5 ms·

The world as we know it is ending. Why are we still at work?

10 points by fludlight 5y ago

netizen-936824 5y ago
>"Nike, for example, gave all office employees a week off earlier this year, and Bumble and LinkedIn enacted similar policies." This bothers me quite a bit. Only office workers get off? Why not everyone? This seems like some class warfare type bullshit. Everyone is under stress, and the physical laborers may be even worse of simply due to the physical nature of their work
- ragingrobot 5y ago
  Fully agreed. I work in such a job (laborer), and the only thing I can figure is that giving office workers extra time off has less of an impact, whereas giving laborers off would affect production/output/service/whatever. We can't have that now, can we? Those companies did not enact this policy without their bottom line as priority, as usual.
  - lupire 5y ago
    Question is why all these office workers have jobs, and why they pay so much.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Less of an impact on profits, more impact on workers Business don't give a shit about workers and this only reinforces that belief. This is a thin facade of caring about workers in that only the ones that don't really matter are treated well. IMO that's what makes this class warfare. It's all the people with cushy high paying jobs that get cares for, and all the others get shat on
- coolgeek 5y ago
  I agree with your points about unfairness, and that laborers are much more deserving of time off than office workers. But I wouldn't characterize it as class warfare. In most cases, when physical labor doesn't get performed, people notice. There are consequences that ripple out, affecting other people or systems. In most cases, when office work doesn't get performed, people don't notice. Things just stay the same. The system rewards cheaper and faster. But that's an issue of (primarily financial) incentives, not sociocultural biases.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Business don't give a shit about workers and this only reinforces that belief. This is a thin facade of caring about workers in that only the ones that don't really matter are treated well. IMO that's what makes this class warfare. It's all the people with cushy high paying jobs that get cares for, and all the others get shat on
    - coolgeek 5y ago
      At the risk of repeating myself: > The system rewards cheaper and faster. But that's an issue of (primarily financial) incentives, not sociocultural biases. Abusing other workers is a common phenomena at all levels of a company. Low level team leads (line/operations managers) are almost always of the same "class" as the people under them. They almost always ascend from those lower ranks. In any given instance of abuse, there may be other factors. But there is always a zero sum financial incentive to do so - to exploit others to benefit oneself. To be clear, I'm not in any way defending CEOs or any other executives. As a category, they are grossly, inexcusably overcompensated for the value they deliver. I'm just saying that the issue is systemic, pervasive.
GDC7 5y ago
Lol , the world is not ending. These are the typical exagerations of those who cannot mantain perspective . These are the same people who scream "We are all gonna die!!!" on a plane during a small turbolence. I wonder how would the author manage to function had she lived in the 1800s or the 1300s during the great plague. She'd have offed herself before the plague would have a chance to infect her.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  Indeed, even within the memories of many living people that the author can speak to right now are two events: cold war and Cuban missile crisis where the world really could have ended properly. And the second world war when seventy million humans died and countless others had irreversible damage to them. This kind of apocalyptic thinking is also damaging to the birth rate "why have children in such a world". The irony here is that is literally how the world can end. There's also a fallacy of the hinge of history. Everyone thinks they are living in the most important of times ever and they have always done throughout history.
  - bradgessler 5y ago
    Additionally, saying “the world is ending” is laughably incorrect. The world will be fine if we’re gone. If anything does end, it’s the habitability of Earth for humans. Many other animals will live on and new species will evolve.
    - xg15 5y ago
      And that's relevant how? Unfortunately we are humans and not some hypothetical future species.
  - brodouevencode 5y ago
    The millennial and Genz generations are so nihilistic.
  - xg15 5y ago
    Runaway climate change will not "end the world", but it will make large parts of the world inhospitable.
wly_cdgr 5y ago
Even if the writer sincerely believes that, literally all they have to do to find their answer is ask themselves that same question. I am pretty sure no independently wealthy person would be wasting their time writing this drivel
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fargle 5y ago
concretely, because you, mr. vox author, could possibly maybe just be slightly wrong about all that. some of use are betting on things continuing, and we would like to stay alive, prosper, and maybe even get ahead whilst you are busy freaking out. or at least hedge our bets a little. i'm too busy and tired picking up the slack to do this personally. but i wouldn't be surprised if one could take a look back through history to get an idea of whether this kind of slightly-less-than-ideal worldwide condition has ever come up before, and whether life did in fact go on...
- xg15 5y ago
  What would a more-than-slightly-less-than-ideal worldwide condition be to you? Global thermonuclear war? Would you be still expect your emoyees to show up in office in that case?
  - fargle 5y ago
    How about a world war followed by a really nasty flu virus followed by a really nasty worldwide depression followed by another really-really-really nasty world war followed by a 50 year cold war with actual threat of global thermonuclear war (we came multiple times within a few seconds or one decision, you know). Not to minimize anything at all but realize fully that our generation (speaking broadly) is playing on easy-mode. It can and (may someday be) a LOT worse. And yet - it will still not be the end of the world. Not even close.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
nonameking2026 5y ago
Read Michael Shellenberger - Apocalypse Never. Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxZF_EWaLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxZF_EWaLE
- xg15 5y ago
  [flagged]

10 points by fludlight 5y ago

>"Nike, for example, gave all office employees a week off earlier this year, and Bumble and LinkedIn enacted similar policies." This bothers me quite a bit. Only office workers get off? Why not everyone? This seems like some class warfare type bullshit. Everyone is under stress, and the physical laborers may be even worse of simply due to the physical nature of their work

ragingrobot 5y ago
Fully agreed. I work in such a job (laborer), and the only thing I can figure is that giving office workers extra time off has less of an impact, whereas giving laborers off would affect production/output/service/whatever. We can't have that now, can we? Those companies did not enact this policy without their bottom line as priority, as usual.
- lupire 5y ago
  Question is why all these office workers have jobs, and why they pay so much.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Less of an impact on profits, more impact on workers Business don't give a shit about workers and this only reinforces that belief. This is a thin facade of caring about workers in that only the ones that don't really matter are treated well. IMO that's what makes this class warfare. It's all the people with cushy high paying jobs that get cares for, and all the others get shat on
coolgeek 5y ago
I agree with your points about unfairness, and that laborers are much more deserving of time off than office workers. But I wouldn't characterize it as class warfare. In most cases, when physical labor doesn't get performed, people notice. There are consequences that ripple out, affecting other people or systems. In most cases, when office work doesn't get performed, people don't notice. Things just stay the same. The system rewards cheaper and faster. But that's an issue of (primarily financial) incentives, not sociocultural biases.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Business don't give a shit about workers and this only reinforces that belief. This is a thin facade of caring about workers in that only the ones that don't really matter are treated well. IMO that's what makes this class warfare. It's all the people with cushy high paying jobs that get cares for, and all the others get shat on
  - coolgeek 5y ago
    At the risk of repeating myself: > The system rewards cheaper and faster. But that's an issue of (primarily financial) incentives, not sociocultural biases. Abusing other workers is a common phenomena at all levels of a company. Low level team leads (line/operations managers) are almost always of the same "class" as the people under them. They almost always ascend from those lower ranks. In any given instance of abuse, there may be other factors. But there is always a zero sum financial incentive to do so - to exploit others to benefit oneself. To be clear, I'm not in any way defending CEOs or any other executives. As a category, they are grossly, inexcusably overcompensated for the value they deliver. I'm just saying that the issue is systemic, pervasive.

GDC7 5y ago

Lol , the world is not ending. These are the typical exagerations of those who cannot mantain perspective . These are the same people who scream "We are all gonna die!!!" on a plane during a small turbolence. I wonder how would the author manage to function had she lived in the 1800s or the 1300s during the great plague. She'd have offed herself before the plague would have a chance to infect her.

thinkingemote 5y ago
Indeed, even within the memories of many living people that the author can speak to right now are two events: cold war and Cuban missile crisis where the world really could have ended properly. And the second world war when seventy million humans died and countless others had irreversible damage to them. This kind of apocalyptic thinking is also damaging to the birth rate "why have children in such a world". The irony here is that is literally how the world can end. There's also a fallacy of the hinge of history. Everyone thinks they are living in the most important of times ever and they have always done throughout history.
- bradgessler 5y ago
  Additionally, saying “the world is ending” is laughably incorrect. The world will be fine if we’re gone. If anything does end, it’s the habitability of Earth for humans. Many other animals will live on and new species will evolve.
  - xg15 5y ago
    And that's relevant how? Unfortunately we are humans and not some hypothetical future species.
- brodouevencode 5y ago
  The millennial and Genz generations are so nihilistic.
- xg15 5y ago
  Runaway climate change will not "end the world", but it will make large parts of the world inhospitable.

wly_cdgr 5y ago

Even if the writer sincerely believes that, literally all they have to do to find their answer is ask themselves that same question. I am pretty sure no independently wealthy person would be wasting their time writing this drivel

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fargle 5y ago

concretely, because you, mr. vox author, could possibly maybe just be slightly wrong about all that. some of use are betting on things continuing, and we would like to stay alive, prosper, and maybe even get ahead whilst you are busy freaking out. or at least hedge our bets a little. i'm too busy and tired picking up the slack to do this personally. but i wouldn't be surprised if one could take a look back through history to get an idea of whether this kind of slightly-less-than-ideal worldwide condition has ever come up before, and whether life did in fact go on...

xg15 5y ago
What would a more-than-slightly-less-than-ideal worldwide condition be to you? Global thermonuclear war? Would you be still expect your emoyees to show up in office in that case?
- fargle 5y ago
  How about a world war followed by a really nasty flu virus followed by a really nasty worldwide depression followed by another really-really-really nasty world war followed by a 50 year cold war with actual threat of global thermonuclear war (we came multiple times within a few seconds or one decision, you know). Not to minimize anything at all but realize fully that our generation (speaking broadly) is playing on easy-mode. It can and (may someday be) a LOT worse. And yet - it will still not be the end of the world. Not even close.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

nonameking2026 5y ago

Read Michael Shellenberger - Apocalypse Never. Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxZF_EWaLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxZF_EWaLE

xg15 5y ago
[flagged]