Author Topic: Nyt opEd on WFM  (Read 1287 times)

Weisass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
    • "Deeper In Me Than I"
Nyt opEd on WFM
« on: March 22, 2023, 07:57:07 PM »
Anyone else read this and have some thoughts? I felt that many of the commenters on this article seems to reflect values that jive with this forum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/22/opinion/remote-work-salesforce-meta-working-from-home.html

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7325
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2023, 08:01:31 PM »
Good ole paywalls.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6851
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2023, 10:14:23 AM »
I can't read the comments, probably due to some Brave setting, but the tl;dr of the article is pretty much:

Quote
But put me down as skeptical about that [4 day workweek] and much of the notion that when it comes to work, less can be more.

The author also extolled the "extraordinary" work ethic in China immediately after mentioning its "996" practice.

erp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Location: Alberta, Canada
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2023, 10:24:41 AM »
I thought the article was interesting. In my personal experience, there's merit to actually seeing your coworkers and (at least in my industry) to actually seeing and interacting with the physical infrastructure of your job. It's *good* to see your job site and remember that items on a spreadsheet are real people/buildings/pieces of equipment with actual physical limitations. I don't think that necessarily means that everyone should always work from an office, only that we're still optimizing for the best value around remote work (and work-cultures which do well remotely).

I'd argue that the article really missed the point on some of their numbers though. First off - while it's true that 996 is a thing that seems to be kicking around in China, I'm not at all convinced that there's a strong 'more time = more economic output' relationship. Many problems can't be solved by throwing more hours at the wall, at least without a pretty deliberate redesign. Secondly, talking about the 'average hours worked' for Americans produces some weird things because there are a lot of under-employed people who aren't working much (uber drivers, part time work, etc), and there are a lot of people doing 80 hour workweeks. Essentially, by taking the average you're smoothing out an enormous amount of job inequality (in both time and dollars). I think the idea that we should all be working a 4 day workweek is probably correct ... but I don't think that it flows from the data the article cites.

Finally, and this is a bit of a digression, but yeah ... paywalls. I think that news/information/commentary has value, and that the people who produce it should be compensated. Once upon a time, they were paid with advertising dollars and subscriptions. The internet, for a while, promised that information wanted to be free ... but it didn't really develop a good mechanism for compensating the people who produced that information (although it enabled a bunch of companies to make absolute shit-tons of money). In the absence of good mechanisms for that free information to actually pay the people who produce it ... we're back to subscriptions. It's not my favourite answer, but it does ensure that producers actually get paid a fair wage. I'm pretty uncomfortable with the options which drive down the cost of production to near-zero so that I can consume media for free ... that just means AI written articles that are trying to sell me shit I don't want.

As I've become more financially stable, I've found it to be good value to pay for some media via subscription - it helps to support an intellectual ecosystem which I get a lot of value from. I'd love if there were better ways to help ensure that the entire public got to be well informed ... but paywalls are a pretty important part of ensuring that at least some people can be. An analogy is that I also purchase most of my meat from local farmers. It costs easily 50% more ... but it helps ensure that my community gets to exist and that the animals I eat live better lives. On top of that, it gives me economic incentives to eat less meat and be more deliberate about my consumption. Once you have some financial stability, you can deploy your wealth to help live in ways that are consistent with your values. Sometimes that means spending money.
... and that's my unrelated tangent.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 22082
  • Age: 65
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2023, 10:35:50 AM »
What @erp said. The digital version of the NYT costs me $4/month. That's about the price of a single cup of SBUX coffee. Since I don't buy their coffee, I can easily afford the NYT.

Off to read the article...well, maybe I'll do the Spelling Bee and Wordle first. I usually do the Crossword in the evening...easily worth the price just for the grain* exercise.

* Haha, just noticed this typo for "brain". Shows how much I need exercise of all types. Decent sleep wouldn't hurt either.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 10:59:20 AM by Dicey »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6851
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2023, 10:47:02 AM »
Finally, and this is a bit of a digression, but yeah ... paywalls. I think that news/information/commentary has value, and that the people who produce it should be compensated.

We need an app that does "pay-per-article." I can get a subscription to NYT and The Atlantic but sometimes I also (want to) read an article from Financial Times or WSJ or WaPo or even some regional newspapers around the country. I'd like to pay, say, $0.10-0.20 per article or something without subscribing to 9 different newspapers/magazines.

The tech is pretty straight forward; the tedious part is getting newspapers signed up.

erp

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Location: Alberta, Canada
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2023, 11:05:12 AM »

We need an app that does "pay-per-article." I can get a subscription to NYT and The Atlantic but sometimes I also (want to) read an article from Financial Times or WSJ or WaPo or even some regional newspapers around the country. I'd like to pay, say, $0.10-0.20 per article or something without subscribing to 9 different newspapers/magazines.

The tech is pretty straight forward; the tedious part is getting newspapers signed up.


Hmm. This is actually a really good idea. Even at $0.10 or so, that's got to be way higher than what an ad impression would be worth. I'm glad smart people actually think about potential solutions to this stuff :)

Weisass

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
    • "Deeper In Me Than I"
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2023, 08:38:25 PM »
It’s a shame some of y’all  can’t see he comments. The article was provocative, and the general tenor of the comments felt much more in tune with the sentiment that work is not the point of living…. The living is.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7325
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #8 on: March 24, 2023, 06:18:23 AM »
Finally, and this is a bit of a digression, but yeah ... paywalls. I think that news/information/commentary has value, and that the people who produce it should be compensated.

We need an app that does "pay-per-article." I can get a subscription to NYT and The Atlantic but sometimes I also (want to) read an article from Financial Times or WSJ or WaPo or even some regional newspapers around the country. I'd like to pay, say, $0.10-0.20 per article or something without subscribing to 9 different newspapers/magazines.

The tech is pretty straight forward; the tedious part is getting newspapers signed up.

+1, this is exactly my problem, I don't really want to subscribe to all of them just to read articles others share.

Though I guess I could get NYT for free through one of my credit cards.

Tigerpine

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
Re: Nyt opEd on WFM
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2023, 06:22:55 AM »
Finally, and this is a bit of a digression, but yeah ... paywalls. I think that news/information/commentary has value, and that the people who produce it should be compensated.

We need an app that does "pay-per-article." I can get a subscription to NYT and The Atlantic but sometimes I also (want to) read an article from Financial Times or WSJ or WaPo or even some regional newspapers around the country. I'd like to pay, say, $0.10-0.20 per article or something without subscribing to 9 different newspapers/magazines.

The tech is pretty straight forward; the tedious part is getting newspapers signed up.

+1, this is exactly my problem, I don't really want to subscribe to all of them just to read articles others share.

Though I guess I could get NYT for free through one of my credit cards.
Or possibly through your library.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!