3 ms·

Well, at least you are honest about not really caring about anything other than profit. I'd love to see what makes you think think almost everything that matte

by alpos 4y ago

Well, at least you are honest about not really caring about anything other than profit. I'd love to see what makes you think think almost everything that matters to most people for most of their lives is irrelevant to the question of how people live and work on a daily basis. Please elaborate if you will. Since you disagree with my characterization, I'd also be happy to consider what you think I have misattributed there. Overall the point is simply that you are not working with a steady state system here. Whether one mode of working confers a competitive advantage probably has more to do with how much effort has been put behind streamlining that process. If that is indeed the case, then you might find yourself saying this about any change to any process that doesn't just wipe the market and create a whole new competition environment. There's no good reason to throw our hands up and say there's nothing we can do to make one or the other situation work better, especially when the benefits are great, numerous, and include increased productivity overall.

gonehome 4y ago
The reason I disagree with the framing is I can do the same thing and I just find that rhetorical way of discussing an issue unproductive. For example: “Are the minor issues of working in the office so bad that you’d force everyone to isolate devoid of human contact during a period of increasing loneliness and depression?” “When you’d hurt a fresh graduates career prospects further cementing people already established in their careers in positions of power” “By having people spread out instead of together we increase the carbon costs of supporting all these areas inefficiently instead of all in one place and that’s bad for the environment!” Etc. Etc. I find the useful way to discuss is to narrow in on the core issue (is working from the office an advantage or not) vs. ancillary effects that we can debate unproductively forever depending on who can rhetorically make shit up that sounds better. Ultimately it’s this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... And ultimately if it is a decisive advantage to be in the office (not obvious to me, but I suspect it is in most cases) then the market will force it anyway.

by alpos 4y ago

gonehome 4y ago

The reason I disagree with the framing is I can do the same thing and I just find that rhetorical way of discussing an issue unproductive. For example: “Are the minor issues of working in the office so bad that you’d force everyone to isolate devoid of human contact during a period of increasing loneliness and depression?” “When you’d hurt a fresh graduates career prospects further cementing people already established in their careers in positions of power” “By having people spread out instead of together we increase the carbon costs of supporting all these areas inefficiently instead of all in one place and that’s bad for the environment!” Etc. Etc. I find the useful way to discuss is to narrow in on the core issue (is working from the office an advantage or not) vs. ancillary effects that we can debate unproductively forever depending on who can rhetorically make shit up that sounds better. Ultimately it’s this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-debates-should-not-appear-one-sided https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PeSzc9JTBxhaYRp9b/policy-deb... And ultimately if it is a decisive advantage to be in the office (not obvious to me, but I suspect it is in most cases) then the market will force it anyway.