6 ms·

As other people have said, the author is not criticising them herself. However, I think your statement is strange. Firstly, she states that "working class" gen

by sambe 11y ago

As other people have said, the author is not criticising them herself. However, I think your statement is strange. Firstly, she states that "working class" generally means "without college degree" - that doesn't mean physical work. Secondly, knowledge workers also get diminishing returns from longer hours, potentially with even more dramatic effect. Thirdly, many common non-physical working conditions are also extremely tiring mentally and damaging physically in the long-run. Finally, you're implying that child-care is not physically exhausting. My impression of your response is that it has more slurs than the article, to be honest - just re-inforcing the primacy of manual labour. I have the impression you know what it's like to work long hours in a stressful non-physical environment, so I find that odd.

jacquesm 11y ago
> Firstly, she states that "working class" generally means "without college degree" - that doesn't mean physical work. No, but it in general greatly increases the likelihood. > Secondly, knowledge workers also get diminishing returns from longer hours, potentially with even more dramatic effect. To their bodies? Or to the work they do? Because that's the difference, your body only takes that much abuse and then needs to re-charge. Go work a jackhammer for a couple of hours and let's talk about diminishing returns. > Thirdly, many common non-physical working conditions are also extremely tiring mentally and damaging physically in the long-run. Sure. Let's talk after you've been hauling garbage for a day, been bent over under an engine hood or any other physically taxing workday. There is nothing that quite compares to being able to sit in a chair and think all day long and push a few buttons to wreck your ligaments, muscles and joints. > Finally, you're implying that child-care is not physically exhausting. I think you made that up, I did not imply that at all. As a father of 3 I'm more than aware of how physically exhausting child care is. > My impression of your response is that it has more slurs than the article, to be honest - just re-inforcing the primacy of manual labour. I have the impression you know what it's like to work long hours in a stressful non-physical environment, so I find that odd. An my impression of your response is that you would like all of the above to be true, however and for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now. Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here.
- skue 11y ago
  > for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now. > Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here. Jacques, why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs? I certainly have… It's all I did the first several years of my working life. And like you, my life is now quite different. You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    > why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs? I'll be happy to accept evidence to the contrary, but by the looks of it the OP has not. > I certainly have… Good, so you'll appreciate my viewpoint a bit more than those of us who happen to have lucked out and have been desk jockeys since the start of our professional lives. > It's all I did the first several years of my life. And like you, my life is now quite different. My assumption is that because of having had a period in your life where you worked really hard for relatively very little pay that you appreciate what you have today a lot more than you would otherwise. > You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article. I subscribe to some parts of what the article relates to but I take exception with certain parts and the casual way in which 'men without a college degree' (which the lady writing the article is not on both counts) are being labeled as implied slackers because 'We know they watch more television and do less childcare than working-class women, and are less likely than more affluent men to work long hours'.

by sambe 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

> Firstly, she states that "working class" generally means "without college degree" - that doesn't mean physical work. No, but it in general greatly increases the likelihood. > Secondly, knowledge workers also get diminishing returns from longer hours, potentially with even more dramatic effect. To their bodies? Or to the work they do? Because that's the difference, your body only takes that much abuse and then needs to re-charge. Go work a jackhammer for a couple of hours and let's talk about diminishing returns. > Thirdly, many common non-physical working conditions are also extremely tiring mentally and damaging physically in the long-run. Sure. Let's talk after you've been hauling garbage for a day, been bent over under an engine hood or any other physically taxing workday. There is nothing that quite compares to being able to sit in a chair and think all day long and push a few buttons to wreck your ligaments, muscles and joints. > Finally, you're implying that child-care is not physically exhausting. I think you made that up, I did not imply that at all. As a father of 3 I'm more than aware of how physically exhausting child care is. > My impression of your response is that it has more slurs than the article, to be honest - just re-inforcing the primacy of manual labour. I have the impression you know what it's like to work long hours in a stressful non-physical environment, so I find that odd. An my impression of your response is that you would like all of the above to be true, however and for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now. Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here.

skue 11y ago
> for the record: I've done both. I've had a number of very physically intensive jobs when I started my career and to this day I'm grateful every bloody day that my life took a turn for the better and that I don't have to work until I can't stand up straight anymore. Being not the most physically strong person I realize that if I had continued down that path I would have been a physical wreck by now. > Have some respect for the people that do the heavy lifting. And if you're unconvinced: go take a manual labor job for a year or so and re-read your comment here. Jacques, why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs? I certainly have… It's all I did the first several years of my working life. And like you, my life is now quite different. You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > why the rancor and assumption that the OP and other commenters (like the GP) haven't also had physical jobs? I'll be happy to accept evidence to the contrary, but by the looks of it the OP has not. > I certainly have… Good, so you'll appreciate my viewpoint a bit more than those of us who happen to have lucked out and have been desk jockeys since the start of our professional lives. > It's all I did the first several years of my life. And like you, my life is now quite different. My assumption is that because of having had a period in your life where you worked really hard for relatively very little pay that you appreciate what you have today a lot more than you would otherwise. > You have a different point of view, but it's not because we haven't done physical work. In fact, in my case I'd say it was my experience doing that kind of work that leads me to identify with what the OP describes in the linked article. I subscribe to some parts of what the article relates to but I take exception with certain parts and the casual way in which 'men without a college degree' (which the lady writing the article is not on both counts) are being labeled as implied slackers because 'We know they watch more television and do less childcare than working-class women, and are less likely than more affluent men to work long hours'.