site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

12
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He could however translate that into paid labour if his company accepted that he was at work on the train.

This is also true if you replace "train" with "car".

Hard to work while driving.

The condition was "if his company accepted that..." The company is perfectly capable of "accepting that" driving to work is something he should be paid for doing.

Driving is necessary for him to do his job. Unless this is a minimum wage job, the company is going to have to pay a salary that is subject to market forces, and those will be affected by the relative desirability of the job. So on the average, the company will pay him for driving to work in his car, even if driving isn't a separate line item on his paycheck.

I am talking about people actually working on trains - writing emails, using their laptops, attending meetings, writing code etc. very common on many commuter trains in Europe.

Rrmember, the argument is that driving is labor. You're now trying to argue the reverse of the OP.

Just because you can't use your laptop when driving, that doesn't mean that driving isn't 1) labor and 2) labor that you're getting paid for.

(Also, the kind of job that it is possible to do on a train is pretty limited, and if you can do it on a train, you can do it without commuting at all.)

I wasn’t making or dismissing the point of the op. I’m making my own point. That people do actual paid work on trains, and that they are paid for it. Trains to London that arrive post 9am are full of workers avoiding the rush hour crush (and premium pricing), and are actually paid for it - the company considers that work part of the 9-5. And all office workers can do this, it’s hardly limited. Nor does “they can do it at home” work as a counter, because even prior to covid when I lived outside London, and worked in London, I did both.

However people are not paid for commuting in the kind of job where they commute and can’t work the commute. As in they drive. In that case they are paid 9-5. If commuting were part of the payment then companies would pay more compensation to people who commute longer.

I never worked at a job that let me clock in just because I'm driving to the office, but my last 2 jobs do let me clock in to answer some emails, or do code reviews.

I suppose you're right that I could clock in and do these things while driving a car, but I don't want to die.

Whether you clock in is irrelevant. In a free market, the fact that you have to spend time driving to get to work is taken into account in the market price for the job.

Well, for one, we're not in a free market. For another even if we were, it's not irrelevant. My commute is factored in in the sense that if I can get a job that is just as good, but is located closer, I'll opt for that one instead, but whether or not I can clock in while commuting is one of the factors that determines whether or not I'll consider the other job as just as good.

Well, post-COVID, those people don't even really need trains--or travel in general--to do those things as much anymore.

It's not any easier on the train.

Er….ok.