|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 09 2019 12:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The thing to remember about the American workforce is that we only really do about 4-5 hours of real work. I think it's even less. The remaining time is wasted but the employer is paying for a butt in the seat/stall/loading dock.
If you work from home, you're probably going to work erratic hours but it'll be about the same amount of effectiveness. You'll either negotiate for a higher amount and work strictly 6 hours straight, or take the lower amount with greater flexibility. I know when I used to program in C++, I'd do 24 hour pulls during uni for the thrill of it. Nowadays, not a fucking chance. Now that I work in Architecture, I completely shut it down when I leave the office.
I assume most places are the same if the pay isn't commiserate with the workload being thrust upon them.
What on earth are you talking about dude lol?
I dont know anything about programming, but you think construction workers, factory workers, fast food workers, waiters, retail store workers, doctors, nurses, police officers, janitors, teachers, cashiers, bus drivers, pharmacists, etc etc really only do 4-5 hours of "real work" a day???
|
Yeah, I'm going to ask for a sarcasm clarification on ZerO's post as well, I've definitely worked do-very-little, but most jobs I've done have involved working basically at all times during working hours.
|
|
|
On May 09 2019 12:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The thing to remember about the American workforce is that we only really do about 4-5 hours of real work. I think it's even less. The remaining time is wasted but the employer is paying for a butt in the seat/stall/loading dock.
If you work from home, you're probably going to work erratic hours but it'll be about the same amount of effectiveness. You'll either negotiate for a higher amount and work strictly 6 hours straight, or take the lower amount with greater flexibility. I know when I used to program in C++, I'd do 24 hour pulls during uni for the thrill of it. Nowadays, not a fucking chance. Now that I work in Architecture, I completely shut it down when I leave the office.
I assume most places are the same if the pay isn't commiserate with the workload being thrust upon them.
You have to take into account that if you ask people to do more than they are capable of, the work becomes worse and your employees can get sick from stress or just leave for a more considerate employer.
It is very different what is "work" also. I assume many nurses and doctors fill up their schedules very well with stuff to do, and many jobs consist of being present, being ready if something happens.
|
Which is why when you check GDP produced per worker in a country, it is negatively correlated with average working hours per week. If what you do at work is heavily dependent on your brain (like most high-tech jobs are), it is usually not good to work heavy more than 5-6 hours. Your brain is usually fried by then and you just create shitty solutions that you have to fix next day.
It is why I always left university when I was studying after 5 hours, which included small 5-10min breaks to keep the mind sharp and have an healthy amount of distraction to generate creativity for solutions, and always maintained top grades easily and outperformed those who sat there too long (when I applied to ivy league schools for graduate studies in US, I got into every single one I applied to). Not long ago I had to work 50% because of an injury and surprisingly I got almost the same amount of work done, and the work that was done was of supreme quality. Actually solved a few very difficult logical problems, which I had not been able to earlier, during those weeks.
|
On May 09 2019 17:20 Neneu wrote:
Which is why when you check GDP produced per worker in a country, it is negatively correlated with average working hours per week. If what you do at work is heavily dependent on your brain (like most high-tech jobs are), it is usually not good to work heavy more than 5-6 hours. Your brain is usually fried by then and you just create shitty solutions that you have to fix next day.
It is why I always left university when I was studying after 5 hours, which included small 5-10min breaks to keep the mind sharp and have an healthy amount of distraction to generate creativity for solutions, and always maintained top grades easily and outperformed those who sat there too long (when I applied to ivy league schools for graduate studies in US, I got into every single one I applied to). Not long ago I had to work 50% because of an injury and surprisingly I got almost the same amount of work done, and the work that was done was of supreme quality. Actually solved a few very difficult logical problems, which I had not been able to earlier, during those weeks.
I am a musician so it's quite different since you also have physical freshness to take into account, but the older I get the more I believe than 3-4 hours of really focused, disciplined and conscious practice a day is optimal and that doing more than 6 is just plain stupid. I remember at school, everyone was always talking about those kids who "practice 8 hours a day" as if they were super humans. Thing is, I don't think anyone can practice consistently 8 hours a day and be efficient. I think you lose time and efficiency in an exponential way to your volume of work.
By the way and since we are on TL, I firmly believe that a truly optimal and rational practice schedule for e-sport players is far, far away. From what I can see, they mostly just play a shit ton of games all day with a very few exercises to warm up.
|
To Zam and BS, yes the difference in fields are a given. I'm talking corporate jobs, which Biff and Neneu helped clarify. I've worked the loading and receiving docks at Amazon fulfillment centers, so I know. I've also done fast food. But some jobs don't require you to be always busy or always 'on'. Those are the jobs I'm talking about.
|
On May 09 2019 20:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
To Zam and BS, yes the difference in fields are a given. I'm talking corporate jobs, which Biff and Neneu helped clarify. I've worked the loading and receiving docks at Amazon fulfillment centers, so I know. I've also done fast food. But some jobs don't require you to be always busy or always 'on'. Those are the jobs I'm talking about.
I reread your post and I think I misinterpreted it as a work week, I think I agree more assuming you're not referring to 5-6 hours out of a 40 hour work week.
If it's 5-6 hours out of an 8 hour work day that sounds more accurate.
A fair amount of customer service jobs seem to mostly involve being available and then some limited duties with regards to cleaning or something like that. At least the ones I've worked.
Usually I find those jobs fluctuate between working maaaybe half the time and being utterly slammed for no good reason for the whole day because they understaffed a shift though.
I haven't had the good fortune to work a job where I do nothing consistently.
But yeah, the jobs where I was working the entire time we're uniquely draining, miserable and harmful either mentally or physically. *COUGH INSURANCE AGENT AND FLOOR TILING COUGH*
I wound up avoiding jobs like that at all costs because overworking is just not worth the damage.
|
On May 09 2019 20:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 20:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
To Zam and BS, yes the difference in fields are a given. I'm talking corporate jobs, which Biff and Neneu helped clarify. I've worked the loading and receiving docks at Amazon fulfillment centers, so I know. I've also done fast food. But some jobs don't require you to be always busy or always 'on'. Those are the jobs I'm talking about. I reread your post and I think I misinterpreted it as a work week, I think I agree more assuming you're not referring to 5-6 hours out of a 40 hour work week. If it's 5-6 hours out of an 8 hour work day that sounds more accurate. A fair amount of customer service jobs seem to mostly involve being available and then some limited duties with regards to cleaning or something like that. At least the ones I've worked. Usually I find those jobs fluctuate between working maaaybe half the time and being utterly slammed for no good reason for the whole day because they understaffed a shift though. I haven't had the good fortune to work a job where I do nothing consistently. But yeah, the jobs where I was working the entire time we're uniquely draining, miserable and harmful either mentally or physically. *COUGH INSURANCE AGENT AND FLOOR TILING COUGH* I wound up avoiding jobs like that at all costs because overworking is just not worth the damage.
Precisely. 5-6 out of an 8 hour work day. I work my best from 9-2. After that I'm just trying to stay awake and looking busy. But believe me, no work is happening that last 2-3 hours.
Like majority of the working force, as long as I'm being paid what I feel is adequate to the work I'm supposed to be doing, what that is doesn't necessarily matter. Bills need to be paid.
Edit: to bring this back to politics, should more industries push for shorter working hours per week or more flexible working options? I could necessarily do my architecture job from my apartment and not have to be in the office all day. If I need you meet clients or consultants, then I can make the trip. Otherwise, my being there just to fill a seat is meaningless.
|
I think there are quite a few industries that really don’t require work spaces anymore, and could use existing technologies to ensure adequate work quality is done remotely. The companies themselves could save a TON on office rent.
|
Last night at his rally somebody yelled, when Trump mused about how to stop immigrants, "shoot them." OFC many of the cultists erupted in laughter and Trump made a joke out of it without condemnation. This is tacit approval of extrajudicial violence against immigrants during a time when we know there are armed militias policing the border. Just the idea of somebody recommending the murder of asylum seekers and the President laughing it off should offend everyone.
This is Trump's GOP.
Any of the conservative posters feel like jumping in and defending this one, or is it just going to fade into the background like most of the horrible things Trump does/says that are posted here?
|
Yet another reason why Biden’s “Republicans aren’t like Trump, he’s an aberration” take is such a hot load of out of touch garbage.
|
Any Republican that isn’t like Trump left the party. But that doesn’t mean they will vote for a Democrat. They are more likely to vote Republican and just leave the section for president blank than switch parties.
|
On May 09 2019 12:45 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 12:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The thing to remember about the American workforce is that we only really do about 4-5 hours of real work. I think it's even less. The remaining time is wasted but the employer is paying for a butt in the seat/stall/loading dock.
If you work from home, you're probably going to work erratic hours but it'll be about the same amount of effectiveness. You'll either negotiate for a higher amount and work strictly 6 hours straight, or take the lower amount with greater flexibility. I know when I used to program in C++, I'd do 24 hour pulls during uni for the thrill of it. Nowadays, not a fucking chance. Now that I work in Architecture, I completely shut it down when I leave the office.
I assume most places are the same if the pay isn't commiserate with the workload being thrust upon them. What on earth are you talking about dude lol? I dont know anything about programming, but you think construction workers, factory workers, fast food workers, waiters, retail store workers, doctors, nurses, police officers, janitors, teachers, cashiers, bus drivers, pharmacists, etc etc really only do 4-5 hours of "real work" a day???
Hes just projecting himself onto others.. 100% he does 4-5 real work on a 8 hour shift because hes lazy lol
|
On May 09 2019 22:30 On_Slaught wrote:Last night at his rally somebody yelled, when Trump mused about how to stop immigrants, "shoot them." OFC many of the cultists erupted in laughter and Trump made a joke out of it without condemnation. This is tacit approval of extrajudicial violence against immigrants during a time when we know there are armed militias policing the border. Just the idea of somebody recommending the murder of asylum seekers and the President laughing it off should offend everyone. This is Trump's GOP. https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1126294333429354498Any of the conservative posters feel like jumping in and defending this one, or is it just going to fade into the background like most of the horrible things Trump does/says that are posted here?
It’s an obvious joke. Yet another example of taking Trump’s comment out of context. Like right before the audience member shouts it out, Trump is literally talking about how we can’t arm border security (so we can’t shoot the immigrants). Then he shakes his head when the comment is made.
|
|
|
That is some loyalty. Surely you're not doing this, daunt. Just say it was unacceptable by both. A head shake isn't the same as verbal rebuke.
|
On May 09 2019 23:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2019 22:30 On_Slaught wrote:Last night at his rally somebody yelled, when Trump mused about how to stop immigrants, "shoot them." OFC many of the cultists erupted in laughter and Trump made a joke out of it without condemnation. This is tacit approval of extrajudicial violence against immigrants during a time when we know there are armed militias policing the border. Just the idea of somebody recommending the murder of asylum seekers and the President laughing it off should offend everyone. This is Trump's GOP. https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1126294333429354498Any of the conservative posters feel like jumping in and defending this one, or is it just going to fade into the background like most of the horrible things Trump does/says that are posted here? It’s an obvious joke. Yet another example of taking Trump’s comment out of context. Like right before the audience member shouts it out, Trump is literally talking about how we can’t arm border security (so we can’t shoot the immigrants). Then he shakes his head when the comment is made.
Such a common and absurd defense of Trump's statements. Even if it was a joke (which is the WHs defense to just about every crude statement he makes), it doesnt actually make what he says ok. I know you've lowered the bar for president so low you can hardly distinguish it from the ground, but some of us have standards for the leader of the country.
Somebody literally said we should shoot immigrants and the President laughs it off rather than condemning it. Do you think the guy who said shoot them was joking? The only joke here is the defense of Trumps actions.
Also, the BP thing does nothing to soften the blow since the distinction is clear. This sends a clear message that while his BP people cant do anything, maybe private citizens can solve this, like they do in the panhandle. You know, another 2nd amendment solutuon, which we know he likes. We also know that at least one of the militia in NM was musing about why they couldn't just line up and execute the immigrants. Someone crazed like that could see this as the approval he was looking for.
The fact Trump is incapable or unwilling to temper the worst instincts of his base should be of grave concern for this country.
|
What is the panhandle? Can anyone explain how the joke works?
|
United States44203 Posts
On May 09 2019 23:44 schaf wrote:
What is the panhandle? Can anyone explain how the joke works?
Texas. It’s saying “sure we could shoot them but it wouldn’t be socially acceptable to do it, except in Texas”.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
