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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, it's not. It's the most material fact of all! Work should not be so able to cut into a person's free time! This should not be so accepted! Shed your slave morality and work to live, not live to work!
Alright? Equalizing it to 2000 hours dedicated to the job instead of 2000 hours at your desk doesn't change much.
You are each dedicating 2000 hours per year towards work. He is doing 1000 hours of commuting and 1000 hours at his desk, while you are doing 100 hours of commuting and 1900 hours at your desk. Under our current system, you might be offered a salary of $95k (equivalent to $50 per hour at your desk), for an hourly equivalent of $47.50 including commute time. Your coworker might be offered $50k (again, $50/desk-hr), for an hourly equivalent of $25.00 including commute time.
Do you think the offers should both be equal? What about if it was 1900 hours of commuting and 100 hours at a desk?
Again, as I've said elsewhere, I think both should spend equal amounts of time at their desk, meaning their contracted hours, and both should be compensated for whatever time spent commuting, since that's time spent in service of their job. That's literally it. I'm aware that this might make businesses prioritise local workers or switch to WFH wherever possible, and that's fine. It just does not seem right that a job is able to effectively rob me of 14 hours per week where I can't do what I need to or want to. If the 8/8/8 guidelines are to be believed, and I have an hour commute, that's effectively stealing 2 hours of recreation and setting me at 8/6/10. And "recreation" also includes shopping, chores, doctors appointments and whatever else, so free time is being further eroded by these unavoidable things. Why would I accept having more stolen from me, for free?
I can't see a coherent system coming from those premises.
If the new hire has the longest commute, does everyone now spend less time in the office to maintain equal work hours with an eight total-hour maximum?
If I move closer to work, will I get a smaller paycheque? If I start taking public transit or walking, will it get bigger?
What happens if I don't spend the night at home?
Does the compensation have to be equal, or can the employer just cancel out your entire idea with a trivial bit of algebra during hiring (excluding minimum wage limits)?
Shortening the standard workday from 8:00 to 7:18 (to compensate for my estimate of the mean American commute) is fine; there are a lot of arguments for a shorter workday/workweek. Tying it to each worker's personal commute seems like a recipe for disaster.
You literally signed up for that. It's even less "theft" than taxation is. If you don't think your daily pay is worth X+2 hours of your time, then quit or move.
No. The newbie leaves at the normal time to get to his desk for 9am, he's just compensated for the time taken from him to do so.
Yes.
Doesn't really matter.
I don't know what you mean. Would employers take distance of registered address from office into account during hiring? Probably.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link