4 ms·

I agree. Despite the the statement's pithiness, the reality is we don't all have the same 24 hours in a day.

alabastervlog 2y ago
Yeah, I think it’s worth reflecting that most people with families work 80-hour weeks. Richer people can pay others to take on part of that workload so they can do 50 or 60 hours of work for a company and still actually be working less. Which is fine, I guess, until they’re all like “why are you poors always so sluggish and tired and wanting to clock out right at 5 on the dot?”
- grandempire 2y ago
  Nah. This kind of person tends to do more family stuff, and participate in more community events, and do more work. It’s ok to not be a busy body. I’m not one because it makes me miserable . But these imaginary tradeoffs we invent in our heads are often just justifications.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    I'm not following your point. I've got a solid 30 hours of unpaid work a week, and it'd be closer to 40 if I had to commute, and when my kids were younger and I still had a commute it was around 50 hours, all on top of my actual job. I could and, if it weren't wildly financially irresponsible, absolutely would pay to make about 20 hours of that vanish at no harm whatsoever (benefit, actually) to my personal relationships & family, and then I'd have a lot more time and energy for other things. That's just... how clocks work, IDK. This is overwhelmingly the norm for people who can't afford to pay others to do lots of stuff for them.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      My point is busy people do even more of the things that you think make you busy. You think kids are taking up all your time? They have more kids and volunteer at the school, and run a church group, etc. The clock is secondary because using time efficiently, planning, and classifying which hours you are awake and available are all skills. Similar patterns happen all throughout life. People have non linear capacities and performance.
      - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        What you're not differentiating here is between optional and mandatory tasks. If you're paying someone to cook, clean, grocery shop, or provide day to day child care you have time to do optional things, and people mistake that for being more efficient when in reality it's having the luxury to decide what to do with your time.
        grandempire 2y ago
        No adult with jobs and kids gets home and says “huh what will I fill my extra time with”. Everyone is busy. Now it’s up to effort, prioritization, and efficiency
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        The person who can't afford a cook and maid now needs to full those duties, cooking and cleaning, the person who can doesn't. The food is already made, the house is clean, the laundry is done, the kids are bathed, the fridge is full. They have time to decide what to do with. Sure, they could cook or clean, but that's now their choice. The activity is optional and can be prioritized instead of being mandatory. There are certain tasks that people need to do every day that take time and, if you can afford to have someone do those tasks, suddenly you have more time you can do other things with.
        grandempire 2y ago
        The people I know who accomplish a lot of things also cook and clean for themselves. Of course paying someone saves you time. But the question is whether that’s the key differentiator holding you back from X, Y, and Z. And no it’s not. There are people who do X, Y, and Z and don’t have a maid. Maybe on some psychological level getting help is the only way you personally will have time (feels true for myself), but you have to recognize there is significant personality and skill difference when it comes to being busy.
        2y ago

Yeah, I think it’s worth reflecting that most people with families work 80-hour weeks. Richer people can pay others to take on part of that workload so they can do 50 or 60 hours of work for a company and still actually be working less. Which is fine, I guess, until they’re all like “why are you poors always so sluggish and tired and wanting to clock out right at 5 on the dot?”

grandempire 2y ago
Nah. This kind of person tends to do more family stuff, and participate in more community events, and do more work. It’s ok to not be a busy body. I’m not one because it makes me miserable . But these imaginary tradeoffs we invent in our heads are often just justifications.
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  I'm not following your point. I've got a solid 30 hours of unpaid work a week, and it'd be closer to 40 if I had to commute, and when my kids were younger and I still had a commute it was around 50 hours, all on top of my actual job. I could and, if it weren't wildly financially irresponsible, absolutely would pay to make about 20 hours of that vanish at no harm whatsoever (benefit, actually) to my personal relationships & family, and then I'd have a lot more time and energy for other things. That's just... how clocks work, IDK. This is overwhelmingly the norm for people who can't afford to pay others to do lots of stuff for them.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    My point is busy people do even more of the things that you think make you busy. You think kids are taking up all your time? They have more kids and volunteer at the school, and run a church group, etc. The clock is secondary because using time efficiently, planning, and classifying which hours you are awake and available are all skills. Similar patterns happen all throughout life. People have non linear capacities and performance.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      What you're not differentiating here is between optional and mandatory tasks. If you're paying someone to cook, clean, grocery shop, or provide day to day child care you have time to do optional things, and people mistake that for being more efficient when in reality it's having the luxury to decide what to do with your time.
      - grandempire 2y ago
        No adult with jobs and kids gets home and says “huh what will I fill my extra time with”. Everyone is busy. Now it’s up to effort, prioritization, and efficiency
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        The person who can't afford a cook and maid now needs to full those duties, cooking and cleaning, the person who can doesn't. The food is already made, the house is clean, the laundry is done, the kids are bathed, the fridge is full. They have time to decide what to do with. Sure, they could cook or clean, but that's now their choice. The activity is optional and can be prioritized instead of being mandatory. There are certain tasks that people need to do every day that take time and, if you can afford to have someone do those tasks, suddenly you have more time you can do other things with.
        grandempire 2y ago
        The people I know who accomplish a lot of things also cook and clean for themselves. Of course paying someone saves you time. But the question is whether that’s the key differentiator holding you back from X, Y, and Z. And no it’s not. There are people who do X, Y, and Z and don’t have a maid. Maybe on some psychological level getting help is the only way you personally will have time (feels true for myself), but you have to recognize there is significant personality and skill difference when it comes to being busy.
        2y ago