1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

In a previous post vikas when asked what people do after they stop working at 5pm and I was about to say "post on the emb" but then I realized I do that all day, and not just after 5pm.

In fact most people post more during the day at work, then post less at night.  

 

17 hours ago, NOTW said:

Jobs shouldn't be based on an hour model. People waste time filling hours with busy work, or pretend to work, stretch out tasks to fill time, socialize, etc. 

Jobs should be based on productivity. Tasks completed per hour, projects with deadlines, or results oriented. 

Jobs should also be flexible since people have appointments and families. Flexibility to leave early to beat traffic and login later to catch up. As long as the work gets done. You have to trust people and hold them accountable to deliver results. If they don't, you get rid of them and get someone else. 

That's not possible in every line of work of course but wherever possible it should. 

That’s pretty much my thinking.  When one of my coworkers was leaving, I took on a big portion of her work. It took her 10-15 business days to do this work.  It takes me about 5 days to do the same work.

The company I work for is Global, so they want someone available at all times from my department.  We’ve got employees in Asia, Europe, and North America, so someone can always help if needed.  Unfortunately l’m the last person on my team in the US, so most questions that need answers right away come to me if it’s anytime after noon EST.

5 minutes ago, NOTW said:

In fact most people post more during the day at work, then post less at night.  

 

And for me, (almost) not at all during an eagles game

Seems appropriate to share 

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

Right.  A lot of Vikas' posts don't qualify the expectations of that industry or company.  Some of them seem to suggest every worker is a slave and who cares if you have kids just work that's all you're good for.  Reality for most people is work/life balance.

 

And this is why most people fail, then whine and cry about how easy the rich have it. 

Want work/life balance? Then accept the fact that you won't make as much. But instead people want the balance and then want to overtax those who work hard because it "isn't fair." Tell me again how teachers work just as hard as me...it's a joke.

1 hour ago, NOTW said:

A lot of us seem to be in salaried type jobs.  But think about a call center, warehouse or other hourly environments.  Workers with lower level of skills.  And hardly any breaks.  Think about how much of life happens to you that requires you to do something Mon-Fri.  Calling customer service, making and attending appointments, car registration, parent/teacher conference, having to conduct any business with a business that is only open the same hours you work.  You need home repairs urgently and have to call a plumber or whatever, and then be there to let them in.  Life happens, all sorts of things come up.

And there are companies and managers that are flexible about this, and others that will give employees a hard time about it.  

I can see both sides honestly. I have roughly 30 people working under me. Some are commission based, some are salary, but most are hourly. I rarely deny people time off, but there are certain times when the job needs to get done, and there are also people that want to call off for every little thing.  It's a tough situation but sometimes you have to say enough is enough

I have a sales job.  It’s pretty much 24/7 cuz Customers don’t give a crap if they bug you at 8p on a Sunday 😂 

Just now, vikas83 said:

And this is why most people fail, then whine and cry about how easy the rich have it. 

Want work/life balance? Then accept the fact that you won't make as much. But instead people want the balance and then want to overtax those who work hard because it "isn't fair." Tell me again how teachers work just as hard as me...it's a joke.

You're arguing that against the wrong person bruh.  I gave the example of Gannon who chose to leave a higher paying job to have more work/life balance.  I've also defended many times that we don't need to raise taxes on the rich to pay their "fair share."  

Having said that, if you stepped into some other jobs you might fail miserably and realize how hard the jobs are.  You might be terrible in other types of jobs and not be able to handle it.  You have to realize you are in a different category.  You have this rich, high-demand job where apparently not answering an email right away will cost millions and there's literally no one else who can answer that email.  The rest of us work like most people with a decent salary, families, hobbies, social lives, etc. outside of work.  We don't want to be 24/7 slaves and we realize if we wanted to make the kind of money, we'd have to make sacrifices.  Most of the comments here - well it seems everyone else but you - works in this type of job.  We don't have these type of jobs with that much money and that much fear of being fired or losing billions of dollars because we didn't answer our cell phone on vacation.  A lot of this is aimed at the more typical worker.

2 minutes ago, NOTW said:

You're arguing that against the wrong person bruh.  I gave the example of Gannon who chose to leave a higher paying job to have more work/life balance.  I've also defended many times that we don't need to raise taxes on the rich to pay their "fair share."  

Having said that, if you stepped into some other jobs you might fail miserably and realize how hard the jobs are.  You might be terrible in other types of jobs and not be able to handle it.  You have to realize you are in a different category.  You have this rich, high-demand job where apparently not answering an email right away will cost millions and there's literally no one else who can answer that email.  The rest of us work like most people with a decent salary, families, hobbies, social lives, etc. outside of work.  We don't want to be 24/7 slaves and we realize if we wanted to make the kind of money, we'd have to make sacrifices.  Most of the comments here - well it seems everyone else but you - works in this type of job.  We don't have these type of jobs with that much money and that much fear of being fired or losing billions of dollars because we didn't answer our cell phone on vacation.  A lot of this is aimed at the more typical worker.

And this country was successful because people strived to succeed and we rejected European notions of work/life balance, of guaranteed vacations and such things. It was what made America exceptional. And it's basically been ruined in one generation by the attitudes you are espousing. 

My father was a chemical engineer. When he was at work, he was at work. Even my mother didn't call him unless it was a true emergency. I had a baseball game? So what, dad's busy paying the mortgage. He didn't make millions, he just had a work ethic and realized that when you accept a salary, you owe your best effort to your employer. 

25 minutes ago, paco said:

And for me, (almost) not at all during an eagles game

I think this is the first season where Ive done it. Some of the games were so hopelessly boring. There's only so many 3 and outs with negative yards, or Carson fumbles I can take. 

35 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

In a previous post vikas when asked what people do after they stop working at 5pm and I was about to say "post on the emb" but then I realized I do that all day, and not just after 5pm.

it's 5 o'clock somewhere

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And this country was successful because people strived to succeed and we rejected European notions of work/life balance, of guaranteed vacations and such things. It was what made America exceptional. And it's basically been ruined in one generation by the attitudes you are espousing. 

My father was a chemical engineer. When he was at work, he was at work. Even my mother didn't call him unless it was a true emergency. I had a baseball game? So what, dad's busy paying the mortgage. He didn't make millions, he just had a work ethic and realized that when you accept a salary, you owe your best effort to your employer. 

Ok boomer.

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

Ok boomer.

Gen X baby. The only innocent generation. We just don't care.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Gen X baby. The only innocent generation. We just don't care.

 Sure. Every one is guilty in one way or the other.

7 minutes ago, NOTW said:

You're arguing that against the wrong person bruh.  I gave the example of Gannon who chose to leave a higher paying job to have more work/life balance.  I've also defended many times that we don't need to raise taxes on the rich to pay their "fair share."  

Having said that, if you stepped into some other jobs you might fail miserably and realize how hard the jobs are.  You might be terrible in other types of jobs and not be able to handle it.  You have to realize you are in a different category.  You have this rich, high-demand job where apparently not answering an email right away will cost millions and there's literally no one else who can answer that email.  The rest of us work like most people with a decent salary, families, hobbies, social lives, etc. outside of work.  We don't want to be 24/7 slaves and we realize if we wanted to make the kind of money, we'd have to make sacrifices.  Most of the comments here - well it seems everyone else but you - works in this type of job.  We don't have these type of jobs with that much money and that much fear of being fired or losing billions of dollars because we didn't answer our cell phone on vacation.  A lot of this is aimed at the more typical worker.

Yep. You'll never hear me slighting someone like Vikas for making more money than I do complaining that they have it easy or should give more of their money away. Good for him. He's making money and seems to like what he does. I've made my choices and I'm happy with where I am. As long as people are productive and content, good for them. I'm a pretty happy person most of the time. I'm certainly happier now than I was when I made significantly more money.

Just now, Gannan said:

Yep. You'll never hear me slighting someone like Vikas for making more money than I do complaining that they have it easy or should give more of their money away. Good for him. He's making money and seems to like what he does. I've made my choices and I'm happy with where I am. As long as people are productive and content, good for them. I'm a pretty happy person most of the time. I'm certainly happier now than I was when I made significantly more money.

That's fine. However, you've ruined the country. Good going.

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

That's fine. However, you've ruined the country. Good going.

No way! I helped save it. Do you know how many freaking times I voted for Biden in Georgia and Arizona? 

  If you’re a working class person who has to work to pay bills so you can’t go to your kids games that’s one thing.  But if you’re someone making $200k or $300k a year and you don’t go to any of your kids games because you’re a workaholic then that’s kind of pathetic.

25 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And this country was successful because people strived to succeed and we rejected European notions of work/life balance, of guaranteed vacations and such things. It was what made America exceptional. And it's basically been ruined in one generation by the attitudes you are espousing. 

My father was a chemical engineer. When he was at work, he was at work. Even my mother didn't call him unless it was a true emergency. I had a baseball game? So what, dad's busy paying the mortgage. He didn't make millions, he just had a work ethic and realized that when you accept a salary, you owe your best effort to your employer. 

What is your evidence that lack of work life balance and no-guaranteed vacations are what made the US exceptional?  I think that's a canard that makes people in the US feel better about their sucky employment situations.  So the iPhone could not have been invented 6 months later than it was - if people had more vacation time?  I don't buy that notion. Its more like the structure of the gov't and other factors (in the US we don't change gov'ts all the time under a parliamentary system -- or fighting wars on your own land and getting things destroyed like the Europe did for centuries).  

I really don't see if some low level workers had 4 weeks vacation instead of 2 (if that), that the US would have been hampered that much.   There were plenty of large employers making tons of money when unions were strong too.   GM made zero profits in the 50s?    I think there are a lot of reasons this country was successful -- I hardly think labor management is what made the difference.      

Just now, caesar said:

What is your evidence that lack of work life balance and no-guaranteed vacations are what made the US exceptional?  I think that's a canard that makes people in the US feel better about their sucky employment situations.  So the iPhone could not have been invented 6 months later than it was - if people had more vacation time?  I don't buy that notion. Its more like the structure of the gov't and other factors (in the US we don't change gov'ts all the time under a parliamentary system -- or fighting wars on your own land and getting things destroyed like the Europe did for centuries).  

I really don't see if some low level workers had 4 weeks vacation instead of 2 (if that), that the US would have been hampered that much.   There were plenty of large employers making tons of money when unions were strong too.   GM made zero profits in the 50s?    I think there are a lot of reasons this country was successful -- I hardly think labor management is what made the difference.      

It’s the Protestant work ethic Max Weber wrote about.  C’mon man

This book:

 

21 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

  If you’re a working class person who has to work to pay bills so you can’t go to your kids games that’s one thing.  But if you’re someone making $200k or $300k a year and you don’t go to any of your kids games because you’re a workaholic then that’s kind of pathetic.

Actually I disagree.  This whole notion of parents attending every game has gotten out of hand.  When I was playing high school sports in the 1970s, a few parents (mostly non-working moms might show up for a regular week day game).  Frankly, most of us didn't like it -- we didn't need moms there cheering us on.  It was slightly embarrassing.   Then, maybe starting in the 80s or 90s, certain parents starting competing for "best parent" awards (at least in their head).  So they would make it a point to be at EVERYTHING that junior did.   So when certain parents started doing that, some kids were like, hey ya know other parents are there -- then the other parents felt like they had to go.  It has now snowballed and every stupid kids game is now chock full of screaming parents.   It's ridiculous.   

My dad was working at his law firm and then his own business.  I certainly didn't expect nor want him to be at a meaningless high school game.  Mom -- go home.   Going to kids games is overrated. 

Now I see parents even chaperoning their kids at the bus stop (meaning they will let them sit in the car if it is raining or cold -- god forbid their kids wait outside with the other kids).   And parents,  say good bye at home -- no need to wait at the bus stop and say goodbye there.   Do you really need to say goodbye at the last possible point before school?   And no one wants to kidnap your ugly kid - that fear is way way way overblown -- so you aren't providing any security either.  And that's the parents that even let them take the bus.  Many parents (despite the bus being available) drive their kids to school - ever go by a school at drop off time now?   It's crazy.  As their precious kid can't use the school provided transportation -- or science forbid - walk to school.   

We had ZERO parents at bus stops when I was a kid (and did not want them there either).  Freezing cold -- my wet hair from showering froze.  Raining, we got wet.  It was fine.  

 

44 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

And this is why most people fail, then whine and cry about how easy the rich have it. 

Want work/life balance? Then accept the fact that you won't make as much. But instead people want the balance and then want to overtax those who work hard because it "isn't fair." Tell me again how teachers work just as hard as me...it's a joke.

I think the claim that "most people think successful people have it easy" is quite a strawman. 

I also think that equating compensation levels to hard work is also far too simple. Laziness virtually guarantees failure, but hard work is no guarantee of success. 

I work hard. But I could probably work much harder. I just happen to be very good at what I do, so I can put in relatively little effort and spend much of my day arguing with people on a football team's message board, and still have an income that would make my mother blush if she knew. That makes me very comfortable, but not rich. 

I also know people who work incredibly hard, but frankly they lost the genetic lottery so no matter how hard they work their ceiling is around the 33 percentile. 

It's certainly fair to say that people who want work/life balance need to accept career and compensation limitations that come with it. People also need to accept that their abilities (and inabilities) will also go a long way towards dictating their success, and adjust expectations accordingly.

You should be proud of being incredibly successful, and I would never begrudge you for your success, but a strong work ethic and working hard is not the sole domain of the 1%.

In the specific case of teachers, my kids' teachers throughout last summer and continuing through this year have been available pretty much every waking hour for their classes (I have gotten responses within minutes from emails I sent them at 10pm and 6am), and have put in a lot of time they normally would not need to pre-COVID to help maintain multiple methods of teaching simultaneously (virtual, in person with distancing, and asynchronous). This after spending the bulk of the summer adapting the curriculum to meet the challenges of schooling during a pandemic, needing to be prepared depending on how the pandemic went. Yet there are still parents out there that think the teachers are having it easier during the pandemic, which is objectively false, and they are not getting any sort of additional compensation beyond the normal for their efforts. 

4 minutes ago, caesar said:

Actually I disagree.  This whole notion of parents attending every game has gotten out of hand.  When I was playing high school sports in the 1970s, a few parents (mostly non-working moms might show up for a regular week day game).  Frankly, most of us didn't like it -- we didn't need moms there cheering us on.  It was slightly embarrassing.   Then, maybe starting in the 80s or 90s, certain parents starting competing for "best parent" awards (at least in their head).  So they would make it a point to be at EVERYTHING that junior did.   So when certain parents started doing that, some kids were like, hey ya know other parents are there -- then the other parents felt like they had to go.  It has now snowballed and every stupid kids game is now chock full of screaming parents.   It's ridiculous.   

My dad was working at his law firm and then his own business.  I certainly didn't expect nor want him to be at a meaningless high school game.  Mom -- go home.   Going to kids games is overrated. 

Now I see parents even chaperoning their kids at the bus stop (meaning they will let them sit in the car if it is raining or cold -- god forbid their kids wait outside with the other kids).   And parents,  say good bye at home -- no need to wait at the bus stop and say goodbye there.   Do you really need to say goodbye at the last possible point before school?   And no one wants to kidnap your ugly kid - that fear is way way way overblown -- so you aren't providing any security either.  And that's the parents that even let them take the bus.  Many parents (despite the bus being available) drive their kids to school - ever go by a school at drop off time now?   It's crazy.  As their precious kid can't use the school provided transportation -- or science forbid - walk to school.   

We had ZERO parents at bus stops when I was a kid (and did not want them there either).  Freezing cold -- my wet hair froze.  Raining, we got we.  It was fine.  

 

I was raised by a single mom. From 1st grade on, walked to and from the bus stop. I had a house key and let myself into the house and did my home work and waited for mom to get home and cook dinner. Try doing that these days with a 1st grader. I'd be put away for child endangerment. 

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think the claim that "most people think successful people have it easy" is quite a strawman. 

I also think that equating compensation levels to hard work is also far too simple. Laziness virtually guarantees failure, but hard work is no guarantee of success. 

I work hard. But I could probably work much harder. I just happen to be very good at what I do, so I can put in relatively little effort and spend much of my day arguing with people on a football team's message board, and still have an income that would make my mother blush if she knew. That makes me very comfortable, but not rich. 

I also know people who work incredibly hard, but frankly they lost the genetic lottery so no matter how hard they work their ceiling is around the 33 percentile. 

It's certainly fair to say that people who want work/life balance need to accept career and compensation limitations that come with it. People also need to accept that their abilities (and inabilities) will also go a long way towards dictating their success, and adjust expectations accordingly.

You should be proud of being incredibly successful, and I would never begrudge you for your success, but a strong work ethic and working hard is not the sole domain of the 1%.

In the specific case of teachers, my kids' teachers throughout last summer and continuing through this year have been available pretty much every waking hour for their classes (I have gotten responses within minutes from emails I sent them at 10pm and 6am), and have put in a lot of time they normally would not need to pre-COVID to help maintain multiple methods of teaching simultaneously (virtual, in person with distancing, and asynchronous). This after spending the bulk of the summer adapting the curriculum to meet the challenges of schooling during a pandemic, needing to be prepared depending on how the pandemic went. Yet there are still parents out there that think the teachers are having it easier during the pandemic, which is objectively false, and they are not getting any sort of additional compensation beyond the normal for their efforts. 

I work smart -- not hard.   Seriously -- I get more done in like 4 hours than some people do in 3 days.   I work in spurts -- not a marathoner.   Marathoners, in my view, may just be inefficient.  They need to work till midnight cause they don't know how to work smarter.   I'm leaving at 6:30 or 7  -- but got as much or more done.