|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Unpaid Work For The Unemployed | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I already told you the answer. Remember? I showed you the context of the discussion? I already saw the context of the discussion, but I'm still confused. Is it so difficult to explain it to me so that I do understand?
Well, wait, that's not my argument. Remember? Sorry, I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free.
You already agreed with me that you can follow around a photographer for free, without fetching coffee or hauling gear. It is possible, but it rather depends on the photographer you want to follow around really doesn't it?
That was your Message 196 where you conceded that. Hardly a concession, I've never disputed it.
Now you're misrepresenting my argument and ignoring the fact that you've already conceded this point. I apologize, as I thought you were arguing that people shouldn't work gratis, I thought you'd apply that same reasoning to the photographer who should also not work for free. He should gain something of value out of the exchange, if he is sensible. Granted, it is possible to get a free car. I've received a free car once. That doesn't make me irrational for paying for one. I might be able to get a free 1989 Citroen BX, but if I want 2010 Ford Fiesta I'm going to almost certainly have to pay to get it. You might be fortunate in finding someone that'll do it for free, it might even be common. But I fail to see what's irrational about agreeing to a mutual exchange of services.
And a milkman would certainly find it more valuable to be paid $100 for a carton of milk than $3. That doesn't mean I should give him $100 for milk when I can pay $3 Of course not. I'm suggesting you do a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. Is it worth me fetching a few brews in exchange for insights into the business? And that depends on the circumstances. Maybe they're a crap photographer that's scraping a living. Then maybe you might not think its worth it. On the other hand, if they have won Pullitzer or something you might think it well worth your time.
Don't work for others for free. It's not really for free. It's in exchange for services.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hi Modulous. Is this a serious statement or are you just trying to be funny? I've seen some mechanics work on vehicles before. You think this is going to help me in any way whatsoever when trying to get hired by a garage? No. But if you have a bit knowledge, and you spend a day talking to them about common jobs, quick fixes, long jobs, air filter cleaning tips and what have you, it might help you be a better mechanic if you were thinking of becoming self-employed. Doubly so if you have access to the gaffer for the day. You can learn the ins and outs of setting up your business if you're canny.
Modulous, you can't be serious about watching pros do their work and then expect that that will somehow benefit you in the slightest way in the real world when trying to get hired for a particular position. Chuck, I've spent a considerable amount of time on this thread explicitly pointing out that this is precisely not what I am saying. I am saying that seeing a photographer set up shots, learn how they waterproof their kit, organise their lenses, and talking to them about lucrative jobs and low paying jobs. Risks vs rewards, how to find your niche, and all those kinds of thing that will help you become a freelance photographer. It won't transform you into one. There's still plenty of mistakes to be made, but if you remember some advice, you might avoid some costly mistakes along the way. However: this system might work for some jobs. onifre mentioned directing as being potentially one of them. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
catholic Scientist writes: I can't tell if he's stupid or lying. Today, I'm leaning towards lying. This is strange. You can't tell if Crashfrog is stupid or lying because he thinks real hands on experience that you can get paid for is what employers are looking for instead of following someone around for free all day asking questions and running errands and watching them work? Indeed strange. You can get hired in a field and get a pay Check as a helper or assistant or whatever. Start at the bottom. But doing it for free all day while taking notes? I think an employer is looking for more than an errand boy who watched someone do their job before and thinks that is considered somehow valuable when job hunting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is it so difficult to explain it to me so that I do understand? I don't understand what you don't understand, I guess. That's why I kept asking but you seemed disinclined to explain.
Sorry, I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free. No, my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.
Granted, it is possible to get a free car. I've received a free car once. That doesn't make me irrational for paying for one. No, it's absolutely irrational for you to pay for the exact same car that you could get for free. Why pay when you can get it for free? That makes no sense. Now, you're going to try to come up with counterexamples, but they won't be counterexamples because they'll be examples of paying for something different than what you could get for free. Like your car example - that's two different cars. And that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm suggesting you do a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. And I'm suggesting the same thing, and my position is that there's no conceivable set of circumstances where working for someone else for free is of greater benefit than working for yourself for free. You guys keep trying to harp on this one supposed counterexample of shadowing a photographer, but as I've shown, it's no counterexample at all because you don't get anything that you couldn't get working for yourself and shadowing a photographer without wasting your time doing grunt work.
On the other hand, if they have won Pullitzer or something you might think it well worth your time. Maybe, but my point is that you would be wrong to.
It's not really for free. So it's not a counterexample at all, then, now is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
I don't understand what you don't understand, I guess. That's why I kept asking but you seemed disinclined to explain. OK step by step
quote: I replied
quote: It wasn't quite 'getting a job' in the strictest sense, but I feel it was still in the sphere of 'gaining employment'. So CS's example wasn't wildly out of context. Especially given the context, as I show below, was basically one of getting value other than money out of doing work.
quote: I have no idea why you are asking this question. I mean the answer is pretty straightforward and I've given it. But presumably you had some reason you wanted to say this. Is there no other way you can conceive of to try making the same point in a different way?
Sorry, I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free. No, my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.
In the context, I fail to see how this distinction makes a difference. You are suggesting the professional photographer should work for the wanabe for free, which is in contrast to your position that one should not work for others for free.
No, it's absolutely irrational for you to pay for the exact same car that you could get for free. Why pay when you can get it for free? That makes no sense. Yup. And if you happen to know a photographer that won't ask you for any favours and they're equally as good as any others you can ask, that's the one you should go for, obviously.
Now, you're going to try to come up with counterexamples, but they won't be counterexamples because they'll be examples of paying for something different than what you could get for free. Like your car example - that's two different cars. And that's not what I'm talking about. I don't see why it's different. Not all photographers are equal. You might find one photographer that doesn't get asked this kind of thing very often, and who might find value of their own in explaining the trade to a newbie. They might be inexperienced themselves, or just not very good. On the other hand, there are award winning photographers making huge sums of money. If you could pick one of them to shadow for the day, I think the rational choice would be the latter. But the latter may ask for favours in return. Or not. But if they did, and you think the price is worth paying, then I say go for it.
my position is that there's no conceivable set of circumstances where working for someone else for free is of greater benefit than working for yourself for free Well I can conceive of a set of circumstances where this might come into play. Let's say a movie producer comes up to you and says 'I want you to direct my next film. I will pay you $500,000 to do it. While I think you have talent, you haven't the experience of working on a big set. My friend is shooting one at the moment and the director needs a new assistant. Because you're inexperienced I can't convince him to pay you for it, but you only need do it for three months then we can start filming our project'. The numbers are all aribtrary, but I can imagine some future employment opportunity would motivate me to certain jobs without pay.
Maybe, but my point is that you would be wrong to. Prove it.
It's not really for free. So it's not a counterexample at all, then, now is it? Well given how Jon was originally talking about doing work for something other than money... I think it suffices. Here is Jon's take on things:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Then CS raised his example of a person getting value in return for working without being paid money.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What "programs"? The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme that this thread is about. Its for people who are on Jobseekers Allowance. After you're on the dole for too long, they put your ass to work for free so you don't get stagnant. Either that, or you get off the dole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2620 From: massachusetts US Joined: |
Perhaps this whole argument has been over semantics.
Following a photographer around and getting valuable tips, taking notes, learning the ropes in exchange for doing mundane non-photographer errands is more like a paying a small adult education fee at your community college in order to get valuable knowledge in the course you are taking - which could involve taking you out into the field where you even learn what kind of shoes are best to wear. It can be construed correctly as education, not experience. Note that Onifre has stated that no one successful in film making has not done a stint of unpaid work. Note that most of the examples cited here are in the arts. I can also think of the medical profession, where literally you are STILL IN SCHOOL when you do your unpaid internship in order to get your sheepskin. So, on your resume (CV for you UK folk) where would you list "Learned directly from Ansel Adams in person on how to set the black & white exposures." In the Experience section or in the Education section?- xongsmith, 5.7d |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
OK step by step Well, yes, Mod. You're not going to understand it "step by step" if your "step by step" omits most of the steps. Here it is actually step by step, as I presented in Message 197 Crash writes: Now you're playing word games. Obviously anything you do is an "experience" that you experience, by definition. Sitting at home doing nothing is "experience" in the sense that you're experiencing boredom and idleness.
Mod writes: It's not a word game, its just a word and you were getting tripped up on it. CS was talking about a valuable experience. You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.
Crash writes: No, it's a discussion, the discussion has context, and that context has always been that we're talking about the sort of experience that helps you get a job. That's the context we started with. Now you're trying to pretend like that context was never present. Maybe you didn't understand that it was present, that's understandable when you jump into the middle of someone else's conversation, but in that case you should just admit that you misunderstood.
Mod writes: And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
Crash writes: What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"? For instance, when I was doing journalism I knew that I was finally "pro" at it when the newspaper actually paid me for my work. So you're making a claim here that CS is saying that if you follow around a photographer, you'll get work experience that you could put on a resume so that somebody might hire you. But CS is now claiming that he never said that if you follow a photographer around you'll get work experience that you could put on a resume so that somebody might hire you.
Perfectly obvious, to me. Can you explain what is confusing about this exchange?
So CS's example wasn't wildly out of context. I've never claimed that it was "wildly out of context." I've claimed that there was a context where "experience" was being used in a different way in which you were using it, and when you came into the middle of the discussion using the term differently than we were, you were, perforce, equivocating on the term. Either intentionally or unintentionally. I assert intentionally, because I informed you that you were doing this way back in Message 160 but you ignored me.
You are suggesting the professional photographer should work for the wanabe for free, which is in contrast to your position that one should not work for others for free. There's nowhere where I suggested that the photographer should work for anybody for free, so this is another of your misrepresentations. My position, in fact, is that nobody should work for others for free when they can work for themselves for free, and in doing so, get all of the benefits of working for free plus they own the product of their work. But you know that's my position because I've told you, several times. Yet you continue to insist that my position is that photographers should work for others for free. Do you see why I'm accusing you of the most rank dishonesty? Hint: it's because you keep lying about my position.
Let's say a movie producer comes up to you and says 'I want you to direct my next film. I will pay you $500,000 to do it. While I think you have talent, you haven't the experience of working on a big set. My friend is shooting one at the moment and the director needs a new assistant. Because you're inexperienced I can't convince him to pay you for it, but you only need do it for three months then we can start filming our project'. Sure. The appropriate response would be to take the first offer and not the second. What's the advantage of working the second job, in this scenario? I don't see it. And even if the first is contingent on the second - you don't say that it is - go and find a third offer. If one producer will pay you $500,000, you've just learned that the market rate for your services as director is higher than nothing. So why work for nothing?
Here is Jon's take on things And I rebutted those points. But you present them, again, as though I had not even responded. Do you see why you open yourself to charges of dishonesty? Hint: it's because you're so dishonest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Apologies for the length. Half of it is just be posting highlights from the discussion with Jon, including your responses so as to avoid charges of dishonesty. Then there's the 'configurations' list which adds length, but isn't a lot of words. I also want to avoid any potential charges of ignoring your points and you made a number of them.
Well, yes, Mod. You're not going to understand it "step by step" if your "step by step" omits most of the steps. As does yours, if we included all of the steps, it would be tedious. As I partially demonstrate below.
Perfectly obvious, to me. Can you explain what is confusing about this exchange? If I haven't been clear already, I hope this works. I am confused about your intention for bringing up the definition of the word professional. Was it meant as a rebuttal? In what sense does it undermine what I said? If your intent was obvious - that only serves to add further confusion: Why can you not explain it?
I've claimed that there was a context where "experience" was being used in a different way in which you were using it, and when you came into the middle of the discussion using the term differently than we were, you were, perforce, equivocating on the term. And as I said, the context was with regards to acquiring something of value in exchange for labour. I was not using the term differently than 'we were'. I may have been using it differently than you were, but that's a misunderstanding, not an equivocation. To be equivocating you'd have to show that I was using alternative meanings in a misleading way. But you haven't shown such a thing. If you'd like, you could show that 'an experience of seeing x done professionally' could only possibly mean 'gain professional experience doing x' in the context, I'd be interested to see your working. I mean, marketable experience only seems to come up in Message 150, and to me it was Message 170. Here is the context, as full as you'd like, within tolerable limits and with some inevitable mistakes (I'm not getting paid to do this ). Jon said:
quote: You retorted
quote: Jon replied:
quote: crashfrog:
quote: Jon:
quote: crash:
quote: Straggler chimes in:
quote: crashfrog:
quote: Jon:
quote: crashfrog
quote: {A brief bit of snarkiness not relevant to the flow of discussion} Jon:
quote: crashfrog
quote: {ahem another cut} Jon:
quote: crashfrog:
quote: and finally: CS:
quote: I will take your word for it that in your mind, when you saw Jon list 'experience' you were thinking of 'work experience' or 'experience of doing the job' or 'marketable experience'. However, what you said was ''experience that was relevant to a paid job". The experience of following a photographer around is experience that was relevant to a paid job. Then you brought it up in our discussion, I looked at CS's example of 'an experience of watching x' in exchange for work, I remembered the general discussion you'd been having with Jon regarding getting something other than money in exchange for labour, and I operated under that context. I saw you were focusing on the value of acquiring coffee rather than the value that CS was bringing forward as an example of something you might do work in exchange for, and tried to draw your attention to the actual value you'd get out of the exchange rather than the value the pro got out of it. I hope that fuller context examination might help me gain my 'honesty points' back. I hope that because I didn't spam the board with the full discussion, and tried to keep it to salient sentences, you won't complain of quote mining or something. I invite the curious to go read Jon and crash's exchange for themselves for the full glory.
There's nowhere where I suggested that the photographer should work for anybody for free, so this is another of your misrepresentations. Are you then saying that teaching people isn't work? As I have posted twice now:
quote: Last time you responded, you didn't acknowledge that the pro photographer is having to do work for your benefit, perhaps you missed it. Your argument is
quote: The photographer is somebody.Teaching someone the ropes is work. By your own argument, a photographer therefore should not show someone the ropes for free. There are several possible configurations: a: The pro does some work for free.b: The amateur does not do work for free c: The pro does not do work for freed: The amateur does work for free e: The pro does work for freef: The amateur does work for free g: The pro does not work for freeh: The amateur does not work for free. I assert, and I believe you must agree, that gh is the only configuration where all parties are acting rationally. In our example this is: g2: The pro works for coffeeh2: The amateur works for knowledge Naturally, we both agree, that the amateur should prefer the configuration ab. Then again the pro should prefer cd. But, except in cases of generosity, we should expect gh and neither party can be criticized for that arrangement.
The appropriate response would be to take the first offer and not the second. The first is contingent on the second.
And even if the first is contingent on the second - you don't say that it is - go and find a third offer. I didn't think I needed to spell it out, since it is the only way my argument made any sense. I tried to have it implied (quite strongly I thought) that:
quote: Is causing the producer to not want to hire you, would be apparent. What if the work required to get a 'third offer' resulted in less $/hour worked than in the original offer? What if you'd been working for nothing for 10 years before this offer came around, and it might be once in a lifetime for all you can tell?
If one producer will pay you $500,000, you've just learned that the market rate for your services as director is higher than nothing. If you had learned that your market rate is higher than nothing, you may have a valid point. All you've learned is that one 'buyer' is willing to pay that right now. And in exchange for $500,000 the producer asks you to get some experience. You're free to find someone to pay you to get that experience, but you might fail to do so in time. The producer is giving you a guaranteed avenue to gain the exact degree of experience they require of you to make you worth their money. If the filming lasts 9 months, and the free assistant works lasts 3 months - then you're effectively being paid $500,000 for 1 year work. It's less than $500,000 for 9 months that you would have got if you had the necessary experience to begin with, but that's fair enough. Might you find a better offer? Yes, but that possibility does not render it irrational to decide to take the guaranteed six figure payout.
And I rebutted those points. But you present them, again, as though I had not even responded. I presented them as a quick and simple way of showing the context of the discussion leading up to that point. I figured as Jon was the originator of the point, he would be a fairly good source for determining the points being discussed. As far as I can tell, your replies don't alter the overall context of the discussion in any way.
Do you see why you open yourself to charges of dishonesty? Hint: it's because you're so dishonest. If I had stated that I was including them for the purposes of showing how you had failed to rebut an argument, that'd be dishonest. However, presenting a list of Jon's quotes to support my claim that
quote: I'm not sure that your dishonesty charge flies here. I mean honestly, you criticize me for making my posts too long, then you criticize me for not be (needlessly) thorough enough for your liking. And you wonder why people express so regularly that it can be pretty unpleasant trying to argue with you? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I am confused about your intention for bringing up the definition of the word professional. It's a rebuttal to your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job, because as you admitted, "professional" basically means "does it as a job." I don't see how that's not stupidly obvious. Are you now going to dishonestly assert that you never made such a claim?
And as I said, the context was with regards to acquiring something of value in exchange for labour. I've told you what the context is. Remember I was in the discussion before you were, which means that I know what the context was because I helped create it. You don't get to come in after the fact and say "no, this other thing has been the context this whole time." That's misrepresentation.
I may have been using it differently than you were, but that's a misunderstanding, not an equivocation. Nobody was using it the way you were. I've shown you that I was using it a certain way, and you've now agreed that CS was using it that way as well (you agreed when you assented to our shared definition of "professional", which is why I asked you about it, obviously.) So there's no basis where you can claim that you were using the term in the same context we were - you introduced a new usage of the term "experience", where you just meant "anything that happens to you", but did not state that you were using the term differently. That is equivocation on your part, and it's dishonest. Please stop being dishonest.
I will take your word for it that in your mind, when you saw Jon list 'experience' you were thinking of 'work experience' or 'experience of doing the job' or 'marketable experience'. No, Jon was thinking that, and you dishonestly omit the part that proves it:
quote: That's from Message 56. Jon and CS and I have always been talking about marketable work experience, that's been the context from the outset, and you were either unaware and made an error or were aware and chose to equivocate. Well, I told you a hundred messages ago that you had misunderstood the context and you refused to admit error, so I have no choice but to conclude that you're being dishonest. I assume this puts the matter to rest. Everybody's been talking about marketable work experience, not just "things that happen to you", but you.
The experience of following a photographer around is experience that was relevant to a paid job. But it's not, except in the most tangental of cases. You can't become a photographer by following photographers. You can get tips, as I've admitted, but you don't get any tips while you're fetching coffee, so don't fetch coffee. Just get tips and take pictures. Take your own pictures. Work for yourself. Get tips if you want but if it pays the same, work for yourself. You get all the relevant experience plus you own the work product. That's always a better deal because it's exactly the same as you get working for others for free plus additional benefits. Therefore it can never be rational to accept a deal that's the same as what you get working for yourself for free minus substantial benefits.
I hope that fuller context examination might help me gain my 'honesty points' back. What gets them back, Mod, is when you admit to misrepresenting my posts and positions and lying about the context, and agree not to do it anymore. Go forth and sin no more. I promise I won't bring it up anymore if you'll just admit to it and stop. Or if you just stop! We can all agree to look the other way this once. Just don't do it anymore, ok?
Are you then saying that teaching people isn't work? Teaching is work and people shouldn't do it for free except as volunteers. I'm fine with volunteering, I'm a proponent of volunteering, I said so back in Message 55. Volunteering experience definitely has value and people should consider it (maybe especially when they're unable to find paid work. Have to kill time somehow, right?) But if you're going to work for free you should only do so for yourself.
I didn't think I needed to spell it out, since it is the only way my argument made any sense. Well, allow me to correct another of your misconceptions - you certainly need to be making arguments that make sense as written. I can only read your words. I can't read your mind.
Is causing the producer to not want to hire you, would be apparent. But it's not causing the producer to not want to hire me; you said he offered me a $500,000 position. Oh, but "contingent" on me working for free for someone else. Well, politely, I decline. If one producer will offer me a half a million dollar salary (with a big catch) based on my current work experience, then I should easily be able to clear a quarter million dollars with someone else - with a lot of someone else's - or even more. His offer signals that he thinks my work could be worth as much as $500,000. Why should my counteroffer be to signal that I think my work is worth nothing? That's why you don't give your work away for free - in doing so, you signal that your work is worthless. Why would you be in a hurry to send that signal to potential employers? This is the point I made back in Message 17. Would you now care to respond to it?
What if you'd been working for nothing for 10 years before this offer came around, and it might be once in a lifetime for all you can tell? Then clearly working for nothing hasn't been working for you very well, now has it? If you'd worked for yourself for ten years, you might have 5-10 films, some feature-length, to your name by now. But instead you worked for others for ten years and at the end of it you have nothing. As I said to Oni:
quote: Show business proves that you shouldn't work for others, for free.
And you wonder why people express so regularly that it can be pretty unpleasant trying to argue with you? Yes, I'm sure it's very unpleasant to be called out on your dishonest bullshit. Here's a novel strategy - don't be dishonest. It works pretty well for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It's a rebuttal to your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job I never made such a claim. You know, if you had just explained this when I asked, you could have saved lots of needless typing. My claim was that CS WAS talking about the kind of experience that would help you become professional. Watch as I prove it with the power of a supporting quote, with emphasis. From Message 165:
quote: I think I'll call this further evidence for my hypothesis that you are interpreting what I am saying so as to make it as stupid or wrong as possible. If I was using your rules of interpretation, I suppose I'd have to infer you were doing it deliberately, after all the words were quoted numerous times, even by yourself etc etc.
Are you now going to dishonestly assert that you never made such a claim? Boy, is there egg on your face.
No, Jon was thinking that, and you dishonestly omit the part that proves it: Actually I omitted all of Jon's examples because they weren't relevant in establishing that Jon's point was about working in exchange for something of value other than money. He wasn't, as you are representing here, just talking about work experience. He raised several examples As he said:
quote: He was not limiting his examples to just work experience. So when CS gave an example of someone working in exchange for something other than money, that was a perfectly acceptable point to raise. He didn't have to be talking about work experience, no rule of English dictates this. You said
quote: So CS raised an example of someone getting an experience that was relevant to turning professional, without actually doing that job, in exchange for labour.
Teaching is work and people shouldn't do it for free except as volunteers. So you agree that by your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange (volunteering aside)? Because last time I proposed that you said
quote: But it's not causing the producer to not want to hire me; you said he offered me a $500,000 position. Oh, but "contingent" on me working for free for someone else. Well, politely, I decline. If one producer will offer me a half a million dollar salary (with a big catch) based on my current work experience, then I should easily be able to clear a quarter million dollars with someone else - with a lot of someone else's - or even more. You have made the unfounded leap that because one person is willing to pay lots of money, other people must be willing to quite a lot of money. That aside - I'd like to see your working to explain this proposition in more detail. $500,000 for 12 months work is worse than that an unknown probability of getting paid $250,000 for 9 months work. How is this true? It seems counterintuitive so I'm afraid you'll have to walk me through it.
Then clearly working for nothing hasn't been working for you very well, now has it? If you'd worked for yourself for ten years, you might have 5-10 films, some feature-length, to your name by now. And did I say that you had not been working for yourself for ten years? No I did not. I said that you had been working for free, essentially meaning that you made no money on any of the projects that you must have worked on in order for a producer to believe you have the relevant talent (but lack some relevant experience) to direct a decent budget film. As for the accusations of dishonesty and equivocation or misrepresenting the context and so on? If you want to carry on talking about that crap with me, I expect to see supporting quotes and argumentation rather that assertion after repeated assertion as to your position as to what the context was or whatever. Would you pick up a lens cap for Sweden and all its taxes in perpetuity? Would you walk to the shop and buy me a drink with my money in exchange for a trip to Mars? Would you tie a child's shoe laces in exchange for the Library of Alexandria? Would you put this paper cup in the bin in exchange for seeing Jimi Hendrix {insert dead musician you'd like to see live as appropriate} live? Would you shred 500 sheets of paper in exchange for fully paid tuition at a university of your choice in the subject of your choice? Or are you rejecting, on principle, the notion of exchanging services for goods/services?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I never made such a claim. Sure you did, which is why I was rebutting it. Again:
Crash writes: Now you're playing word games. Obviously anything you do is an "experience" that you experience, by definition. Sitting at home doing nothing is "experience" in the sense that you're experiencing boredom and idleness.
Mod writes: It's not a word game, its just a word and you were getting tripped up on it. CS was talking about a valuable experience. You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.
Crash writes: No, it's a discussion, the discussion has context, and that context has always been that we're talking about the sort of experience that helps you get a job. That's the context we started with. Now you're trying to pretend like that context was never present. Maybe you didn't understand that it was present, that's understandable when you jump into the middle of someone else's conversation, but in that case you should just admit that you misunderstood.
Mod writes: And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
Crash writes: What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"? For instance, when I was doing journalism I knew that I was finally "pro" at it when the newspaper actually paid me for my work. So you're making a claim here that CS is saying that if you follow around a photographer, you'll get work experience that you could put on a resume so that somebody might hire you. But CS is now claiming that he never said that if you follow a photographer around you'll get work experience that you could put on a resume so that somebody might hire you.
If you can't keep this context in mind, if indeed you can't even remember what positions you were arguing, then you'll certainly be unable to understand these exchanges.
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. Yes, and when you made this statement in support of an argument that CS "was talking about a different experience" (your words) than I was, I asked you what "professional" meant in order to show you that you had just contradicted your own argument. Now you're doing exactly what CS did; changing your position and trying to act like that's what you were saying all along. But it wasn't. When I said that CS was talking about experience that would help them get a job - turn professional, in other words - you said, in Message 156, that
CS was talking about a valuable experience. You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience. And now you know what experience we were talking about, I hope that clears it all up. Now, at the time I let your belligerent arrogance at the end there pass by unremarked, because that's just the kind of forgiving guy I am, but I'm disinclined to do so now that you've forced me to read it a second time. So that's another breach of conversational trust you stand accused of - coming in to the middle of someone else's discussion and arrogantly presuming to dictate terms.
So CS raised an example of someone getting an experience that was relevant to turning professional, without actually doing that job, in exchange for labour. And I've argued - unrebutted - that the experience is not as valuable as the experience you would get by getting tips and working for yourself.
You have made the unfounded leap that because one person is willing to pay lots of money, other people must be willing to quite a lot of money. Unless I have reason to believe that producer 1 is stupid or insane or dishonest, there's nothing unfounded at all. He's sent a price signal that communicates some degree of information about my value on the market. That's what a price signal does. And if he is stupid or insane or dishonest in my estimation, then there's no reason to believe that the offer is in good faith, so I definitely shouldn't accept it - at best it's a scam to get me to work for free, at worst who knows what. A scam to get me to show up at an abandoned movie lot to eat my liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti, or something.
So you agree that by your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange (volunteering aside)? Yes, if the photographer is going to work as a teacher he definitely shouldn't do so for free. He should do so for compensation commensurate to his skills as a teacher. I don't see how that's a contradiction to anything I said, maybe you can explain.
That aside - I'd like to see your working to explain this proposition in more detail. Mod, I've explained it in excruciating detail, using concepts from economics such as "price signaling" and "market value." If there's something you still don't understand - like how a price can signal information about the value of an item to someone who is in the market for it - then you'll have to ask more specific questions. I can't read your mind and pluck out the source of your confusion or ignorance. Telling me "I don't understand" does nothing to help me help you with your lack of understanding. I need a better read on the contours of your misunderstanding than that.
And did I say that you had not been working for yourself for ten years? Uh, yes, you were pretty specific:
quote: Working for yourself isn't "working for nothing", I've been pretty clear about that, I thought. Working for yourself means that you own the product of that work. Working for nothing means working for someone else, because they're the ones who keep all of your work product.
If you want to carry on talking about that crap with me, I expect to see supporting quotes and argumentation rather that assertion after repeated assertion as to your position as to what the context was or whatever. Done and done. I've been doing this throughout, this message included. I've never accused you of dishonesty without supporting documentation. Your implication to the contrary is simply further obfuscatory dishonesty on your part. I'm sorry if these charges are beginning to smart, Mod - you're clearly getting incensed about the whole thing - but you should look back at the copious examples I've accumulated and ponder if, perhaps, the sting in the charges is the sting of truth. Remember, I'm not the one who decided this thread had to be about participants as well as positions; to be about making and rebutting charges against personal integrity. You can thank CS for opening that door. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1715 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Rather than give you individual reasons why I would turn down your absurd job offers, let me share with you a more conventional job offer that I did turn down:
quote: See if you can guess why I didn't respond to this offer. Hint: It's not because I wouldn't have wanted to do the work, or didn't think the stated pay was high enough for it. See if you can find the hidden catch. I was halfway through drafting my acceptance before I saw it, myself. Good thing, too, I could have been in real trouble. Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
It's a rebuttal to your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job I never made such a claim {easy to understand and compelling evidence provided but not addressed} You aren't even reading what I'm writing are you? I can tell. The reason you were rebutting that claim is because you read my claim wrong. When I compare the claim you said I made (and rebutted), with the exact words I used it is clear to all English speakers that I made the EXACT OPPOSITE claim. Watch again, I'll put them both in big font so you can see
crashfrog writes: {your claim was that} CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job Mod writes: And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. But clearly you don't have to get hung up on such details as the words I used.
If you can't keep this context in mind, if indeed you can't even remember what positions you were arguing, then you'll certainly be unable to understand these exchanges. Since you copied and pasted my words several times without reading them correctly, as evidenced above, I have no confidence in your doing it again. So let me walk you through it:
quote: Here I say that CS is talking about an experience, just not 'an experience working as a photographer'. As essential as that kind of experience would be, that wasn't the kind of experience CS was talking about when he raised his example
quote: Here you say that the context was that we're talking experience that might help you get a job
quote: Here I am saying that CS comments about gaining an experience operates within the context as the experience in question does help you turn professional.
quote: Which you wrote, as you admitted, because you were rebutting the exact opposite of what I said viz., the example that CS gave was NOT of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. An issue I have cleared up now, but apparently despite posting the exact quote you still insist you were right.
Yes, and when you made this statement in support of an argument that CS "was talking about a different experience" (your words) than I was, I asked you what "professional" meant in order to show you that you had just contradicted your own argument. Going to college is an experience that will help you turn professional. Going to college is not the same as becoming an experienced photographer. I'm talking about, and have been all along, an experience that will benefit your career, which is not performing the career itself.
Now you're doing exactly what CS did; changing your position and trying to act like that's what you were saying all along. All you have to do is actually show where I took one position, and then took another position. You don't actually get to do this by changing what I said to its exact opposite and claiming I changed my position, sorry.
So that's another breach of conversational trust you stand accused of - coming in to the middle of someone else's discussion and arrogantly presuming to dictate terms. And yet you provide no support of me 'presuming to dictate terms', arrogantly or otherwise. What you have is me saying that CS was talking about an experience that would be useful to your career but was not the experience of doing the work. How is that dictating terms?
And I've argued - unrebutted - that the experience is not as valuable as the experience you would get by getting tips and working for yourself. It's unrebutted because it's not a counterargument. I hold the same position, and have said as such. But this is not whether the experience is 'as valuable' as some other experience you may or may not be able to have. It's about whether the experience has value.
Unless I have reason to believe that producer 1 is stupid or insane or dishonest I see you replied to the most unimportant and irrelevant part of what I said. Here is the part I was hoping you'd tackle
quote: Yes, if the photographer is going to work as a teacher he definitely shouldn't do so for free. He should do so for compensation commensurate to his skills as a teacher. I don't see how that's a contradiction to anything I said, maybe you can explain. As I said, you said 'that's not my argument' when I said it the second time (you didn't respond the first time), that's why it became a point of argument. If you are now saying it's perfectly in agreement with your argument then I return to my original point
quote: So since we are in agreement that neither party should be doing work without compensation I proposed this:
quote: And I'm eager to see your argument explaining why the amateur is being irrational.
Mod, I've explained it in excruciating detail, using concepts from economics such as "price signaling" and "market value." Yes, but you didn't apply that to the example given. So explain how x% probability of getting paid $250,000 for 9 months work is better than ~100% probability of getting paid $500,000 for 12 months work. You can factor in 'price signaling' and 'market value' into that if you want, but I don't think its really going to help. What signal are you sending about price if you turn down $42,000/month in exchange for $28,000/month? And how is this to your advantage?
Working for yourself isn't "working for nothing", I've been pretty clear about that, I thought. The context should have made it clear. 'Working for nothing' clearly means 'working without pay'. Since we're technically not really talking about 'working for nothing', as has been patiently explained to you, I would have thought you'd have realized that. I've never accused you of dishonesty without supporting documentation. Summarize this supporting documentation for me, because I must have missed it. I've done a lot of work going back to this thread to support my claims of consistency and honesty. I'm sure you can do a little bit of work to prove me wrong. Quoting what I am saying and responding as if I'm saying something else doesn't count, by the way.
'm sorry if these charges are beginning to smart, Mod - you're clearly getting incensed about the whole thing - but you should look back at the copious examples I've accumulated and ponder if, perhaps, the sting in the charges is the sting of truth. quote: No support for this claim presented that I can see, ample support in refutation. I've been talking about the same thing all along: the value acquired in learning from a pro being paid for in labour. No equivocation on that matter at all. To support dishonesty you need to show that I knew the truth, but intentionally represented things in a way contrary to that.To support equivocation you have to show how I've been using the ambiguity of a word in order to mislead. You have done neither of these things.
quote: It wasn't lying about your position, it was an attempt to lead you to a conclusion that you were resisting for no good reason. I said, 'a photographer should get paid to teach you'You said, 'that's not my argument' After some clarification you said 'my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.' Which is entirely consistent with what I had originally said: the photographer should get paid to teach you, he shouldn't work for you for free. This isn't lying about your position, it's showing an inconsistency in your argument. I knew you didn't think the photographer should do it for free, but you denial of its opposite would suggest you were saying they should. Again, no supporting evidence cited that I was actually lying.
quote: No supporting evidence provided. Supporting evidence would be I suppose to show how the quotes that I avoided posting change the context of the discussion.
Remember, I'm not the one who decided this thread had to be about participants as well as positions I've not made this about you crashfrog. You have decided to make too much of this argument about my perceived shortcomings, and your insistence on accusing me of being dishonest rather than making mistakes. All I've done is accuse you of being human. I'm desperately trying to a) defend against your accusationsb) support the argument that you can exchange labour for something of value other than money Towards the end of b), perhaps you can address the questions I raised at the end of the thread
quote: Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3199 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
See if you can find the hidden catch. Found it:
quote: Who wants to work for a dirty hispanic...? Good catch, crash. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024