This makes you think that Paul would be interested in fighting for a world where people don't waste most of their short lives in bullshit corporate jobs because the market demands it, and instead can focus on important things like their families.
Funny enough, I know some engineers who go to work, non-remote, to escape from their wife and kids for a bit and work becomes an avenue to relax! And having to take care of an aging parent who lives with me, I can understand.
I was interviewing for a job in the middle and towards the end of 2020, and regardless of my chances of success or interest, I asked the interviewers how work from home had gone for them so far.
I encountered this sentiment most of all - 40 year old dads who were suddenly stuck at home with the wife and kids, working from an improvised home office.
When I asked about returning to the office, most of them were clearly looking forward to it, with a sentiment of "Of course working from home is less efficient and comfortable, what do you mean?".
It was quite a surprise for me, who had finally gotten away from the noisy open-plan offices and meetings where everyone shouted at each other until the loudest person "won".
I'm 40+ year old dad as well. I don't feel stuck at home with wife and kids. I don't want to ever return to the office. I'm in managerial position and know that WFH is not any less efficient or less comfortable. I find office to have more distractions. Sentiment is shared across the team as well.
I found that most such people didn't originally plan for work from home, so their experience was predictably horrible. Also during the pandemic daycare/schools were closed, adding to the problem.
Meanwhile me and other young dads who did plan for remote work have now a designated room for an office and children at daycare/kindergarten for most of the day.
Until my child was old enough to attend daycare it was indeed chaos, but with just one you can get used to this. It's much like having a co-worker who likes to chat a little bit too much.
I planned for this as well, 2 months before Covid happend, so a bit lucky. Anyway it works great and I don't want to go back. The thing I don't subscribe to is the "co-worker" part. you see if my child cannot attend daycare because she is sick, I cannot work full. we have an agreement at my work that in such cases we go into "50% or best effort"mode. I guess it depends on the child and maybe the job, but I cannot code/think/debug while a 4 year old wants to be entertained, also I don't want to sit her in front of a tv/mobile just to calm her down, so 50% it is
I would guess that if we further split 40 year old dads into introverts and extroverts, the sentiment would also split into loving wfh and being happier working away at the office.
The first years are brutally hard (the sleep deprivation in particular) and in my experience work is much easier than raising children, so there's definitely truth to that. The best is when you can do both at the same time. During COVID, for instance, I wrote code in one room while my 1yo played in the next (since everything was locked down). As she got older, she started asking questions and would even provide me advice "stop thinking daddy!" (just do, I assume she was implying). I think this is closer to how it was in the old days—where the kids worked alongside the parents in the farms or shops. You get to spend time with your children while teaching them your crafts and showing them the joy and passion of work. That is the good life, in my opinion.
A personal take on this. I found myself allowing too much screen time for the kids while working at home and having the kids around me. I couldnt give enough attention to either work and kids. Its good for everyone that everything is back to (normal)
Oh I would agree. Luckily we had dual income and hired a nanny 5 days a week from 8-4. Otherwise would have been impossible (at the time we lived far from family).
When my kids were small, I used to work away 3 days a week. It was my resting days as I could sleep normally and recharge myself.
I did not realize it until I spent 7 days a week at home.
Certainly. When I’m at home I sometimes cannot wait to run off to the office. The feeling is often temporary though, and by 3-4 I’m basically waiting until I can get home :)
Hybrid is the way to go! I do not like full remote because you get out of touch with the teams and office politics. When I'm full on site I cannot get my work done properly. Hybrid mode allows me to manage my schedule better, get shit done while remote, and keep up with office's politics while on site.
That definitely exists.
But I think there's more people who'd prefer to work less hours (and keep their current salary) than people who simply want to stay in the office more.
Try not to judge, you don't know their circumstances. Some may have medical, family, or cultural challenges ("Homeschool is only way! Daycare is the devil!") that make time at home stressful.
If they have either of those "cultural challenges", then they are literally dropping even more work and isolation on their wifes. That is why it is egoism.
Because when they do this, their partner has no choice but to do it all. And the partner is getting no break.
I do knows guys like that. They walk around happy. Their wife's walk around stressed, tired, loosing themselves while talking about how much their husbands need to work. While I know they slack around in work padding time cause chatting with friends is fun.
> If they have either of those "cultural challenges", then they are literally dropping even more work and isolation on their wifes. That is why it is egoism.
No, I mean the breadwinner may be stressed because their SO has such an attitude. Therefore the kids are basically always home, and no one ever gets a break. Some folks also decide to have kids and agree to parenting strategies, only later to realize they're not working. If the stay-home partner insists on "the one true way" then even counseling may not be enough.
Again, the broader point is you may not have the whole picture. Try to assume good intentions, and if circumstances are undeniably out of balance look for constructive ways to help.
If everyone behaved like that, our society wouldn't have the wealth needed to make anyone's lives comfortable and secure, except for the lives of the rich.
A job that provides an income to a worker, and generates wealth for society, is not bullshit -- even if all it involves is making crappy consumer products, or working on an assembly line, or doing paperwork all day. In fact, such jobs are the reason the majority of people no longer live in 19th-century conditions -- and the lack of such jobs in regions that used to have a lot of them is a primary driver of populist politics.
Universal Basic income would solve those problems. Eventually AI and automation should perform all the mundane jobs which is a good thing but we need to provide basic sustenance for everyone.
France has UBI in the form of “RSA” since 1981. It is proportional to the number of children, so you can live with children on it, and use the state-provided accomodations.
For now it rather seems that it has created two sorts of populations: Those who live off it, and those who work, the two forever opposing each other, the latter literally enslaved by the masses of the former. The enslavement in a society which is ever-more reliant on the remaining workers meets another phenomenon: Shunning the workers who protest, because looks at all this poverty, why would you not accept to fund them.
France’s RSA does not meet UBI standards that we’re considering in the US / California because the amount paid is so small. If you live alone with 2 kids, RSA would be 899€/month in 2022, far below minimum wage.
RSA is not only the monthly amount paid, the recipients also live in social housings paying next to nothing in rent, heating, healthcare and transportation.
A similar thing exists in other country like UK or Germany
A lot of things are cheaper when you have the RSA, but granted, it’s mostly leisure and optional things (museums, cinema, holidays at ucpa.com, etc). (ucpa.com is an excellent sports camp address for 18-40, by the way).
Not only optional thing. Metro/bus/tramway are nearly free for them. They also have reduced rate for utilities.
Granted it is not easy to live with 500€ a month, but you can get by.
I understand the justification for UBI from a labor perspective if all “mundane jobs” are automated, but where I haven’t heard convincing justification is on the more abstract “life purpose” side of things. What happens, regardless of UBI, if we move towards a system that provides little to no purpose in working towards anything, or at a basic level, working for a living at all? I know many friends and relatives who reached retirement and faced anxiety and depression due to lack of “a reason to get up in the morning” - it feels like UBI would introduce this problem at a larger scale, and I’m not convinced by the general “we’ll all just be artists” concept either…
We don't have a fix for this problem now, we barely paper these social cracks by requiring people to work extended hours in jobs they don't value at all. Most people don't even have the time to think about how unfulfilled they are.
My opinion is that UBI would actually free people up to do the low-paying mundane job that they can't afford to do today. It would provide the option of a normal work life that allows one to feel like they were productive, even if it is mundane work, and provide the human interaction by means of socializing at work.
If I don't have to work, I will probably enjoy my work more.
We could have 75% of the population stop working now and the taxes on 25% could provide basic sustenance for everyone.. at 1910 levels.
Same thing would happen with automation, some people would keep working, get 2-3x the wealth and everything that comes with and we’re in the same spot we’re in today.
Entrepreneurs I know are reluctant to hire because it does not scale. Yet they do hire, slowly and surely. They need these jobs, as they cannot grow without it.
Similarly they complain about the lack of talent. Most of the people they value do not want the regular job that they offer. They need the people who want the regular jobs.
I am sure this will change. Yet today it is the reality.
> Similarly they complain about the lack of talent.
...of people I want to have around me...
It's been my experience that "cultural fit" has been a much more important coefficient, than "talent."
In my case, it's a bit of sour grapes, and I'll be the first to admit it. I have the talent and experience to pretty much singlehandedly "make" a smallish startup (I'm doing exactly that, right now, but for a nonprofit, for free), but found that my gray hair terrified prospective employers so much, that they ran screaming.
There's plenty of talent out there, but it may come with things like self-assurance, confidence, and an unwillingness to put up with childish BS, or be a galley slave.
I can't understand how educated people can still gobble ubi propaganda up when it's proven that such model is completely unsustainable economically and socially
> when it's proven that such model is completely unsustainable economically and socially
How exactly has it been proven? That's a very strong word to use for something that has never been tried on anything but very small scale limited pilots.
It hasnt been proven but those who live in Europe see families that get:
-free housing
-free money
-money for children (that they use for themselves)
-various other help (clothes, coal, christmas packages)
This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children. Despite the parents not working (so having time to take care of their children) those children did not really get any education, often did not even finish high school. And guess what those children often got their own set of children early - who also will never work, live of social benefits and small time theft.
You dont exactly have to be a right winger to notice that the model is not sustainable. Especially as this group of people only demands more and they think that they "deserve" it.
Also if you would try to teach the children that everyone should contribute to society by working, their parents/grandparents/even grand grandparents will protest. Since they lived this "parasite" lives forever and dont know better. How can someone demand that they work? They deserve higher social benefits and they deserve better housing. (While you are supposed to get a mortgage and slave to get a house).
Also at some point the group will become so big that they can vote for politicians that will give them more (at the expense of those who work).
Of course perhaps maybe UBI can work and it will be all rosy, but it is just wishful thinking. Communism was also supposed to work.
Different problem with UBI is that middle class becomes nobodies - you are supposed to shut up because you get your dole. While I bet the rich people will still be rich.
Interesting opinion, nothing that meshes with the actual largely indeterminate results of the Finish experiment [1] [2] [3] nor with the bulk of the other small scale examples [4].
Countries such as Australia with robust (compared to the US) welfare safety nets (not perfect by any means, but not to shabby overall) have proven to have strong long term GDP growth and to be resilient in the face of various global crisis events.
Good safety nets provide a place to regroup and do better - without being reduced to homeless and struggling to meet basic food and clothing needs.
> This had an unfortunate effect of creating a group of people who never worked and all they did was raise 3-5 children.
You dont seem to be aware that such programs are designed to have people raise such 5-6 children while doing nothing else in order to bump up the declining population. And if you think raising 6 children is not work... boy...
The problem is that (1) those programs seem to "produce" (as awful as it sounds) undesirable people who dont work nor contribute to society. There are entire families (grandparents, parents, children) who lived their whole lives on benefits. So for the society they are a net loss. And on top of that they often do petty theft.
(2) if you are in middle class, or low class (but still working) you are contributing for others and dont get anything in return from them. I would argue that if you didnt have to contribute so much then those middle/low class families would have 2 children instead of 1. Children of parents that work and will raise them right.
You seem to think that those low life people work hard raising their children? Lol, they dont care about their children.. those kids are raised by the streets.
It is the same in UK where some families mass manufacture inbred children (seriously read about it) and same in Slovakia where alcoholics get more kids since they dont use contraception and having a kid allows more money for vodka.
You assume that everyone wants the best for their kids, nope those people just have a strategy to pump few kids, who maybe will pump more kids. At thr expense of taxpayers.
> The problem is that (1) those programs seem to "produce" (as awful as it sounds) undesirable people who dont work nor contribute to society
The problem is that (1) that is patently false.
Take the case of Germany. So many Turkish immigrants. So many used those programs and had many children. So many complained. Yet, Germany's most famous footballer, the makers of Crysis, the inventor of the Biontech vaccine (the one that you know as Pfizer) are all such kids born to such families.
Since your initial propositon is flat out false, I dont see the need to address the others.
Don't invent false realities. Nobody proved nothing as such. The Finnish experiment and others showed that there is no relation in between ubi and unemployment.
Because The educated is synonymous for woke politics bullshit these days. They got knowledge but they lack wisdom. They got their privilege living in safe 1st world environments but they forgot true human nature that 3rd worlders see daily.
> If everyone behaved like that, our society wouldn't have the wealth needed to make anyone's lives comfortable and secure, except for the lives of the rich
The society today already has the means to make only 1% of the population work, and still keep the comfort level for everyone as it is.
We are making people waste their lives away creating imaginary wealth to bump up the stored imaginary wealth in financial institutions only to keep the existing economic system going.
I'm very sceptical about this claim. Would like to see a source.
Sure, we may have enough "money" to redistribute it. But if 99% of the population stops working, who is going to make everything we use, produce food, run power stations, and transport everything to us. Automation is great, but it doesn't cover anywhere near 99% of necessary jobs yet.
Corporations typically provide actual value. Think machinery, chemicals, food production, etc.
It’s the bullshit software startup jobs that typically serve no purpose besides shuffling investor money from one place to another. Yes dear reader, that’s probably you.
Fighting for a better version of this world does not imply having a utopia in mind. You can simply help people avoid bullshit as much as you can. In fact, this is what this essay does.
