4 ms·

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

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.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        I'm not saying that people can't do X, Y, and Z, there are people who are just that driven, or people who have a spouse that fills in those roles, but it's far easier for people who the necessities of life are optional, and when you're surrounded by people for whom it's all optional, they are going to assume it's optional for everyone and no assume why everyone isn't doing more.
        alabastervlog 2y ago
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    > My point is busy people do even more of the things that you think make you busy. I don't think it makes me busy. It does. > You think kids are taking up all your time? They have more kids and volunteer at the school, and run a church group, etc. I'm not counting extremely-optional stuff. > The clock is secondary because using time efficiently, planning, and classifying which hours you are awake and available are all skills. Money puts this on extremely-easy mode, because for a huge variety of things "this is a problem that will take much time and attention" becomes "just pay someone to make it go away". I know, because I have enough money that sometimes I can do this (I didn't always, and I didn't grow up that way) and holy god, it makes life so incredibly easy when I can.
    - grandempire 2y ago
      I think you’re taking my comment personally which is not intended.
  - aeonik 2y ago
    Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. A single kid sucks more time than you have in a regular day. You are sleep deprived, and in survival mode for the first part. If you have a lot of kids, after a certain age, the older ones can start to help around depending on age. It's how humanity survives in self-sufficient conditions. For serial kid rearing families there is a plateau in difficulty, and then a steady decline (depending on the personality and health of the kids of course).
    - grandempire 2y ago
      That’s true, but it’s only one activity I mentioned. It’s still true that having two young kids is more time than and effort than one.

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.
        SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
        I'm not saying that people can't do X, Y, and Z, there are people who are just that driven, or people who have a spouse that fills in those roles, but it's far easier for people who the necessities of life are optional, and when you're surrounded by people for whom it's all optional, they are going to assume it's optional for everyone and no assume why everyone isn't doing more.
        alabastervlog 2y ago
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  > My point is busy people do even more of the things that you think make you busy. I don't think it makes me busy. It does. > You think kids are taking up all your time? They have more kids and volunteer at the school, and run a church group, etc. I'm not counting extremely-optional stuff. > The clock is secondary because using time efficiently, planning, and classifying which hours you are awake and available are all skills. Money puts this on extremely-easy mode, because for a huge variety of things "this is a problem that will take much time and attention" becomes "just pay someone to make it go away". I know, because I have enough money that sometimes I can do this (I didn't always, and I didn't grow up that way) and holy god, it makes life so incredibly easy when I can.
  - grandempire 2y ago
    I think you’re taking my comment personally which is not intended.
- aeonik 2y ago
  Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. A single kid sucks more time than you have in a regular day. You are sleep deprived, and in survival mode for the first part. If you have a lot of kids, after a certain age, the older ones can start to help around depending on age. It's how humanity survives in self-sufficient conditions. For serial kid rearing families there is a plateau in difficulty, and then a steady decline (depending on the personality and health of the kids of course).
  - grandempire 2y ago
    That’s true, but it’s only one activity I mentioned. It’s still true that having two young kids is more time than and effort than one.