Yes. Find three remote jobs. It is what I do.

You contribute to anti-remote work sentiment by doing this.

That's not their fault. If they're doing the job well enough at all 3, they've satisfied the requirements for employment. Who cares what others think about their "remote sentiment"?

> It is far better to be a massive underperformer

In what world do you read this and think "doing the job well enough at all 3"?

They are the same. You want to be a 30th percentile employee. Bad enough to do little work and never be trusted with anything important or with hard deadlines, but just good enough not to fire.

He is saying that if I am not getting fired, I am good enough to continue working there.

I am familiar enough with the concepts of OE.

There is a difference between being good and efficient enough to handle number roles, and the borderline scam of "get a remote job and try to stay under the radar and drag it out before they fire you".

I'm honestly not 100% sure which of those you are advocating for.

I'm just confused. Why can't people have second tech jobs?

Cashiers can have second jobs working in a different store. Factory workers can work in other factories (it's hard on your body but overall okay).

No one would similarly complain if an Google software engineer was also 'forced' to make ends meet by working in an Apple retail store.

Yes, it's hard on your body and mind to work more than 1 job, but if you need the money then what choice do you have?

Because they haven't been let go? They're paid for the time they're there, not the time they are not.

This smacks of "not their fault, they are just making an economically rational decision" justification to me.

If they signed a contract to the effect they would work exclusively for one company, their choice to lie is unethical. It might be profitable as well, but "not their fault because it's profitable and they can get away with it" shamelessness, writ large, is making everything worse.

> This smacks of "not their fault, they are just making an economically rational decision" justification to me.

This is exactly the point.

The if's don't matter because they weren't addressed. You can't assume that person is breaking contract law. You have no idea.

Or maybe intentionally screwing people (coworkers, your employer) over is an unethical thing to do even if we lean into the extreme credulity you profess here and say, "hey, we don't know if this poster signed one of those special 'FYI I will be screwing you over' contracts, it is not for us to make assumptions, we haven't reviewed the contract."

Couple of things:

Nobody owes their employer any more than the minimum that is guaranteed by the employment contract. Sucks, but that's life.

If you feel like the quality of your coworkers that give minimum effort is screwing you over, talk to your employer.

If an employer can be picky enough that they require you to only have them as your only employer, they would need to specify that in an employment contract (it's not enforceable, you have a right to privacy from your employer).

If you want to be "ethical" (ie, servile to your employer) to the detriment of your economic survival, that's fine. That's your choice. Everyone else is going to play the game to the rules.

In a tragedy of the commons, one should race to exploit the commons.

What makes you feel that way?

probably game theory

LOL, *you* are the only tragedy here. 3 jobs, i doubt you even have time for friends.

That’s so sad… do you see a bright future for the human race?

For some. Mostly those who beat others.

So you can burn out in 1/3 of the time.