ICE agent.
What if they paid you enough to bankroll a political campaign for the opposition?
A) they wouldn’t. B) I’d still end up in jail for attacking another agent.
A) That’s not the question. The question said “regardless of pay.” So we can imagine you get paid $500m. It doesn’t have to be realistic. That’s the point of a hypothetical.
B) If that’s the case, you need to work on your impulse control. In our hypothetical scenario, you would be sacrificing the political change you could create with your salary for the short term satisfaction of hurting someone else. It’s a bit of a trolley problem - but then, the point of trolly problems is to get us to grapple with our ethical assumptions.
Unless you are very good at causing internal disruptions, sabotage and slow downs.
Same. Although mainly because I don’t have the cool maintain my cover while undermining the organization from within.
I’d end up with assault/murder charges, for tasing/shooting one of the bulldogs.
But, what about your monthly “nut”?
I’ll stick with growing weed and building computers. Less blood on my hands there.
Was just a silly reference to the last South Park episode.
ICE
Hmm, you sure? You should watch South Park, S27, E2.
Might change your mind. 😉
Raytheon and co. Anything related to “defense”, really.
You only go around the sun so many times, and you want to spend it on making brown kids into skeletons more efficiently? Fuck that shit.
My coworker left our job because a place offered him a pay raise that was like half his current salary.
He came back - the job was so terrible he couldn’t stay there. Not just the actual work, but the people.
I try to avoid working anyplace evil, so banks, oil companies, etc. and there are environments I can’t be productive in - government, healthcare, anyplace very structured and bureaucratic. I guess if the pay and position are secured, and I can handle my work however I want without losing them, then I would not do anything that would kill me or others either directly or through incompetence (underwater welder, race car driver, assassin, surgeon), would probably cave on banks and other evil orgs, since I might be able to try to change them from the inside.
I try to avoid working anyplace evil, so banks, oil companies, etc. and there are environments I can’t be productive in - government, healthcare, anyplace very structured and bureaucratic.
That’s who invented the Internet.
I work for a Contractor who contracts to Government, including Healthcare. The job is meh, but the people are absolutely awesome. The structure is actually a huge benefit, and it makes all the dotcoms’ seat-of-the-pants I.T stand out so much more. There’s no power-play to prevent updating software - for example - just because “Doug knows the CEO and he doesn’t want to” because Dougie’s written objection wouldn’t pass scrutiny – and, at most, Doug would get an extension to follow a set plan with milestones to get to that update anyway. But there are many examples where common dotcom slackery dies under review.
There are obvious and well-repeated problems with the overly-structured setup, but they’re different from the ones that bother me, and erring on the side of safety and most-benefit is what annoys people (“why can’t we have containers and supply-chain exploits like everyone elssssse”) the most.
I tried to work in a structured and bureaucratic environment once and was so useless because I want to change everything all the time, and wasn’t used to “have your manager talk to her manager”, or people trying to blame their errors on others, or trying to get their job. When I saw the lady who did payroll checking everyone off on a long sheet of green and white paper even though they were paying for Kronos and just not using it right, but she protected her job and didn’t want it to change, and people there would make others look bad instead of helping them, in an effort to look better themselves in comparison, I cannot function in that world.
I’ve only worked at startups, and the good part of that is that everyone is trying to do things better, easier, I don’t get mad if someone sees a better way I could do something, and they don’t have to have their manager tell my manager. And everyone helps everyone, nobody is protecting their job because there is always too much, helping others is how you move up here.
(And yes I know this is a personal difference, not saying it’s a better work environment for everyone, or even better for results. Accounting is its own type of work, too - I try to solve problems and get the software to do what a machine does better than a person. The kind of accounting where you are doing what a machine can, is dreadfully boring. I have often thought help desk at my work is the best job. They troubleshoot, and set up equipment, it’s got a good balance of work. )
There are pipeline and mining jobs near me that would leverage my degree and skills but I don’t even entertain applying, I would hate it there doing stuff I feel is wrong.
Anything requiring me to travel to the US
travel to the US
They round up 12 people a month from New Zealand. NEW ZEALAND! Anyone hating on the nicest country on the planet really has mental issues they need to get solved.
Working under Trump.
I once interviewed at a bulk email (spam) company because i was desperate for a job. They realized how uncomfortable i was so didn’t offer it, but i like to think I would have declined, regardless how much i needed the job.
Everyone just saying jobs they dont like, or that they have ethical qualms about, but ignoring “regardless of pay” - and I don’t believe you.
Just imagine the salary for the position is $500m per year. At a certain point, you would be able to quit the job with plenty of money for the rest of your life after working for a very short period of time, or else you would be able to use the money to make more good in the world than the harm done by your labor.
If you have a skill set someone is offering $500k for, someone less shitty is going to be offering at least $400k. So you’re not giving up $500k, you’re giving up $100k or 20%. I’ve taken bigger pay cuts than that in exchange for increased job satisfaction.
Every other job will only hire you for a normal wage that you would make in the real world.
The point of the exercise is to grapple with an ethical quandry, not to sidestep it.
I’m not particularly interested in an exercise which is completely irrelevant to real-world scenarios. In the real world your choice would look more similar to my example, so that is the more relevant hypothetical.
If we cared about the real world, we’d be actually doing something, rather than just talking.
Anything that requires me to exert force with my hands repetitively for long periods, like teasing or twisting. I’ve done it while fixing things around the house, and I’m damn sure I’d get carpal tunnel very quickly. But typing and moving the mouse all day, every day is fine & dandy! 🙃
There are plenty of jobs I’d be terrible at regardless of what they pay.
If it’s an actual job and not just something made up to be arbitrarily horrible I’d probably give anything a try if you pay 10x my current pay.
Social work and sales
Even for $500m per year
Chicken sexer. Sending all those cute little chicks to their deaths.
Materials handler at a chemical plant.
Anything food service. I am NOT to be trusted with food.
probably dangerous ones, like right wingers in red country. like oil rigs, crab fishing,etc. of course the opportunities in those areas are lacking otherwise. and jobs not offering benefits, or referrals/LOR for for certain industries or fields. it probably depend your morals and your personality too.
