3 ms·

“The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report on the welfare and well-being of Australians launched yesterday found that prior to the pandemic,

by abduhl 3y ago

“The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) report on the welfare and well-being of Australians launched yesterday found that prior to the pandemic, 13% of people aged 18 and over with a job reported working from home most days, according to the ABS Household Impacts of COVID-19 Survey. By April 2022, 46% of people had worked from home at least once per week in the previous four weeks.” I hate when articles do things like this. Do not say a temporally relevant data point and follow it up with a “by [future time]” if you’re not going to use the same piece of data. It’s clearly meant to trick unaware readers. The rest of the article is funny to some degree. It claims that the laws need to be updated to embrace remote work because <bad things happen> if not but then provides a bunch of statistics that could just as easily correlate the opposite way. For example, life satisfaction is down from 2019 (apparently back when employees weren’t working from home). Is this due to remote work? Who knows! Certainly the author of the article doesn’t.

barrysteve 3y ago
Both stats are recounting the past, filling in a blank slate with meaning. 15% of adults Work From Home most days, also 45% had Worked From Home at least once a week in a month. It's not to prevent bad things, it's to cover up an already existing spillage of bad things. Most aussie communication is this way, the meaning is provided top down, and the logic is adjusted to make sure the meaning is the priority. Plain language and intellectual 'brevity' and silence when the meaning is ambigious, is often mistaken for the communication lacking real content. The exact opposite of 99% of articles here, where the concept is repetitiously over-described / buried in a cultural analogy / stretched across a metaphorical academic paper, and the reader has to figure out what the author means by deciphering the idea. For example, it is ambigious whether not the life satisfaction survey was caused by remote work or not, but who cares? It's the same meaning either way. The knowledge in the article is taken as a subjective study, relative to the people who did the study, and the official process has the final say in the end. The structuring of logic and rhetoric is not required to be objectified into flattened concepts.. as it is over the ocean, in the US. When it comes to structuring knowledge work. Aus is like a lower Britian - you can subjectively shape your work, but not to the highest degree. The US is like a lower Germany - you receive an objective structure for the work, but not completely, there is room to be Not Sure. So uh yeah, the article is doing it's job, conveying a meaning without extra fluff. Uhh why did I write this.

by abduhl 3y ago

barrysteve 3y ago

Both stats are recounting the past, filling in a blank slate with meaning. 15% of adults Work From Home most days, also 45% had Worked From Home at least once a week in a month. It's not to prevent bad things, it's to cover up an already existing spillage of bad things. Most aussie communication is this way, the meaning is provided top down, and the logic is adjusted to make sure the meaning is the priority. Plain language and intellectual 'brevity' and silence when the meaning is ambigious, is often mistaken for the communication lacking real content. The exact opposite of 99% of articles here, where the concept is repetitiously over-described / buried in a cultural analogy / stretched across a metaphorical academic paper, and the reader has to figure out what the author means by deciphering the idea. For example, it is ambigious whether not the life satisfaction survey was caused by remote work or not, but who cares? It's the same meaning either way. The knowledge in the article is taken as a subjective study, relative to the people who did the study, and the official process has the final say in the end. The structuring of logic and rhetoric is not required to be objectified into flattened concepts.. as it is over the ocean, in the US. When it comes to structuring knowledge work. Aus is like a lower Britian - you can subjectively shape your work, but not to the highest degree. The US is like a lower Germany - you receive an objective structure for the work, but not completely, there is room to be Not Sure. So uh yeah, the article is doing it's job, conveying a meaning without extra fluff. Uhh why did I write this.