4 ms·

LOL what? Where did all this "lords and peasant" nonsense come from? Come back to reality, Eli.

eli_gottlieb 3y ago
I'm being real. Lots of people work 10-12 hours a day. How are they supposed to shop and cook for only fresh and healthy food, as well as do 30 minutes of rigorous cardio per day, in the remaining four hours a day when they're not asleep? What if they have family obligations?
- brnaftr361 3y ago
  My experience was that I was scheduled 12 hours a day, the reality is that we all commuted 1h both ways and turnover often took 30-45 minutes. We were bussed in, and we arrived 15-20 minutes early. To put the final little bit in, we also had to commute to the bus depot. Whatever extraneous time I had was spent in the shower. While I did manage to eat decently I also had the benefit of years of working in kitchens and I opted for vegetarianism years prior so I had to delve into a novel culinary discipline which served to broaden my horizons both in what I considered a meal, and what I was willing to eat, and how I was willing to eat. Looking at the rest of the cohort: yeah, it was bad. A lot of industries we interfaced with had a lot of very evident cases of poor diet. I expect among the whole the chronically single and childless were the few that could manage their health in the context of that schedule or any modern American regime, really. Beyond diet it's physically taxing, especially considering that my industry, and every industry touching it worked some variation of swing shifts and if not that, 24/7 on-call. That alone is extremely taxing and has prolific long-term implications. Alcohol and drug abuse are commonplace, whether licit or illicit substances. And there's a huge emotional layer to it as well, if that isn't obvious. Mind you these are the people paid by the companies that keep your lights and heat on, transport all your food and fuel... But even outside of that extreme edge case the other jobs I've had can have their own sets of challenges. It's not always overeating that gets you, but undereating is a hazard as well. And workplace injuries are not so avoidable as the institutions like to profess. If you're pressured, your peers are pressured, your customers are pressured, etc... the culture itself becomes go fast or die trying — they'll tell you to work safe but God forbid if you do you'll be punished for it, ask me how I know. And that's without factoring in RSIs, which in some occupations are virtually inextricable.
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    I had a general comment about toxic materials but I'm putting it here because I'm very familiar with this type situation: >Beyond diet it's physically taxing, especially considering that my industry, and every industry touching it worked some variation of swing shifts and if not that, 24/7 on-call. That alone is extremely taxing and has prolific long-term implications. Alcohol and drug abuse are commonplace, whether licit or illicit substances. And there's a huge emotional layer to it as well, if that isn't obvious. Mind you these are the people paid by the companies that keep your lights and heat on, transport all your food and fuel... Looked at your profile and see your admission from "someone who sorta bootstrapped from a pretty shitty starting position" Really there's not much difference between overwork to recover more completely from disaster, compared with ambition to make faster progress when opportunity exists. This is the kind of situation where things like drugs are never the answer, seems like sometimes the toxic effects of chemicals are on steroids when the "setting" does not allow for much recovery between toxic exposures. If the medical benefit were not clearly in excess of the toxic load or significant side-effects I would not want to take the pill. Each pharmaceutical is like any other consumer product. It didn't used to be as bad when mass-marketing direct to patients was still widely recognized as too unethical for serious consideration. Once a consumer product reaches the most satisfying rapid market saturation on its own merit, the main way to continue the bonanza is to create desire among the nonengaged consumers who don't actually need the product but who can be convinced that it might be nice to have anyway for some reason or another. By then anybody with any interest at all knows it's already popular and accepted. Then after the drugmakers and insurers got into a fortuitous spiral (for the corporations) on prices the incentive got even more extreme. Even though the insurers have to pay more for each dose, they just raise the premiums and "everybody wins". Plus there are still really not enough doctors to go around but it used to much worse. However in the 21st century I think doctors are much more likely to recommend a simple pill (or more than one these days) rather than a more complex treatment. Also when doctors were spread much thinner people went to them much less often, long ago it was like only going to the doctor when you needed to be cured of a cold or flu or broken arm or something. So they got the exam, took one bottle of medication, got over the cold, and they were cured. Then it was discovered there was no cure for the common cold. OTC approaches to treat symptoms proliferated with mass-media television and it was seen consumers would continuously purchase more pills on their own initiative to treat the same disorders which had not had that scale of returns in the form of doctors' prescriptions. The prescription-industrial complex was going to have to advertise to compete. Attitudes began the gradual change to continuing visits and ongoing treatment for more & more conditions, not just the things that would be expected to require a continuing lifetime of medication, such as insulin. And a whole generation of doctors who have been influenced by very persuasive drug companies that have carefully built a reality distortion field where any tendency to discontinue medication once prescribed has been de-emphasized like never before. >I opted for vegetarianism I don't think the full risk is known when it comes to steroids in meat or pesticides in vegetables, but looks like vegetarians these days are more conscious of avoiding toxic additives than average, so this may be the safer move for that reason alone.
- omginternets 3y ago
  Most people do not work 10-12 hours a day. Those who do have far bigger problems than regular exercise.
  - etempleton 3y ago
    In the US it is fairly common.
    - clnq 3y ago
      It is admired. “First in, last out” and sleeping in the office are virtues to be signalled!
  - bart_spoon 3y ago
    I think it’s more common that you think. Very rarely does someone check in right at 9 and out right at 5. Add onto that a commute which might be anywhere from 30-60 minutes each way, and you are pretty close to that window.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  In the developing world, where highly processed food is usually too expensive for a normal family to live on, people cook regularly. Like, every day. How come? They certainly don't work any fewer hours than Westerners do.
  - escapedmoose 3y ago
    Often those tasks are left for their children who are forced to cut their education short to care for the family.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      My own grandparents came from very rural settings in pre-WWII Slovakia and almost all of the cooking was done by the adults, not by the kids. The kids helped around (carrying water, taking care of poultry etc.), but it didn't interfere with their schooling.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    I bet most families have an unemployed adult that cooks. Grandma or older child or some such.
    - badpun 3y ago
      In communist Poland, both of my parents worked, and yet my mother cooked every day after work. Work + commute took her around 9 - 9.5 hours per day. On top of that, there were long queues to buy anything at the stores, so you were spending easily an extra hour shopping per day (not to mention spending time bartering with family and neighbors the goods you managed to buy, but didn't need for stuff you actually do need).
      - mvdwoord 3y ago
        Admirable, but also because they're was no alternative most likely. Not necessarily a lifestyle to aspire to..
- badpun 3y ago
  Most people don't work on weekends. You can do shopping and cook for entire week then. This is not a theoretical proposition, I've done that a lot.
  - stcroixx 3y ago
    If you have kids, particularly several, the weekend is usually completely packed with activities and obligations. I know can’t ever get any shopping done over the weekend.
    - badpun 3y ago
      That's completely by choice. My parents didn't do any of that with me. That wasn't really a thing in my generation (growing up in the 80s and 90s in Polan).

I'm being real. Lots of people work 10-12 hours a day. How are they supposed to shop and cook for only fresh and healthy food, as well as do 30 minutes of rigorous cardio per day, in the remaining four hours a day when they're not asleep? What if they have family obligations?

brnaftr361 3y ago
My experience was that I was scheduled 12 hours a day, the reality is that we all commuted 1h both ways and turnover often took 30-45 minutes. We were bussed in, and we arrived 15-20 minutes early. To put the final little bit in, we also had to commute to the bus depot. Whatever extraneous time I had was spent in the shower. While I did manage to eat decently I also had the benefit of years of working in kitchens and I opted for vegetarianism years prior so I had to delve into a novel culinary discipline which served to broaden my horizons both in what I considered a meal, and what I was willing to eat, and how I was willing to eat. Looking at the rest of the cohort: yeah, it was bad. A lot of industries we interfaced with had a lot of very evident cases of poor diet. I expect among the whole the chronically single and childless were the few that could manage their health in the context of that schedule or any modern American regime, really. Beyond diet it's physically taxing, especially considering that my industry, and every industry touching it worked some variation of swing shifts and if not that, 24/7 on-call. That alone is extremely taxing and has prolific long-term implications. Alcohol and drug abuse are commonplace, whether licit or illicit substances. And there's a huge emotional layer to it as well, if that isn't obvious. Mind you these are the people paid by the companies that keep your lights and heat on, transport all your food and fuel... But even outside of that extreme edge case the other jobs I've had can have their own sets of challenges. It's not always overeating that gets you, but undereating is a hazard as well. And workplace injuries are not so avoidable as the institutions like to profess. If you're pressured, your peers are pressured, your customers are pressured, etc... the culture itself becomes go fast or die trying — they'll tell you to work safe but God forbid if you do you'll be punished for it, ask me how I know. And that's without factoring in RSIs, which in some occupations are virtually inextricable.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  I had a general comment about toxic materials but I'm putting it here because I'm very familiar with this type situation: >Beyond diet it's physically taxing, especially considering that my industry, and every industry touching it worked some variation of swing shifts and if not that, 24/7 on-call. That alone is extremely taxing and has prolific long-term implications. Alcohol and drug abuse are commonplace, whether licit or illicit substances. And there's a huge emotional layer to it as well, if that isn't obvious. Mind you these are the people paid by the companies that keep your lights and heat on, transport all your food and fuel... Looked at your profile and see your admission from "someone who sorta bootstrapped from a pretty shitty starting position" Really there's not much difference between overwork to recover more completely from disaster, compared with ambition to make faster progress when opportunity exists. This is the kind of situation where things like drugs are never the answer, seems like sometimes the toxic effects of chemicals are on steroids when the "setting" does not allow for much recovery between toxic exposures. If the medical benefit were not clearly in excess of the toxic load or significant side-effects I would not want to take the pill. Each pharmaceutical is like any other consumer product. It didn't used to be as bad when mass-marketing direct to patients was still widely recognized as too unethical for serious consideration. Once a consumer product reaches the most satisfying rapid market saturation on its own merit, the main way to continue the bonanza is to create desire among the nonengaged consumers who don't actually need the product but who can be convinced that it might be nice to have anyway for some reason or another. By then anybody with any interest at all knows it's already popular and accepted. Then after the drugmakers and insurers got into a fortuitous spiral (for the corporations) on prices the incentive got even more extreme. Even though the insurers have to pay more for each dose, they just raise the premiums and "everybody wins". Plus there are still really not enough doctors to go around but it used to much worse. However in the 21st century I think doctors are much more likely to recommend a simple pill (or more than one these days) rather than a more complex treatment. Also when doctors were spread much thinner people went to them much less often, long ago it was like only going to the doctor when you needed to be cured of a cold or flu or broken arm or something. So they got the exam, took one bottle of medication, got over the cold, and they were cured. Then it was discovered there was no cure for the common cold. OTC approaches to treat symptoms proliferated with mass-media television and it was seen consumers would continuously purchase more pills on their own initiative to treat the same disorders which had not had that scale of returns in the form of doctors' prescriptions. The prescription-industrial complex was going to have to advertise to compete. Attitudes began the gradual change to continuing visits and ongoing treatment for more & more conditions, not just the things that would be expected to require a continuing lifetime of medication, such as insulin. And a whole generation of doctors who have been influenced by very persuasive drug companies that have carefully built a reality distortion field where any tendency to discontinue medication once prescribed has been de-emphasized like never before. >I opted for vegetarianism I don't think the full risk is known when it comes to steroids in meat or pesticides in vegetables, but looks like vegetarians these days are more conscious of avoiding toxic additives than average, so this may be the safer move for that reason alone.
omginternets 3y ago
Most people do not work 10-12 hours a day. Those who do have far bigger problems than regular exercise.
- etempleton 3y ago
  In the US it is fairly common.
  - clnq 3y ago
    It is admired. “First in, last out” and sleeping in the office are virtues to be signalled!
- bart_spoon 3y ago
  I think it’s more common that you think. Very rarely does someone check in right at 9 and out right at 5. Add onto that a commute which might be anywhere from 30-60 minutes each way, and you are pretty close to that window.
inglor_cz 3y ago
In the developing world, where highly processed food is usually too expensive for a normal family to live on, people cook regularly. Like, every day. How come? They certainly don't work any fewer hours than Westerners do.
- escapedmoose 3y ago
  Often those tasks are left for their children who are forced to cut their education short to care for the family.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    My own grandparents came from very rural settings in pre-WWII Slovakia and almost all of the cooking was done by the adults, not by the kids. The kids helped around (carrying water, taking care of poultry etc.), but it didn't interfere with their schooling.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  I bet most families have an unemployed adult that cooks. Grandma or older child or some such.
  - badpun 3y ago
    In communist Poland, both of my parents worked, and yet my mother cooked every day after work. Work + commute took her around 9 - 9.5 hours per day. On top of that, there were long queues to buy anything at the stores, so you were spending easily an extra hour shopping per day (not to mention spending time bartering with family and neighbors the goods you managed to buy, but didn't need for stuff you actually do need).
    - mvdwoord 3y ago
      Admirable, but also because they're was no alternative most likely. Not necessarily a lifestyle to aspire to..
badpun 3y ago
Most people don't work on weekends. You can do shopping and cook for entire week then. This is not a theoretical proposition, I've done that a lot.
- stcroixx 3y ago
  If you have kids, particularly several, the weekend is usually completely packed with activities and obligations. I know can’t ever get any shopping done over the weekend.
  - badpun 3y ago
    That's completely by choice. My parents didn't do any of that with me. That wasn't really a thing in my generation (growing up in the 80s and 90s in Polan).