through the the actions of getting coffee. You have utterly destroyed that argument. Congratulations on your win. Now, do you have any disagreement with the position above - the one I believe I have held all along (but you know better, clearly).I noticed you neglected to actually deal with the argument I made as to why what you said makes no sense. To remind you what that argument was:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's in reference to you focusing on the unpaid work aspect (ie getting coffee) rather than the valuable experience you can get between coffee runs.

---

​

No, it's not. It's in reference to how CS can't rebut my arguments so he just throws out these accusations that I "spin things."

---

​

That doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. You might think that CS's statement was made because he couldn't rebut you, but that's not relevant in interpreting what CS's comments were referring to.

​

Here is the comment again

​

quote:

---

You spun my photographer assistant analogy six ways from sideways.

---

​

He was referring to your comments such as:

​

quote:

---

To riff off of CS's example, below, nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

---

​

It was readily apparent to most participants in this thread that CS was not referring to the experience of getting coffee improving your photography skills.

---

I could be uncharitable, as you have been. I could suggest that you cutting out the context of the argument, and my justification for saying that your comment made no sense, and simply rebutting with 'Does too.' followed by a long irrelevant rant... all of that I might suggest was indicative of you deliberately avoiding the argument, or trying to distract me from it.But really: What does the (lack of) perceived immediacy of the objection and the inferences you erroneously make from that have to do with what the objection was actually referring to? Not all experience that ends up with you getting paid to do it is necessarily marketable.Let's go back to our wanabe photographer. They hook up with a pro. nobody famous - just someone whose primary income is selling photographs. That pro tells them about the pitfalls of the trade - some useful tips, helpful business related advise and so on.This may help our wanabe become a professional photographer, but they are unlikely to mention the day when trying to win contracts as its not really marketable: but useful in other ways. I have made no indication to you that I am assuming I am without error. I was pointing out the contrast between us: that I chalk up the problems here to an innocent mistake whereas you suppose malevolence on my part.So yeah, I've made errors in this argument. If I had been able to deduce the exact nature of the confusion earlier, I might have tried approaching things differently. But in my defence: It required me believing that you would earnestly believe I was making a stupid argument. So instead of saying from the inception 'no no no, not marketable experience you can put on a CV, but experience that has a different sort of utility in becoming a pro', I tried to explain what kind of experience I was talking about - but apparently that didn't work exactly perfectly for whatever reason.
I may not be 'the picture of magnanimity' - something I have never claimed to be - but I think it is clear that I'm being more magnanimous than you. I did. Here is the very first time you brought CS's example up in our discussion, and my reaction:

quote:

---

quote:

---

To riff off of CS's example, below, nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

---

​

If you're a moron who spends their days with a photographer and who only participates in coffee errands, maybe.

​

But sensible people will observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

I highlighted exactly what I thought one would get out of such a visit, the exact second you brought it up in our discussion.Not only that - but in the very post that you were replying to (Message 176), I said this exact same thing:

quote:

---

I was quite explicit in what experience I believed CS was referring to. Even if you are right, and CS is lying and he was talking about marketable experience, I wasn't ever and I think that was clear.

​

I tend not to think of photographers being salaried. So I'm picturing a freelancer wannabe following a professional freelancer. In general, unless it was particularly impressive, you wouldn't put down all the details of your training and self-teaching on a CV in order to get hired. Obviously to win contracts you need a portfolio.

​

But I was talking about a different kind of experience, which is still useful to someone wanting to get into the business and get paid enough to live off it. Here is valuable experiences as I pictured them myself:

​

quote:

---

observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

​

I said that nice and early in our discussions, so your insistence that I am equivocating is baseless. To be absolutely clear, the very first time I ever mentioned anything myself about experiences gained by being a photographers assistant is the quote above. You seemed focused entirely on the coffee fetching part when you raised it with me, and it was this erroneous focus I criticised and tried to highlight what I thought the real value of following a photographer might be.

---

If you insist. There are a number of circumstances which could arise which falsify your 'knowledge'.1. The person doesn't see your misunderstanding initially.
2. The person doesn't realize you are misunderstanding them, and argues back at them as if they understood the original point and are being awkward or slow for some reason.
3. The person has identified the misunderstanding early but the person misunderstanding doesn't understand the correction perhaps as they still believe they understood things perfectly the first time.
4. The person saw your misunderstanding, but figured that trying to correct this misunderstanding will lead to an annoying and protracted argument where the person they are trying to correct is calling them dishonest equivocators.You can mix and match them, and come up with some of your own, I'm sure.Anyway. Here is 'late in the game' for you: Message 68 - The photographer example is raised. (06-13-2012)
Message 69 - You bring the example up with me.
Message 70 - you retort direct to CS,that among other things, 'Getting coffee isn't going to make you a better photographer'
Message 74 - I try to correct your misunderstanding. (06-13-2012)
Message 79 - CS doesn't bring it up
Message 92 - CS doesn't bring it up
Message 95 - CS comments in support of a claim that you are sidetracking things (06-14-2012)
Message 98 - You protest at CS's comments above.
Message 102 - CS brings forward the photography example again to rebut your claim at addressing arguments head on. And says you spun his argument. (06-14-2012)Just than a few messages and about a day after the example was initially brought up, CS notes his objection to the way you addressed his argument, characterising it as 'spin'.Could it be that CS had already seen your misunderstanding corrected by my Message 74 and decided he didn't want to get into that kind of argument with you, as he said as soon as you directly challenged him on the issue?Nah - he's a liar. Must be. It's the only possible explanation.

I would recommend nothing less than skepticism in just about any endeavour I can immediately conceive of. I don't disagree that this is the best way - let's think of the workfare scheme as a contingency plan. You know, in case we can't get full employment or until we do. I wouldn't say it was an impossible goal. Just a goal that isn't on topic. Well of course, that'd be twice as expensive for a start. These people often have multiple barriers to entry: Education, is only potentially one of them. Another is the lack of any work experience. That is not solved by more education or training or whatever.But maybe that would be better for these people - do you have any evidence of such a scheme giving better outcomes than CJs or workfare? And as I previously said: I contest that 'nobody' is going to be impressed. I mean, nobody's going to think you are a Nobel candidate for doing shelf-stacking, data entry, check-out work etc, but if you can show a potential employer that you can show up for work and hold a job for six months without causing trouble and so on - that's more impressive than saying 'I've been unemployed these last three years and have no recent work experience whatsoever'.It's a competition. You don't have to be the best possible candidate to get the job - you just have to be better than those you are competing against + luck and whims of the HR person. If you are competing against a bunch of people who have no work experience you are going to do better on average against them than you would have otherwise.

It's the only solution to the problem at hand. Your solution, where we train some workers so that they can outcompete other workers for the same jobs, is the non-solution, because you haven't reduced unemployment, you've just re-arranged who gets to be employed.To actually reduce the rate of unemployment you need to correct the economic conditions that result in high unemployment. It's never impossible to get a job simply because you've been unemployed for a few months. If this were true nobody could ever get work, because we all enter the workforce, the first time, after many years of "unemployment."Being unemployed makes it harder to get a job when unemployment is high because so many people are competing for the same jobs. Simply helping people be more competitive doesn't do anything in aggregate because you've not increased the number of jobs, you've simply rearranged who gets to hold them. In an economy roaring at full employment, it doesn't matter how long you've been unemployed - if you can do the work, someone will hire you, because employers are desperate to fill positions.That's how you solve unemployment - more jobs, not just rearranging who gets to hold the same number of jobs. But it doesn't show employers you can hold a job because it's not a job. We had this argument already, and you lost when I proved that, in fact, it's less valuable than no work experience at all, in Message 175.

But in the interim, while we are trying to reduce unemployment, we can also be making sure that the currently unemployed don't become permanently unemployable.

Asking what question?I'm completely lost, here, Mod. Why would you ask me "why do you ask" when I made a statement that turning professional means getting paid work? You're not making any sense at all. So if we agree, why did you ask me "why do you ask"? You must have known why I asked, because you agree.Do you see why I have a hard time believing that you're treating me honestly? I meant "you" in the general. (This is typical of how you misunderstand rhetorical flourish.) It was CS's position which was demolished - he openly agreed that it was stupid, and thus suddenly emerged the notion that anybody who thought that CS was arguing what he had argued had "misunderstood" him. It's a dodge, and the way that we know it's a dodge is that it only happens after a rout. You're hung up on the coffee thing, bizarrely. The question is whether you can become an experienced photographer simply by osmosis, by proximity to and observation of photographers, and this is clearly false; the way you become experienced as a photographer is by having experiences as a photographer, not as an assistant to photographers. You gain experience as a photographer only by actually taking pictures.Can you get tips on taking your pictures? Certainly. But that isn't experience as a photographer. That may be "experience" as a photographer's assistant, but nobody would ever hire you, or evaluate your skills as a photographer, based on the number of photographers you had assisted. I've made a case, which has not been rebutted, that the experience is not relevant. There was no argument. There was just your assertion that it made no sense.Politely, I disagree, and you made no effort to respond to my argument to the contrary. So we're clearly done with that topic. You don't seem prepared to even consider the possibility that you're the one in error, that you're the one who has misinterpreted CS, and that he's simply agreed with you to disguise his attempt to backpedal. I mean, why wouldn't he support your mistaken interpretation of his remarks over my accurate one, at this point, since it's precisely your mistaken interpretation that he's now trying to pretend was the "right" one all along? Why wouldn't I have thought you were making a stupid argument? Didn't all the times I told you I thought your argument was stupid give you any hints in that regard?I mean, I can hardly see where I disguised my contempt for the weak-sauce arguments I was being presented with. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I was grappling with arguments I held in high intellectual esteem?In your experience, do I usually go around arguing with positions I think are brilliant? You're really not making any sense at all, Mod. Right, and then I told you you were wrong:

quote:

---

Sensible people can get all of that without wasting time getting coffee when they could be taking pictures.

---

That's why the experience isn't valuable - you don't need to fetch any coffee to get it, and every minute you're doing grunt work for the photographer - and are therefore really too busy to pay any attention to color balancing, exposure settings, or whatever - is a minute you could be taking pictures and really getting experience, but aren't.There's no law that says that photographers will only offer tips or let you watch if you fetch the coffee. If you want to watch photographers, watch them. Just don't let them convince you that they're going you a great big fucking favor by letting you carry the heavy shit. That's my point. You keep pointing out that the valuable experience is ancillary to fetching coffee and carrying things. I'm agreeing with you! It's so ancillary, in fact, that you shouldn't bother fetching any coffee or carrying things; you should just get the tips from the photographer that are useful to you, and then spend the time you were going to spend fetching coffee taking pictures, instead. No, this is a misrepresentation. Message 74 is just you arguing with my point. You make no claim whatsoever that I've misunderstood CS's example. Your message 74 is just a defense of it. My reply to that message is a rebuttal of your defense and to correct your misunderstanding of one of my points. Yes, but by "spin" he merely means that I didn't not accept it at face value:

quote:

---

Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee).

---

See? CS isn't claiming I misunderstood him, he's not even claiming that I misrepresented him. He's complaining that I didn't accept his counterexample without question. That's what he means by "spin." As I make clear in Message 106 and Message 127, which were not rebutted, that's a legitimate tactic in debate. I get to attack counterexamples raised against my position. If I say that there has never been a female President of the United States, and you say "what about Abraham Lincoln", I get to defend my position by pointing out that, in fact, Abraham Lincoln was not a woman. I'm not under any obligation to just accept that mistaken example as "something that challenges my position," because it didn't.And what was CS's response to these devastating arguments against his position that I spin things? Message 132:

quote:

---

You misinterpreted my position. Its clear that the audience can see it and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to admit it.

---

See the flounce? That's how I know this is a dodge - it's a simultaneous attempt to declare victory while cutting and running. Nothing about this is a good-faith attempt to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen, despite your efforts to misrepresent the context. But calling something "spin" is not at all the same thing as calling it a misunderstanding. That's another misrepresentation on your part. It is the only possible explanation. For instance, consider his remarks in another thread: CS all but admits that he's purposefully misrepresenting my remarks to make it look like I said something stupid. So we know that he's willing to behave dishonestly in one thread, why shouldn't I believe that he's willing to have been dishonest in this one? Why is it surprising when someone who is a liar, lies?

Reducing unemployment is what will make sure nobody becomes permanently unemployable. There's no way to "pass around" the employment, that's the point I was making against Mod earlier. Nobody is going to agree to a system where they voluntarily leave good jobs or fire good workers in order to pick up untrained hires, all to make sure that nobody sits out a whole period. It's unreasonable to ask working people to become unemployed so that the unemployed have a chance to work. It's idiotic to even assume that anyone would go for that.The way you make sure 10 unemployed people don't have years-long periods of unemployment is you employ them in 10 new jobs; you don't just replace them with 10 different people. That's profoundly idiotic.

It can't be a contingency because it doesn't address the problem. You can't reduce the unemployment rate by shuffling around the unemployed. It's not going to be solved by welfare busywork either. If the problem is that they don't have on the job experience then the solution has to be getting them a job, and the way you get them jobs is to reduce the rate of unemployment by stimulating demand for labor. The way that you show an employer that you can show up for work and hold a job for six months is that you hold a job for six months, which means again that we're back to getting jobs for the unemployed, which means we're back to increasing the demand for labor. Now you're getting it! That's exactly right, it's a competition - that means that if 10 people show up to apply for one job, 9 people stay unemployed. Which 9 is completely irrelevant! Taking any one of those 10 people and training them such that they become the superior candidate and not someone else does nothing at all to address unemployment because all you've done is unemploy a different set of 9 people. Overall employment among that group remains at 10% no matter which candidate you train.The way you address the harmful effect of unemployment is to get someone a job so they're not unemployed anymore. That's the only way. These schemes are just about re-arranging the deck chairs. The problem that has to be addressed is the sinking ship.

Want to go back and actually read what I wrote?

Weighing into the middle of this one a little bit, but I did want to pick up on one thing Crashfrog. You say: I agree that I certainly wouldn't, as someone who wants to have photographs of, say, my wedding taking, hire someone on the basis that they had assisted a photographer.But if I was a professional photographer, looking to expand my business, or otherwise hire in a young, keen trainee, whom I could develop into the sort of photographer I wanted to have in my business, and I was choosing between someone who had been a photographer's assistant, and someone who hadn't, the experience would weigh in favour of the former. I would read it as (a) enthusiasm for the role; (b) a likely indicator that I wouldn't have to spend as much time explaining F-stops and ISO speeds to them; and (c) enthusiasm to work instead of playing X-Box whilst the job applications were in the mail.Now, I do grant you, I have no data backing up this view - it's my personal view as to a potential employer of someone. And the photographer example isn't ideal, because photographers tend to work as sole traders and not take on juniors to train up. It's more applicable to my sort of role in an office.I also entirely agree that there are wider issues to tackle - job creation being at the top of the list. However, as part of a wider package of measures, and with appropriate safeguards to seek to prevent or reduce abuse, then I can see that unpaid work for the unemployed can be of some benefit. (And not just to the employer).Of course it's not a panacea, but nor is it useless for the unpaid worker.

Sure, but I read this as a case where a candidate's experience as a photographer's assistant is relevant because you're hiring for the position of photographer's assistant. So I see this as consistent with my point that the way you get experience for the job you want is to do the job you want. I continue to disagree, and you don't seem to have even attempted to make a case that I shouldn't. It's all very well and good for employed people to believe that chattel slavery for the unemployed is a good idea, but there are substantial objections to the practice which no one has even tried to address.

As an employer, though, I wouldn't often look at the situation as narrowly as that. In my experience, when looking at people's CVs, I will be seeking to assess the applicant not solely upon the basis of the narrow band of experience that the role itself entails. I will be looking to find someone who appears to be keen, enthusiastic, willing to learn, and able to fit in with my workforce. And, personally, if I see someone who has put in a stint of unpaid work, even if it is in a role which is not equivalent to the one I am seeking to fill, then that stint of unpaid work is one which will be positive for the applicant in my eyes. It won't be a clincher, but it will help them. I'm not objecting to you disagreeing - please feel free to. However, when you say that it is well and good for employed people to see chattel slavery for the unemployed as a good idea, please be aware that that is not what I am saying. I am saying that a stint of unpaid work whilst unemployed (and no paid work is currently available to someone) can weigh in that person's favour if they apply to me for a job. Even if the unpaid labour was in a different role.I totally and absolutely agree that the practice should not be a way for businesses to get free labour instead of advertising paid jobs - this is what I was referring to with my earlier reference to safeguards.

Sure. As it happens, I recently got a job largely on my ability to demonstrate keeness, enthusiasm, and willingness to learn, and I demonstrated those things not because I fetched coffee or carried heavy things in the general vicinity of people who were doing the kind of work I wanted to do; I was able to demonstrate those things on the basis of work I'd done for myself.That's my point, you see. The choice isn't between carrying water for a photographer and sitting on your duff; the choice is between carrying water for a photographer and working as a photographer. I'm here to tell you that it makes a lot more sense to do the kind of work you want to be hired to do than to just stand near people who are doing it and hope some of it rubs off on you. And, of course, the third option of doing nothing at all is worse than both. But that third option isn't what we're talking about. My point is that there's no reason to do that unpaid work for anybody but yourself. You get all the putative benefits of doing the work, plus you own the results of the work. It's always - always - a better idea to work for yourself than to work for someone else, if the pay is the same. (Zero, in this case.) Well, but that's the thing. If the "work" your unpaid workers is doing is so easy or pointless that a company would never hire someone to do it, how can that experience be valuable?