3 ms·
Well, maybe there's a deeper truth to qp11's statement: I completely agree that moving to the tech city _du jour_ caters to the demographic of mid-20 "anywhere
by v1ne 3y ago
Well, maybe there's a deeper truth to qp11's statement:
I completely agree that moving to the tech city _du jour_ caters to the demographic of mid-20 "anywheres". Having a family, long-term friends or obligations such as elderly care rules you out. Or god forbid: A time-consuming hobby or in general something apart from work that gives meaning to your life.
And that's exactly the point! You only get those high wages when you put in the 60–80 hours a week (or 40 very focused hours a week) that you can spend if you live for your work. To the employer, such dependent, driven employees are very valuable. Much more than some family father who comes in for 20 hours a week and is often tired and just wants to get back home to play with his children.
- chefandy 3y agoStockholm syndrome. Mercantile utility being the only driving factor that governs these actions is exactly the problem. You're expending your life-- no more or less valuable than the life of the CEO or shareholders-- to give the CEO and shareholders a fantastically luxurious life that was, in nearly every case, only afforded to them because of existing wealth. That's fucked up. What's even more fucked up is that it's stratifying more, not less. Succumbing to this very well-marketed idea that we're worth no more than our monetary value in a market is one of the driving factors.