HammockWarrior

Seems like much of the problem could be solved by just having the working world chill the f' out for women and for men. For example, a 32 hour workweek along with generous paid parental leaves. Everyone should have time for a life outside of work, not just women of childbearing age.

Also, The whole idea of having young people work like dogs in order to have a shot at making partner, or gaining tenure, or gaining a medical degree is both outdated and ageist.

Another possible factor: rich people experience less chronic stress, resulting in lower risk factors for various diseases.

In my job I see that the managers are focused on automation to cut lower status jobs but I never see them questioning whether anyone in the huge hierarchy of managers is necessary. I think this is because if they question other managers, their own job might be called into question as well. Also, managers tend to think that managing is an important job.

It helps if you work for the right company. Some are looking to bend over backwards to bring in and promote women engineers so they can showcase their newfound diversity. A higher up at my company was literally suggesting women hiring quotas (not sure how that's legal but whatever).

Also, driving in a car doesn't protect you from air pollution. Cars suck in polluted air from the car ahead and concentrate it around the driver and passengers. You're actually less exposed to pollution cycling the same route.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971...

In my observation, most people don't want healthy food. They want to think they are eating healthy but when it comes down to it, they want the fat, sugar and salt that goes into restaurant food. They want to think they're healthy drinking their fruit smoothie but god forbid you leave out some of the sugar. They want to think they're healthy eating a salad but make sure it's got some fried chicken and plenty of salad dressing on it. It's healthy because it's salad, right?

I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule but restaurants typically have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

I'll take the extra $3k over spending it on achieving nothing in the middle east.

That's why it's quite important when you do get that high paying job to bank a large percentage of your salary into income generating assets. It's basic diversification of income streams.

It's not necessarily an easy calculation to make since there are other subjective costs in choosing between two locations. I also decided to live very close to work and pay higher rent. It's not just higher rent though there is also greater noise, pollution, etc. I still think it outweighs the commute though. Commuting >1hr per day makes working feel much more like an awful grind to me.

It would be interesting to know if people, on average, actually do put those resources towards human interaction, and whether it improves their well-being overall.

For burglary it could also just be fear and risk of violence. If someone is willing to forcefully break into a house, they are probably willing to harm the owner if they happen to be home. A better example would be to compare white collar crime to shoplifting as neither of those crimes has the same undertones of violence to them.

My authentic self typically doesn't want to wake up early and go to work. My authentic self also doesn't want to be homeless.

From the EEOC:

> It is unlawful to harass a person because of his or her age.

> Harassment can include, for example, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's age. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

Seems to depend on how severe the behavior is.

Going to a work outing once every few months to talk to people over free beers isn't preventing me from having a life outside of work. Plenty of people skip it too.

Even if you didn't purchase all cash, with a lower house price you can more easily pay off the house early by paying extra each month. The way it works now keeps people paying monthly way longer.

In my experience, noise cancelling headphones can make noise issues worse in some cases because they block ambient/white noises better than they block voices, sirens or other non-repetitive noise. So it just makes the distracting noises that much worse.

For those employees maybe

That would also be interesting because it would essentially make the cryptocoins non-fungible. For example, people might be willing to pay more for a coin if it was used in the past by a movie star.

A better analogy would be: would you rather catch 10 thieves who stole $10 or one theif who stole $1,000,000?

I'm a little confused by your comment. If his 48 hour rewrite of the codebase didn't end up working out well (and how could it really), why not just rollback to where you were previously? That way you wouldn't need to spend 6 months making it work?

If you got time to lean, you got time to clean!

Illegal immigration and what happens in other countries are at best a red herring here because illegal immigrants aren't typically eligible for benefits and are typically working off the books. The US government has responsibility for its citizens, not those of Mexico or Latin America.

Also keep in mind many of the proposed redistribution efforts fall squarely in the "equality of opportunity" column which you claim to support. For example, free or very cheap higher education. If we want to be as educated as the Nordic countries this would go a long way. Or taxpayer funded healthcare. This would both reduce the total cost of healthcare and also greatly improve access. It's hard to pull yourself up by your bootstraps when you're sick and can't afford to see a doctor.

Perhaps let me turn this conversation around. Rather than throwing up your hands and saying "it's complex", what specific policies would you support to improve equality of opportunity?

I think most people promoting redistribution would agree on the benefits of equality of opportunity over outcome (obviously not all). They would simply argue that equality of opportunity is not there yet and the Gini coefficient can perhaps be used to measure that. For example if the Nordic countries operate well and have better equality of opportunity in the 30s as opposed to the US's 40s and we have seen in the past that the 30s worked well for the US then perhaps it's the 30s we should be shooting for with our efforts.

Don't forget to include opportunity cost of time driving when calculating the cost of your commute. Your time is valuable. I think you'll find you spend way more than $6000/year on commuting. If you value your free time at $25/hour and commute 250 days per year, that's another $6250 per year in opportunity cost.

And that happened after the period of horrific exploitation of people in factories, including children. Economic growth is good not in itself but only if it is widely shared. It will be better for economic growth in the long run anyway because inequality comes with its own set of problems.

Well, at least at a societal level because you want to live in a relatively equal society and have all of the benefits that come with that as opposed to a feudal dystopia.

That's the whole point of productivity gains... Either you're richer or you can work less or ideally both.

> When doing a job—any job—one must feel that he owns it, and act as though he will remain in the job forever. He must look after his work just as conscientiously, as though it were his own business and his own money.

I hear this kind of talk from managers at my workplace as well. Extreme ownership seems like the management technique du jour. I am quite sceptical of it. I'll treat the work as my own business when it is my own business and when I have a significant stake in the outcome. Otherwise, I am just a guy you pay to do a job, not a business partner and definitely not a loyal slave.