ulyssessword's profile - The Motte
@ulyssessword's banner p

ulyssessword


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

				

User ID: 308

ulyssessword


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 308

You are in an extreme bubble if most people are looking for overtime.

Maybe a bubble, but I don't think it's extreme.

See here (1995 PDF): 27.1% of people want more hours, and 6.4% want less. Or here (federal workers only): 42% are working part-time due to family responsibilities or "other", while 58% are due to work not being available, working a second job, or going to school. Here says 39% of workers would take a 1/5 cut to hours and pay, which is the highest I've found.

Also, the full-time comparisons use a baseline of 44-ish hours, not the nominal 40 (or 38.6 if you count two weeks of vacation). People are succeeding at finding overtime, and therefore not looking for more than the current amounts.

Nope, the closest thing to a real counterargument is a distance-to-horizon calculation that forgets that the other side can be above the horizon too. I believe that you can see Newfoundland from Cape Breton (and vice versa), but it's not really thanks to the CBC for that. I had to recalculate it myself and I tried looking up more pictures as well.

we just shorten the work week!

Who's "we"?

If it's the government, then how? Currently, they can set incentives like full-time benefits at X hours per week and required overtime pay for >Y hours (X=30, Y=40 currently, IIRC), but they aren't anywhere close to banning work (outside of a few edge cases like long-haul trucking).

If it's the companies, then why? They'd have to pay four sets of benefits, rent four workspaces, run training four times, have single-path tasks take 33% longer, and have meetings with four people instead of three with a 30 hour workweek and 120 hour weekly workload. If they're early adopters, then they'd also attract people looking for reduced time commitments compared to the standard, which is horrible negative selection.

If it's the employees, then who are they? Most people I know look for overtime, not temporary layoffs or unpaid time off. That suggests that their optimal work week is above 40 hours given their financial needs and time commitments. Heck, some people take multiple part-time jobs (which sounds horrible) because they want to work more hours than one job can provide.

In today's episode of "Just Fucking Answer the Question Already", we have Can you see Newfoundland from Cape Breton? As usual, the closest they get is quoting an expert giving a half-answer, and not including a significant amount of rebuttal.

why men volunteer less in general,

A three percentage point gap may be statistically significant, but I don't think it's very interesting or notable. There's an eight-point gap in labor force participation rate, and one full-time-volunteer wife with a working husband can get a lot of volunteer hours. Heck, with a gap that small it could be something as banal as different responses to the same activities as men and women have different standards.

communities/pro-social activities/the male loneliness epidemic in general.

Male spaces get disrupted and socially attacked. Even if whatever comes out the other side is just as good (very doubtful), the transition still causes people to leave. Also, women have the opportunity to join both women's-only and gender-neutral groups, while men only have the second set.

"Men are afraid of being called pedophiles" isn't false, but my gut instinct is that it's noncentral.

That is the most visible part of the issue, but it's not the only one. You have to go through the anti-pedophile screening, take the anti-pedophile training, follow the anti-pedophile procedures, be conscious of pedophile-adjacent actions...and finally work at the organization with a reputation for pedophilia. It just doesn't seem that attractive.

why would we grant citizenship to someone willing to sell out their country to an invading power for a paycheck?

I don't really get omni-nationalism. Americans believing that the US is the greatest and deserves extra status/power/deference/etc? Sure. Ditto for the French, Brazilians, Chinese, or even Afghans. I don't see anything strange about different people having different values and opinions, even if they can't see the obvious truth that Canada is better than any of them (despite its current troubles).

Putting every country at the top of the list (but only when projecting your opinions onto other people) is a different matter. If you think your homeland is the greatest, then why do you want every foreigner to express incorrect opinions? If you're a cosmopolitan moral relativist who thinks there is no true "greatest" place and it's all opinions and tradeoffs, then why not let other people believe that too?

Saying that people should oppose you makes me feel like nationalism is a debate-club-style issue that's fun to talk about, instead of an honestly expressed and important core belief. Heck, I rarely see sports team omni-supremacy anywhere ("cheer for your home team, whichever one that is"). It's all either neutrality or people cheering for their specific favored team.

Contempt of court can still send you to jail, and I'm not sure if the limits past that matter. On a smaller scale, they can revoke drivers' licenses and passports, and refuse to issue leisure licenses (fishing/hunting, etc.) for unpaid child support. As far as I can tell, alimony and divorce settlements don't have quite as much power, but that only really helps if you divorce before having kids.

They can't easily reach out to third parties

Not the court's problem in those stories: Pay up or get punished for failing to pay.

“There's ways you can trust an enemy you can't always trust a friend. An enemy's never going to betray your trust.”

Wikipedia reliably reports one perspective on culture war topics. Figure out what that perspective is and what you gain by learning it, and you'll never be betrayed again.

wronged wife gets wind that hubby intends to leave her without a penny, steal her assets, and set up with new snookums so she lawyers up in secret and transfers everything ...

For some odd reason, I suspect that a husband wouldn't have as much success with that strategy. I've heard of a few alimony/child support cases where the court is less "pay to the extent of your ability" and more "die broke in a gutter".

...yes, obviously?

American law sets speed limits, despite the fact that most Americans do not appear to act or express beliefs matching them.