The Supreme Court Says Unanimously Your Boss Can Make You Work For Free

I often put in about 30 to 45 min a day off the clock at the office getting everything done before heading home. It bugs me that I'm basically working for free. But I still do it due to having a strong work ethic. They should make them do the security search during their shift at the end. But I doesn't seem like too big of a deal to me that they have to wait 25 minutes after they get off their shift. Heck lots of people have to spend an hour + a day just getting to or from work. I work with several people who drive 1+ just to get to work and 1.5+ in traffic just to get home.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

i used to do the same.
i had so much work piled up i would come in at 2-3 in the morning and work for 2 hours before clocking in at 4.
strange thing is i was told i cant do that
guess not every evil company wants free labor

i didnt do it all the time but if i had a crazy work load i would

i dont like to feel backed up. i cant sleep anyway so i figured i might as well get something done

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: ForteanOrg

if youre offended by me saying people will always steal

Yes. Let's not exaggerate though. I'm not Not "gravely offended". Certainly not "I will hate you in return" offended - not even "Oh, now you made me spill my coffee" offended. But yes, offended. If people simply project the misbehaviour of a minority within some group on all that are part of a group, I am. Offended.

Not guilty until proven guilty.

Another reason for me to be offended is the bad example you probably set in real life. 90 percent of people do not steal, but if a person with limited intellectual or emotional capacities overhears you - say a young child - and you say what you write in here he or she may even believe it is true. And so, in his or her eyes, it may not even be absurd to steal - don't we all? Did'nt Grovit say so? It must be true than. Don't underestimate your influence.

i said it because it is true.

No, it is not. I presented a link to a site that probably is keen on bending the numbers a bit towards the negative - but even they say only 1 in 11 people steal. So, you're not telling the truth at all: ninety percent of people DO NOT STEAL.

That's a whopping majority. So, you DO lie when you say "people steal" as if it were a general truth.

i did not say all people already told you why there are all those cameras... let me tell you again.. cause people steal...not just customers but employees as well

Again, that's only true for roughly 10 percent of the people. But 100 percent of the people are being watched and recorded - and when they object, the answer that folks like you give is "Well, people steal, so there SHOULD be camera's". Before you know it an innocent employee has to stand in line - in his own time, with the blessing of the High Court - for 25 minutes because his a*hole manager believes the crap the media and folks like you spread: that all people steal. THEY DO NOT.

why are you so delicate? ive never known a person to get offended by someone else saying people will always steal

Not delicate - vigilant. We have seen the squandering of most civil rights in the past 20 years, we've seen leaders in the "free" West quivering for non-existing terrorism and using that as a reason to torture folks, spy on their own, throw innocent folks in jail without proper arrest or a day in Court. And all that starts when somebody starts telling lies like "we are in danger of terrorism" or "all people agree that we have no other options" or "all people steal".

I wish you were a bit more delicate, Sir. We are honest, upright people whom deserve to be trusted.

I'd imagine the Amazon warehouse has plenty of issues with loss prevention. It's almost a thieves dream to work at a place like that. There will be a percentage of people who steal that work there. A small percentage, but still, there will be someone.

As for me I do not steal. Never have. Just not part of my makeup. If I were literally starving would I hang out at the produce isle "sample" everything? If it were a life necessity sure. But stealing in general nope. And I agree most people do not steal. But there will always be a percentage of any population that absolutely will.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Another reason for me to be offended is the bad example you probably set in real life.
should i be offended by that? im not but should i be?

90 percent of people do not steal, but if a person with limited intellectual or emotional capacities overhears you - say a young child - and you say what you write in here he or she may even believe it is true
well, thats not really my problem. mommy and daddy need to teach them


. And so, in his or her eyes, it may not even be absurd to steal - don't we all? Did'nt Grovit say so? It must be true than. Don't underestimate your influence.
again, i have no influence on anyone other than my child. if a stranger influences your child(for example) then you sir have a problem


No, it is not. I presented a link to a site that probably is keen on bending the numbers a bit towards the negative - but even they say only 1 in 11 people steal. So, you're not telling the truth at all: ninety percent of people DO NOT STEAL.
i am telling the truth. people do steal. 1% of people is people. im just not breaking it all the way down like you. again, thats your issue, not mine. i still stand by what i said. people steal. people always have and they always will. maybe you should not take that to mean everyone. i mean, did i say everyone? pretty sure i didnt

That's a whopping majority. So, you DO lie when you say "people steal" as if it were a general truth.
well, people do steal. know what else people do? the lie...and i will say 100% of people. everyone lies...big, small, sometimes, all the time....people lie


Again, that's only true for roughly 10 percent of the people. But 100 percent of the people are being watched and recorded - and when they object, the answer that folks like you give is "Well, people steal, so there SHOULD be camera's".
now youre lying...see, everyone does it. i didnt say there should be cameras. i said there are cameras. then i gave an example of why...


folks like you spread: that all people steal. THEY DO NOT.
another lie. i never said all people steal. i said people steal. and they do. if you go to the extrem of 'all people' when i simply say people, well, thats your problem


I wish you were a bit more delicate, Sir. We are honest, upright people whom deserve to be trusted.

well sir, i dont have the same view of people as you.
i dont trust people. my life experiences lead me to feel that way.
trust has to be earned. it is not given automatically. not by me.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
But there will always be a percentage of any population that absolutely will.

yup.
i dont know what forteans malfunction is.
i said people steal and he assumes i meant all people and even said that i said all people and i didnt.

i can also say for example 'people get brain cancer'
fortean, are you gonna freak out and assume i mean all people?

a reply to: Aazadan

If you find that concept to be absurd, then you're admitting that there's a point at which a contract isn't valid even though a person is agreeing to it. At what point is that

There are long established legal guidelines for the formation of contracts that preclude the level of absurd moral hazard you proposed.

On top of that, contracts signed under duress aren't valid. Every low skill position an adult is going for is signed under duress.

This is outright BS. Just because you need a job does not mean you're forced to accept a contract you don't agree with. Signing a contract under duress legally requires you to be coerced, and the duress must come from the direct involvement of the benefiting party, which is not the case. Amazon does not benefit from someone needing a job. They benefit from employees agreeing to do the job in the manner they prescribe and to follow the directives of the company as a condition of their employment contract. Which, of course, is voluntary. I didn't like the way some things went down at Amazon when I worked there. But I signed the contract and cashed the paychecks until I quit.

Your need to eat and have a roof (which in some cases it is illegal to not have) outweigh your ability to choose jobs based on offering reasonable employment conditions.

Your conditions prior to employment with any company is not the fault of or responsibility of the company with which you seek employment.

Simply saying it's in the contract so too bad isn't an excuse.

There is nothing in Amazons employment contract that is illegal or unethical. They have a valid argument and they proved it in court. End of story.

originally posted by: Grovit
a reply to: Aazadan

give me a break man.
if they got that job they can get another.
i dont mean walk out with no job but they could do that too
if youre not happy you grind it out while you apply for other jobs. every day. online shooting out a few applications.

let me guess, there is a reason they cant do that as well right

and now they are signing contracts under duress?

really stretching man

In the low skill world you can't really bounce around from job to job. Your employment hours tend to be the same time as other companies would like to interview you so you risk your job just by interviewing for another. With the economy being what it is, you can't really quit a job and hope to get another. So yes, I do see it as signing a contract under duress. The more skilled you are or the better represented you are (unions and such) the less and less this is an issue. The low skill worker by definition has nothing to bring to the negotiation, therefore they have nothing to negotiate with.

That's not to say people have absolutely zero options. The main option low skill workers have is that they can learn a skill and move up in the world. This only works on a micro level though. On a macro level we need these low skill jobs to function as a society which means someone has to be doing them, and that someone is going to be screwed.

I see the complaint about Amazon here as in something of a grey area. If it's a 25 minute delay as the workers suggest I think it's reasonable that they be paid for it, if however it's only a 90 second delay as Amazon suggests then I see no problems. What I do know is that Amazon has a reputation as being a horrible place to work so my first thought is to believe the workers. That may not be the case though, people do love to exaggerate things to reinforce their claims.

But back to the main point, you are legally required to have income because homelessness is not an option in many areas. A contract only has meaning when both sides have negotiating power. With the high unemployment we currently have a worker cannot use their time as bargaining leverage. So yes, I do see their contract as well as most other low skill positions as signed under duress and little more than slavery.

a reply to: Aazadan

I never waited more than 3 minutes to get outside, in my car, and on my way back to Reno.

You go through metal detectors. That's about it. There's no one physically searching you and there are enough camera in the place to qualify it as a 360 degree movie studio.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Aazadan

I never waited more than 3 minutes to get outside, in my car, and on my way back to Reno.

You go through metal detectors. That's about it. There's no one physically searching you and there are enough camera in the place to qualify it as a 360 degree movie studio.

If that's all it is, then I think it's perfectly reasonable and that the workers are complaining over nothing. I'm not quite sure where the line is that waiting becomes something that they should be paid for but I know that it's not at 3 minutes.

originally posted by: Aazadan

Your employment hours tend to be the same time as other companies would like to interview you so you risk your job just by interviewing for another.
this is just another in the long line of excuses. why dont you want people to take any of the responsibility? you come up with any reason under the sun as to why people cant get other jobs. now its cause they cant interview cause they are at their current job...people need to be adults and figure it out. responsible adults have been figuring it out since the beginning of time. maybe they need to take a personal day to interview...but let me guess. they dont have any cause they wasted them as soon as they got them right? thats not their fault either right? instead of saving them to use when they might actually need it, they blew the personal days as soon as they got them kind of thing....there are other jobs out there. if you cant get to the interview for whatever reason thats your problem


With the economy being what it is, you can't really quit a job and hope to get another.
well you really shouldnt do that anyway. you know, the whole responsible adult thing

So yes, I do see it as signing a contract under duress.
awesome. its not though, but awesome. just cause you see it that way it does not make it true

The more skilled you are or the better represented you are (unions and such) the less and less this is an issue. The low skill worker by definition has nothing to bring to the negotiation, therefore they have nothing to negotiate with.
another in the long line of reasons why the low skilled workers should strive for more. ya think

That's not to say people have absolutely zero options. The main option low skill workers have is that they can learn a skill and move up in the world. This only works on a micro level though. On a macro level we need these low skill jobs to function as a society which means someone has to be doing them, and that someone is going to be screwed.
yeah, so you have said. john doe can work his way up the ladder to a better paying position and there will be a john doe 2.0 with low skills ready to take his place. ive been working for over 20 years and though all the jobs i have had and all the companies i have worked for, it has always gone down just like that.

I see the complaint about Amazon here as in something of a grey area. If it's a 25 minute delay as the workers suggest I think it's reasonable that they be paid for it, if however it's only a 90 second delay as Amazon suggests then I see no problems.
when is it a problem then? 91 seconds? 5 minutes? what is the cutoff in your eyes



But back to the main point, you are legally required to have income because homelessness is not an option in many areas.
unless you are a headcase and bark at the moon being homeless should never be an option


A contract only has meaning when both sides have negotiating power.
maybe in fantasy land but not in the real world. maybe you should call it an employment agreement or something. just cause you agree to it dont mean you negotiated any of it. these are the terms and if you want to work here, you must agree and sign here. if you do not agree or do not sign, fell free to move on down the road

With the high unemployment we currently have a worker cannot use their time as bargaining leverage. So yes, I do see their contract as well as most other low skill positions as signed under duress and little more than slavery.

well i see your opinions as delusional.
you seem to have this wonderful idea of how things should be. the reality is that is not the way they are.
you told me in another thread that you are in school. thats great.
you also said even though you can program and code you have only ever worked minimum wage.

imo you just dont have any experience as to how # really workd.
you can want things to be a certain way and think things should bea certain way all you want. does not mean thats how it will be.

i think you are going to be in for a serious wake up call when you enter the job market...

and one more thing about the wake up call.
you mentioned in this thread i think that you would not be able to do certain jobs cause you would just get bored and wind up thinking about some robot or something like that.
its great you have an imagination but come on man
you do what you have to do to make it. to survive. to take care of your family
i think along the line somewhere people stopped doing that.

originally posted by: Grovit
this is just another in the long line of excuses. why dont you want people to take any of the responsibility? you come up with any reason under the sun as to why people cant get other jobs. now its cause they cant interview cause they are at their current job...people need to be adults and figure it out. responsible adults have been figuring it out since the beginning of time. maybe they need to take a personal day to interview...but let me guess. they dont have any cause they wasted them as soon as they got them right? thats not their fault either right? instead of saving them to use when they might actually need it, they blew the personal days as soon as they got them kind of thing....there are other jobs out there. if you cant get to the interview for whatever reason thats your problem

You don't get personal days in low skill positions. You don't get sick days either, it's pretty common that if you do take a sick day you're expected to provide a doctors note. No note and you can kiss your job goodbye. Your best option is in scheduling a job interview on your day off. Sometimes that's a valid strategy and sometimes it isn't.

another in the long line of reasons why the low skilled workers should strive for more. ya think

I see it as an argument for collective bargaining/unions. Sometimes unions get too strong and end up doing more harm than good but a few unions keeps everyone competitive including the non union companies as they now have to compete with union benefits.

yeah, so you have said. john doe can work his way up the ladder to a better paying position and there will be a john doe 2.0 with low skills ready to take his place. ive been working for over 20 years and though all the jobs i have had and all the companies i have worked for, it has always gone down just like that.

Yep, there will be. The problem is that not everyone can move up. Jobs are structured like a pyramid with the majority of them being at the lowest level. It is mathematically impossible for everyone to move up. I've presented my own solution to this problem here before which is that we need more entrepreneurs. Among the many other benefits, having a lot of small business puts people in the position to make the most of their abilities. In addition to that, you will never be paid what you're worth when you work for someone else because that other person wants a slice of your labor as profit. When you work for yourself there is no such overhead. That starts to get a bit off topic though.

when is it a problem then? 91 seconds? 5 minutes? what is the cutoff in your eyes

I don't know. It's too subjective. 5 minutes still seems reasonable to me. 10 is starting to push it but I would still side with Amazon I think.

unless you are a headcase and bark at the moon being homeless should never be an option

Given that one has to pay rent, a mortgage, or property taxes if they have a roof over their heads that means some form of income is a requirement. There is no free housing in the US outside of what Utah has recently been attempting.

maybe in fantasy land but not in the real world. maybe you should call it an employment agreement or something. just cause you agree to it dont mean you negotiated any of it. these are the terms and if you want to work here, you must agree and sign here. if you do not agree or do not sign, fell free to move on down the road

This doesn't even hold up for items people have purchased. For example Sonys terms of use agreement with the Playstation 3. And that's something where people could choose to pass as it was purely a want. A base level of income is a need, and when something is a need you have less ability to pass on it. The exact term for a contract is unconscionability. It applies to a contract when there is a gross inequality in bargaining power favoring the stronger party and results in the contract being void. Most low skill positions fall into this category.

you told me in another thread that you are in school. thats great.
you also said even though you can program and code you have only ever worked minimum wage.

imo you just dont have any experience as to how # really workd.
you can want things to be a certain way and think things should bea certain way all you want. does not mean thats how it will be.

One can accept the realities of the system while still coming up with better ways of doing things. If we didn't go through that process we never would have tried (and failed) with Communism and we never would have tried Capitalism. Finding better ways of doing things is how we improve over time.

And yes, I've only ever worked for minimum wage, usually for even less than that. I have no concept of why an employer would ever pay more. It goes against all theory that someone will work for something over working for nothing.

i think you are going to be in for a serious wake up call when you enter the job market...

I hope so. I would love nothing more to be wrong and for the world to actually be a place where people throw money at you to complete a job. I just recently watched one of my former instructors get paid $45/hour for 275 hours (and counting) to perform freelance work that wasn't even usable. Best of all, doing it properly would have only taken him 10 hours. My experience is that this type of setup where people pay you to do poor work is the exception not the norm, in the jobs I've had if I spent 275 hours to build something completely unusable I wouldn't be getting paid anything and I would probably lose the job. Why would a company ever pay for your mistakes or learning experiences and why should they? Again though, this is going off topic.

you mentioned in this thread i think that you would not be able to do certain jobs cause you would just get bored and wind up thinking about some robot or something like that.

That example was more about the idea that I would quickly recognize the futility of the work. A machine can shovel sand (as was the example you used) better and faster than a human can, so why not design the machine to do it? As far as monotonous work goes I enjoy having time alone with my thoughts but doing work that only exists because those making the decisions haven't realized they can replace the labor is not for me.

originally posted by: Aazadan


You don't get personal days in low skill positions. You don't get sick days either,
since when? if you are a full time employee 99% of places offer a couple sick days, personal days, and vacation days. full time employees at mcdonalds, wal mart, the grocery store my wife used to work at get sick/personal days.


it's pretty common that if you do take a sick day you're expected to provide a doctors note. No note and you can kiss your job goodbye. Your best option is in scheduling a job interview on your day off. Sometimes that's a valid strategy and sometimes it isn't.
that is not only in low skill jobs. my employer gives us x amount of sick days, x amount of personal days, and x amount of vacation days based on how long you have been there. if you have eaten through all those and you miss work then yeah, you need a note. to say low skill jobs do not offer sick days or personal days is just false my friend. youre right, its best to schedule an interview on your day off. again, its called being responsible




Yep, there will be. The problem is that not everyone can move up.
not to the top. everyone can move up even a little

Jobs are structured like a pyramid with the majority of them being at the lowest level. It is mathematically impossible for everyone to move up.
it is impossible for everyone to move to the same level at the same time

having a lot of small business puts people in the position to make the most of their abilities.
maybe to a point. its gonna suck for the small business owner that employs a few low skill workers when/if people like you get their wish and they are forced to pay someone 15 an hour for a job worth half that



I hope so. I would love nothing more to be wrong and for the world to actually be a place where people throw money at you to complete a job. I just recently watched one of my former instructors get paid $45/hour for 275 hours (and counting) to perform freelance work that wasn't even usable. Best of all, doing it properly would have only taken him 10 hours.
hmmm. so he is a rip off artist? nice



That example was more about the idea that I would quickly recognize the futility of the work. A machine can shovel sand (as was the example you used) better and faster than a human can, so why not design the machine to do it? As far as monotonous work goes I enjoy having time alone with my thoughts but doing work that only exists because those making the decisions haven't realized they can replace the labor is not for me.

maybe there is a machine that can shovel sand. my employer does not have one though. they use people. why? i dont know. i dont care as i dont shovel sand.

im finding it very hard to debate with you..you have all these fantastic ideas on how things should be and you know all these things like low skilled workers dont get personal days and youre wrong.

can i ask how many years have you spent working?
full time?
part time?
how many different companies?

i dont want to know where and how much you made..its not important.
im just trying to get a handle on how long you have been at it because you sure do seem to have it all figured out.

Just wow. Reading this thread is depressing. I have worked at the same place for 12 years. Sometime I go to work, some times I don't. I have a very stressful job, but on my own terms. I work 30 hours straight when I need and a day a week when my networks are running smooth. I understand the low skill jobs are important. The questing is if low skilled jobs are so vital why do they pay so little? There lies the inequality. Hard work, regardless of the skill set, should pay. I got an education so my job is easy, brother roofs houses so his job is hard. He should make as much or more than I.


Lets carry an rfid chip and pass a gate at the property to function as clock in then screen on the clock. I get paid to drive to job site.

I have seen the issue. Brothers boss will make $7000 on a roof in 2 days and pay his hands 4 or $500. Greed rehashed over and over at all levels. It's a moral problem at the core.

a reply to: ttropia

Do you really think a roofer should make more than a network administrator?

One requires no education, the other requires quite a bit. Education costs money...

Also, if you think their boss is pocketing 7k per roof you're way off. I paid 8.2k to redo my roof. I'm sure all the costs of materials were included in that. It took 4 days. The company also needs to pay for vehicles, fuel etc...

originally posted by: ttropia

I have seen the issue. Brothers boss will make $7000 on a roof in 2 days and pay his hands 4 or $500. Greed rehashed over and over at all levels. It's a moral problem at the core.

its the bosses company
his name and reputation
his expenses for materials
he owns the equipment used
has is insured/bonded....he has to pay for that

the laborer shows up with little skill, very little expense out of his pocket puts in his day and goes home.

if you ask me, $500 for 2 days work is pretty damn good money.
i fail to see the problem


i dont really understand the mentality of 'well my boss makes this much and i only make this'

i just dont get it. go start a company then. come out of your own pocket for the equipment needed. the cost of advertising. the responsibility to the customer...
in the end, the laborer is responsible for very little. even if the laborer screws up the customer will see it as a company screw up...
it is ridiculous

a reply to: Grovit

in the end, the laborer is responsible for very little. even if the laborer screws up the customer will see it as a company screw up...
it is ridiculous

As a business owner I can state that's not really true Labor is responsible for a lot, try running a business that requires making stuff or sell stuff,yes you are large and in-charge but the quality of your stuff is dependent on those making your stuff,it is also important to recognize decent and fair wages is key to avoid high turn over in employees and not treat them as peons.

a reply to: Spider879

i get it.
what i meant was in the end, worst that can happen to the employee for a mistake is they are fired.
the company could lose a hell of a lot more.

i never once said anywhere not to pay a fair wage.

i was a mechanic for a long time.
lets just say i was making 18 an hour...the company was charging 90 an hour.
fair?
of course it is fair....
i mean if i had to do an alignment i grab a few of my hand tools and i put it on the rack and i do it.
its not my alignment machine. that machine cost 20 grand
its not my rack. that rack cost 10 grand
its not my air compressor operating the rack. thats another 5 grand
see what i mean?

i know the employer relies on its employees. when i was a mechanic they relied on me to make repairs on time, and correct. in the end though, the responsibility was on them.

if i screwed up the customer is not going to say 'next time i bring my car in i dont want him to work on it'
theyre gonna say 'im never bringing my car here again'

originally posted by: Grovit
since when? if you are a full time employee 99% of places offer a couple sick days, personal days, and vacation days. full time employees at mcdonalds, wal mart, the grocery store my wife used to work at get sick/personal days.

At the jobs I've had you don't get sick days and you can forget about personal days or vacation days. I've known people that worked at a company for 10 years in low/no skill positions and never been given a single day of vacation.

that is not only in low skill jobs. my employer gives us x amount of sick days, x amount of personal days, and x amount of vacation days based on how long you have been there. if you have eaten through all those and you miss work then yeah, you need a note. to say low skill jobs do not offer sick days or personal days is just false my friend. youre right, its best to schedule an interview on your day off. again, its called being responsible

To be fair, you're not in a no skill position either.

not to the top. everyone can move up even a little

No, they can't. Lets say you have a management:worker ratio of 3:1. At 121 employees that's 1 guy at the top, 3 below him (4), 9 below him (13), 27 below them (40), and 81 below them (121). Out of those 121 people 2/3 of them simply don't have higher level jobs waiting for them. Employment is pyramid structured, that means that not everyone can move up. The jobs simply don't exist for them.

maybe to a point. its gonna suck for the small business owner that employs a few low skill workers when/if people like you get their wish and they are forced to pay someone 15 an hour for a job worth half that

I'm not for an overnight shift to $15/hour. Personally I would like to see us aim for a goal of about $40/hour phased in over 40 years (this takes future needed adjustments into account). It took 35 years for us to get to the point we're now at, I don't think it's unreasonable in expecting it to take 40 years to reverse course. That would be an annual increase to the minimum wage of about 4.04%.

hmmm. so he is a rip off artist? nice

He is. But it's been my experience that most people who do well in my area are ripoff artists. One of my former professors sells "premium websites" to people that he builds using the drag and drop editors in wordpress. Another builds unusable junk software. I don't think highly of those types and have no desire to follow in their footsteps but I have to admit that what they're doing is quite lucrative in my area. It's the same business model as Apple basically... style over substance.

im finding it very hard to debate with you..you have all these fantastic ideas on how things should be and you know all these things like low skilled workers dont get personal days and youre wrong.

can i ask how many years have you spent working?
full time?
part time?
how many different companies?

I'm not trying to be intentionally difficult but I see things how I see them and those views are based on first and second hand experience plus a good deal of reading. I'm 30 now so I've spent 14 years working. Maybe 2 years of that has been full time. I was seriously ill for part of it, and have spent a lot of time as a student as well (the skills I want sadly take a long time to acquire, but it is what it is). My best guess on the number of companies would be 6, not counting freelance work where an individual is paying for something short term.

As a consequence of being a student I've had both my own experience as well as that of my classmates to judge working conditions by and that's what I'm using as a metric. I've been fired before for taking a single sick day after working at a company for a year (and yes I was actually sick), and I've known others who have had the same thing happen to them. That's the way things are.

As far as having opinions on the way things should be goes, it's in my nature I literally cannot help it. Part of programming is being able to break a task down into a thousand tiny steps, another part of my skillset is systems design where I need to build a working system from a thousand individual pieces and make them work together, plus I'm an INTP/INTJ. I look at things not as a whole but rather in terms of their parts breaking those down and getting into the how/why of them working the way they do and then looking at (theoretical) improvements to those things whether that's social structures, circuit board design, or an item tracking system in a game.