2 ms·
Perhaps you're right. I suppose my annoyance is that by choosing sitting/standing as their variable, they gave the impression that they were telling a new and/o
by turbojet1321 2y ago
Perhaps you're right. I suppose my annoyance is that by choosing sitting/standing as their variable, they gave the impression that they were telling a new and/or interesting narrative, when really they were presenting something well established and entirely common-sense (physical laborers get paid less and have poorer working conditions than office workers).
- fenomas 2y agoI follow you, but I read TFA as saying the complete opposite of that. To me TFA is illustrating that "white-vs-blue-collar" is something of a thought-terminating cliche, and that looking at the actual data shows that various jobs cluster in ways you wouldn't expect if you assumed there were two big white/blue categories. (Also I interpreted "standing/sitting" as basically being a catchy title - I think the author's premise is that all the axes he examined are relevant, not just the standing/sitting one.)