5 ms·

"...it may be worth-while for you to remember that you have as much time as anyone else — twenty-four hours a day". I don't think this is fair. If you are poor

"...it may be worth-while for you to remember that you have as much time as anyone else — twenty-four hours a day". I don't think this is fair. If you are poor and uneducated, you have to spend more time working just to provide basic needs. So you don't have as much time available as those who are better off.

rtpg 12y ago
Too true. It's important not to forget that, at least in the US, we find it acceptable that there are people who have to work more than 1.5 full-time jobs to survive.
avalaunch 12y ago
This is very true. The article also didn't take into account that some people need different amounts of sleep each night to function properly. There's a big difference between needing 6 hours and needing 10 hours.
Gustomaximus 12y ago
Anyone that has kids doesn't has time-choice compared with those who don't. I'd guess 3+ hours a day average, less weekdays and more on weekends. Combine that with poor and there really isn't much time available outside sleep.
- steve_barham 12y ago
  They did have time-choice; they chose to allocate a substantial portion of it to having children.
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Not in a meaningful sense, given that the species should probably have a next generation. It's work that needs to be done. Society can make the work a lot less onerous, restoring that time-choice. (And various societies through time had quite sensible solutions, though of course war and violence destroys sensible living arrangements.) For instance, the common atomized family is incredibly inefficient duplication of work.
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    > they chose to allocate a substantial portion of it to having children. The good parents did.
- cle 12y ago
  I have one kid so I have a little bit of perspective on this. Looking back on things, I don't think I've lost too much time by having a child. It's a little inconvenient sometimes having to shuttle him around. But from my observations, single/childless people tend to spend the same amount of time on extracurriculars that I spend with my child.
  - Jem 12y ago
    Really? How active a part do you play in your child's life? Because much of my non-work time is spent caring for my children. Even when they're asleep or not in the house, I am doing things for them or because of them.
  - Gustomaximus 12y ago
    I have 2 children and found the workload goes up significantly on the second. No economies of scale there, in fact the reverse as with one you can take turns with your partner to look after them but with 2 it's typically all hands on deck. Also regarding extra curricular, people might spend the same time socialising etc but this counts as time to re-charge and get back to work. If you spend a couple hours getting your kids dinner and into bed you don't feel like heading back to the desk the same way you do after a game of tennis with friends.

rtpg 12y ago

Too true. It's important not to forget that, at least in the US, we find it acceptable that there are people who have to work more than 1.5 full-time jobs to survive.

avalaunch 12y ago

This is very true. The article also didn't take into account that some people need different amounts of sleep each night to function properly. There's a big difference between needing 6 hours and needing 10 hours.

Gustomaximus 12y ago

Anyone that has kids doesn't has time-choice compared with those who don't. I'd guess 3+ hours a day average, less weekdays and more on weekends. Combine that with poor and there really isn't much time available outside sleep.

steve_barham 12y ago
They did have time-choice; they chose to allocate a substantial portion of it to having children.
- calibraxis 12y ago
  Not in a meaningful sense, given that the species should probably have a next generation. It's work that needs to be done. Society can make the work a lot less onerous, restoring that time-choice. (And various societies through time had quite sensible solutions, though of course war and violence destroys sensible living arrangements.) For instance, the common atomized family is incredibly inefficient duplication of work.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  > they chose to allocate a substantial portion of it to having children. The good parents did.
cle 12y ago
I have one kid so I have a little bit of perspective on this. Looking back on things, I don't think I've lost too much time by having a child. It's a little inconvenient sometimes having to shuttle him around. But from my observations, single/childless people tend to spend the same amount of time on extracurriculars that I spend with my child.
- Jem 12y ago
  Really? How active a part do you play in your child's life? Because much of my non-work time is spent caring for my children. Even when they're asleep or not in the house, I am doing things for them or because of them.
- Gustomaximus 12y ago
  I have 2 children and found the workload goes up significantly on the second. No economies of scale there, in fact the reverse as with one you can take turns with your partner to look after them but with 2 it's typically all hands on deck. Also regarding extra curricular, people might spend the same time socialising etc but this counts as time to re-charge and get back to work. If you spend a couple hours getting your kids dinner and into bed you don't feel like heading back to the desk the same way you do after a game of tennis with friends.