7 ms·

The innovative US economy will make it all irrelevant anyway by introducing more and more work from home jobs. Work from home is almost common in the US and bas

The innovative US economy will make it all irrelevant anyway by introducing more and more work from home jobs. Work from home is almost common in the US and basically non-existent in Europe. I wouldn't trade Swedish 6-hour workday with my American-based 8-hour while working from my coach at home. Somehow socialists are always one step behind Mother Nature, i.e. free markets.

symmetricsaurus 12y ago
"Work from home is almost common in the US and basically non-existent in Europe." It is not non-existent in Sweden. "Somehow socialists are always one step behind Mother Nature, i.e. free markets." The free market has nothing to do with "Mother Nature" (animals and plants don't trade at all). Sweden has a free market economy, much like the US. Not exactly sure what is meant by socialists here. Anyone who advocates shorter working hours?
- mcv 12y ago
  Work from home for 1 day a week is pretty common in Netherland. I've had coworkers who were only in the office for three days a week because they had one day off and one work from home day. Personally I've become less of a fan of working from home, because you see the people you work with less. Particularly the daily standup in Scrum emphasizes the problem with people working from other locations. But if you don't work in a team, working from home is a great option. On socialism, Sweden is generally seen as a really nice mix between the good part of capitalism (free market), and the good parts of socialism (equality, workers' rights).
Numberwang 12y ago
Maybe it simply is not possible for us swedes to work from home like that because of our smaller houses? I certainly wouldn't know where to put the chemistry lab or the industrial robots. I barely have room for the mine-shaft.
- justnotsure 12y ago
  I thought you must have bigger houses? no? I mean how can you claim to have better standard of living and live happier life in a small house without any space?
  - guard-of-terra 12y ago
    It's always a tough choice between a huge house in sprawlville on one side of spectrum and a tiny apartment in the centre of the (non-urban-flighted, alive and walkable) city. And of course everything in between. You can't say that in "better standard of living", home size matters and home location doesn't. Europeans have less sprawl but smaller houses, that's just it.
    - Benji_San 12y ago
      It shouldn't really be a tough choice. The "suburbia" dream is flawed on so many levels that it isn't even funny. Yet people are clinging on to it like leeches because they've been told it will make them happy.
      - guard-of-terra 12y ago
        Well, on the other hand it's very hard to make the whole large urban core interesting and alive. Urban core is always smaller to fit everybody, hence unrealistic prices (think SF). And urban city outskirts aren't so much fun (still small apartments but not much life; crime is sometimes a problem too). Not much better than suburbia.
      - Loughla 12y ago
        That's not really fair. Just because the suburbia dream is flawed for you, doesn't mean it is for everyone else. I really do know folks who love living in a subdivision, being on the community board, watering the lawn in khaki shorts, the whole nine yards. They love all of it. Different strokes for different folks, Benji. Not everyone wants to live in the city where everything is so tight and expensive. Not everyone wants to live in the country where everything is so god damned far away. Some want to live relatively close to their work, have large sized yards like you would in rural areas, but still have access to shopping and amenities similar to cities.
_delirium 12y ago
I wouldn't say that working from home is particularly common in the United States. It exists, but it's a very small minority of jobs. There are more if you include "occasional work-from-home": some companies will let you work from home one day a week, and come into the office the rest. The web-tech startup scene is probably the place fully working from home is most prevalent, and even there it's not a very large proportion of jobs.
vidarh 12y ago
The "innovative US economy" had to be forced by socialist unions to cut the working day to roughly 8 days. It took decades of strikes, demonstrations and bloodshed to reach that goal. You know why people demonstrate and celebrate workers right on May 1st? Because then largely socialist and anarchist US unions decided, led by the AFL, in 1888 to restart demonstrations for the 8 hour working day with a major demonstration on May 1st 1890 in part in honour of those who died during the Haymarket Massacre. In 1889, the AFL approached the socialist Second International to suggest coordinated demonstrations internationally, and the Second International agreed. So when you enjoy your "American-based 8-hour" working day, remember it came to be thanks to socialist unions.
- justnotsure 12y ago
  I appreciate Unions and I strongly believe that capitalism works well only in connection with democracy. Sure if people who just didn't try hard enough at school and end up at bad jobs vote for 6 or even 2-hour day work, let them have it! I don't care, I'm paid per hour I want to put as many hours as possible.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    The point was that your supposedly amazing free market was not what led to the 8-hour day. It took bloodshed and illegal strikes; demonstrations and decades of fighting for legislation.
    - justnotsure 12y ago
      Please note that in communistic states people worked regularly over 8 hours long after 8-hours work week was legislated in the USA. My point is that system evolution via democratic process is much better than bloody revolution that left-wing quite often has on its mouth.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        What does "communistic states" have to do with anything? They were/are kleptocratic oligarchies that are so stratified that they have even worse class systems than capitalist states. > My point is that system evolution via democratic process is much better than bloody revolution that left-wing quite often has on its mouth. It was not evolution via democratic process that gave us the 8 hour day. It was not bloody revolution either, but plenty of blood has been shed during the fight for decent working conditions. People were outright killed. People were arrested. People were intimidated; blacklisted. The current system is only as good as it is because our forefathers were brave enough to stand up and fight even when they had to break the law, and even when they in many cases risked their life to fight the conditions of the time. And they had to: Plenty of people died because of the disproportionate powers of employees to dictate conditions. Such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, where 146 people died when the factory burned because the employees kept the doors locked during working hours to prevent unauthorized breaks(!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fir...
oellegaard 12y ago
The innovative Scandinavian economy has resulted in the highest general happiness for its citizens. Maybe you should consider why you actually work - is it because work is the best thing that every happened to you, or something you do so you can afford to take the rest of your time off and hangout with friends and/or family?
- justnotsure 12y ago
  So why in Norway they vote extreme right? Here is your dirty secret about Breiviks and Scandinavia: we can pay high taxes as long as it goes to us. But the very second it goes to Muslims, immigrants, etc. we are not socialist anymore. We are more like national socialists ;-) You see scnadinavian socialism seems to work only in national states. Once you have high immigration and you pay for immigrants, nobody wants it anymore. Now get this: in the US 70% of population are immigrants, or their children, or their grand-children. Obviously, you can see why Norwegians don't want to pay high taxes to benefit of immigrants. Why it is so difficult to comprehend that in the US it wouldn't work too?
  - vasquez 12y ago
    There's no extreme right in Norway (at least not in the parliament). The so-called "extreme right" progress party are left of the US Democrats in all(?) matters. With only 16% of the votes they also lost 1/4th their seats from the previous election, which was won by a labor/left coalition.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    > So why in Norway they vote extreme right? They/we don't. The "Progress Party", which is the furthest right party represented in parliament, got 16.3%. Down from 22.9%. They're for the most part to the left of the Republican Party. That they were invited into a coalition government for the first time was shocking to us, as it means it's the closest we've gotten to "American conditions" - a traditional slur in Norway, as most people, including a substantial majority still, do not want most of what the Progress Party wants. You'll note that despite getting into a coalition with the conservative party (which got 26.8%, up from 17.2%), they have been unable to get through more than a few token tax cuts. Why? Because the centre-point in parliament is to the left of either one of them. They have to lean on the Liberal Party (Venstre), which is social-liberalists that'd fit in roughly on the left of the Democratic Party, or the Christian Democrats, which are social-conservative centrists, to get a slight majority. Similarly, they've gotten through a few minor token changes to immigration policies, but have to give up on most of their policies because no other party in parliament agree with them on immigration. About 50% of parliament is made up of the social democrat Labour Party, the Socialist Left party, and the slightly left of centre Centre Party who ruled for the preceding 8 years. Norwegian "tradition" is that right wing governments sits for less than one period, up to almost two. No right wing government has survived a second election.
luke1972 12y ago
You've got a coach at home you use as an office?? Amazing.
aestra 12y ago
> Work from home is almost common in the US and basically non-existent in Europe. 1) I live in the US and only one person I know works from home but she is a very special case (her employer made an exception). When I mention I have the option of working from home once in a while (and I mean once in a while, like a few times a year) everyone is like "REALLY!? THAT SOUNDS AMAZING!" 2) "Europe" isn't a single entity.

symmetricsaurus 12y ago

"Work from home is almost common in the US and basically non-existent in Europe." It is not non-existent in Sweden. "Somehow socialists are always one step behind Mother Nature, i.e. free markets." The free market has nothing to do with "Mother Nature" (animals and plants don't trade at all). Sweden has a free market economy, much like the US. Not exactly sure what is meant by socialists here. Anyone who advocates shorter working hours?

mcv 12y ago
Work from home for 1 day a week is pretty common in Netherland. I've had coworkers who were only in the office for three days a week because they had one day off and one work from home day. Personally I've become less of a fan of working from home, because you see the people you work with less. Particularly the daily standup in Scrum emphasizes the problem with people working from other locations. But if you don't work in a team, working from home is a great option. On socialism, Sweden is generally seen as a really nice mix between the good part of capitalism (free market), and the good parts of socialism (equality, workers' rights).

Numberwang 12y ago

Maybe it simply is not possible for us swedes to work from home like that because of our smaller houses? I certainly wouldn't know where to put the chemistry lab or the industrial robots. I barely have room for the mine-shaft.

justnotsure 12y ago
I thought you must have bigger houses? no? I mean how can you claim to have better standard of living and live happier life in a small house without any space?
- guard-of-terra 12y ago
  It's always a tough choice between a huge house in sprawlville on one side of spectrum and a tiny apartment in the centre of the (non-urban-flighted, alive and walkable) city. And of course everything in between. You can't say that in "better standard of living", home size matters and home location doesn't. Europeans have less sprawl but smaller houses, that's just it.
  - Benji_San 12y ago
    It shouldn't really be a tough choice. The "suburbia" dream is flawed on so many levels that it isn't even funny. Yet people are clinging on to it like leeches because they've been told it will make them happy.
    - guard-of-terra 12y ago
      Well, on the other hand it's very hard to make the whole large urban core interesting and alive. Urban core is always smaller to fit everybody, hence unrealistic prices (think SF). And urban city outskirts aren't so much fun (still small apartments but not much life; crime is sometimes a problem too). Not much better than suburbia.
    - Loughla 12y ago
      That's not really fair. Just because the suburbia dream is flawed for you, doesn't mean it is for everyone else. I really do know folks who love living in a subdivision, being on the community board, watering the lawn in khaki shorts, the whole nine yards. They love all of it. Different strokes for different folks, Benji. Not everyone wants to live in the city where everything is so tight and expensive. Not everyone wants to live in the country where everything is so god damned far away. Some want to live relatively close to their work, have large sized yards like you would in rural areas, but still have access to shopping and amenities similar to cities.

_delirium 12y ago

I wouldn't say that working from home is particularly common in the United States. It exists, but it's a very small minority of jobs. There are more if you include "occasional work-from-home": some companies will let you work from home one day a week, and come into the office the rest. The web-tech startup scene is probably the place fully working from home is most prevalent, and even there it's not a very large proportion of jobs.

vidarh 12y ago

The "innovative US economy" had to be forced by socialist unions to cut the working day to roughly 8 days. It took decades of strikes, demonstrations and bloodshed to reach that goal. You know why people demonstrate and celebrate workers right on May 1st? Because then largely socialist and anarchist US unions decided, led by the AFL, in 1888 to restart demonstrations for the 8 hour working day with a major demonstration on May 1st 1890 in part in honour of those who died during the Haymarket Massacre. In 1889, the AFL approached the socialist Second International to suggest coordinated demonstrations internationally, and the Second International agreed. So when you enjoy your "American-based 8-hour" working day, remember it came to be thanks to socialist unions.

justnotsure 12y ago
I appreciate Unions and I strongly believe that capitalism works well only in connection with democracy. Sure if people who just didn't try hard enough at school and end up at bad jobs vote for 6 or even 2-hour day work, let them have it! I don't care, I'm paid per hour I want to put as many hours as possible.
- vidarh 12y ago
  The point was that your supposedly amazing free market was not what led to the 8-hour day. It took bloodshed and illegal strikes; demonstrations and decades of fighting for legislation.
  - justnotsure 12y ago
    Please note that in communistic states people worked regularly over 8 hours long after 8-hours work week was legislated in the USA. My point is that system evolution via democratic process is much better than bloody revolution that left-wing quite often has on its mouth.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      What does "communistic states" have to do with anything? They were/are kleptocratic oligarchies that are so stratified that they have even worse class systems than capitalist states. > My point is that system evolution via democratic process is much better than bloody revolution that left-wing quite often has on its mouth. It was not evolution via democratic process that gave us the 8 hour day. It was not bloody revolution either, but plenty of blood has been shed during the fight for decent working conditions. People were outright killed. People were arrested. People were intimidated; blacklisted. The current system is only as good as it is because our forefathers were brave enough to stand up and fight even when they had to break the law, and even when they in many cases risked their life to fight the conditions of the time. And they had to: Plenty of people died because of the disproportionate powers of employees to dictate conditions. Such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, where 146 people died when the factory burned because the employees kept the doors locked during working hours to prevent unauthorized breaks(!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fir...

oellegaard 12y ago

The innovative Scandinavian economy has resulted in the highest general happiness for its citizens. Maybe you should consider why you actually work - is it because work is the best thing that every happened to you, or something you do so you can afford to take the rest of your time off and hangout with friends and/or family?

justnotsure 12y ago
So why in Norway they vote extreme right? Here is your dirty secret about Breiviks and Scandinavia: we can pay high taxes as long as it goes to us. But the very second it goes to Muslims, immigrants, etc. we are not socialist anymore. We are more like national socialists ;-) You see scnadinavian socialism seems to work only in national states. Once you have high immigration and you pay for immigrants, nobody wants it anymore. Now get this: in the US 70% of population are immigrants, or their children, or their grand-children. Obviously, you can see why Norwegians don't want to pay high taxes to benefit of immigrants. Why it is so difficult to comprehend that in the US it wouldn't work too?
- vasquez 12y ago
  There's no extreme right in Norway (at least not in the parliament). The so-called "extreme right" progress party are left of the US Democrats in all(?) matters. With only 16% of the votes they also lost 1/4th their seats from the previous election, which was won by a labor/left coalition.
- vidarh 12y ago
  > So why in Norway they vote extreme right? They/we don't. The "Progress Party", which is the furthest right party represented in parliament, got 16.3%. Down from 22.9%. They're for the most part to the left of the Republican Party. That they were invited into a coalition government for the first time was shocking to us, as it means it's the closest we've gotten to "American conditions" - a traditional slur in Norway, as most people, including a substantial majority still, do not want most of what the Progress Party wants. You'll note that despite getting into a coalition with the conservative party (which got 26.8%, up from 17.2%), they have been unable to get through more than a few token tax cuts. Why? Because the centre-point in parliament is to the left of either one of them. They have to lean on the Liberal Party (Venstre), which is social-liberalists that'd fit in roughly on the left of the Democratic Party, or the Christian Democrats, which are social-conservative centrists, to get a slight majority. Similarly, they've gotten through a few minor token changes to immigration policies, but have to give up on most of their policies because no other party in parliament agree with them on immigration. About 50% of parliament is made up of the social democrat Labour Party, the Socialist Left party, and the slightly left of centre Centre Party who ruled for the preceding 8 years. Norwegian "tradition" is that right wing governments sits for less than one period, up to almost two. No right wing government has survived a second election.

luke1972 12y ago

You've got a coach at home you use as an office?? Amazing.

aestra 12y ago

> Work from home is almost common in the US and basically non-existent in Europe. 1) I live in the US and only one person I know works from home but she is a very special case (her employer made an exception). When I mention I have the option of working from home once in a while (and I mean once in a while, like a few times a year) everyone is like "REALLY!? THAT SOUNDS AMAZING!" 2) "Europe" isn't a single entity.