Do you work too much?



  •  

    Do you feel that you work too much?  I do and need to stop but some days i just have too much to do.



  •  Everything is relative.... Is 80 to 100 hours per week too much??  Probably for most.



  • This reminds me of an article by some douchebag claiming that what makes workers happy is not vacations or better working conditions but more work... So if you take more than one week per year you are some spoiled bastard. WTF?



  • @serguey123 said:

    This reminds me of an article by some douchebag claiming that what makes workers happy is not vacations or better working conditions but more work... So if you take more than one week per year you are some spoiled bastard. WTF?
      But if work makes people happy, then surely taking more vacation time counts as self-sacrifice?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @serguey123 said:

    This reminds me of an article by some douchebag claiming that what makes workers happy is not vacations or better working conditions but more work... So if you take more than one week per year you are some spoiled bastard. WTF?
    That's the sort of article that makes one wish for the ability to punch people in the face over the internet. Or perhaps to give them a quick 40 lashes with a barbed whip for having the impertinence to stop working long enough to occasionally sleep.



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

     Everything is relative.... Is 80 to 100 hours per week too much??  Probably for most.

    37.5 hrs is per week is the norm where I live, and I would say that anything more for an extended amount of time would be too much -- but it all depends on how hard the work is and what needs you have, of course.



  • 45 is the norm where I live. More than that has to be paid as overtime



  • This is the twenty-first fucking century.

    When I wor a young'un I wor allus told that the twenty-first century would be a golden age of leisure for all, because all the nasty unpleasant unfulfilling jobs would be being done by machines.

    And yet not only do I not have my flying car and my robot butler, but there are more machines doing more work than has ever been the case in all of human history and most people get the choice between being horribly time-poor vs. altogether unemployed and living on a grudgingly provided state pittance.

    What should be happening in this, the Age of Machines, is that we all get paid to work on weekends and remain free to pursue our own interests Monday through Friday. The fact that this is not how things are is an indictment on our organizational methods.



  • Sounds like a propagandist of some kind.



  • @flabdablet said:

    What should be happening in this, the Age of Machines, is that we all get paid to work on weekends and remain free to pursue our own interests Monday through Friday. The fact that this is not how things are is an indictment on our organizational methods.
     

    http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/



  • Livin' and a-workin' on the B Ark



  • @flabdablet said:

    What should be happening in this, the Age of Machines, is that we all get paid to work on weekends and remain free to pursue our own interests Monday through Friday.
     

    Read "Brave New World". If people have too much free time, they will riot.



  • @flabdablet said:

    What should be happening in this, the Age of Machines, is that we all get paid to work on weekends and remain free to pursue our own interests Monday through Friday. The fact that this is not how things are is an indictment on our organizational methods.

    If you are content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s, it shouldn't be much of a problem. The reason you still have to work so much is because you want this big house, this nice car, maybe an extra car, a fancy phone, breast implants for your wife and ecological lettuce hand-picked by exotic virgins. Sticking to the basics is way cheaper now than it used to be.



  •  Not loving your job makes 40 hours too much, in the long run.



  •  

    So true. I like my job but i do feel that i take on too much from time to time.



  • @arh said:

    If you are content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s, it shouldn't be much of a problem. The reason you still have to work so much is because you want this big house, this nice car, maybe an extra car, a fancy phone, breast implants for your wife and ecological lettuce hand-picked by exotic virgins.

    It's a huge problem. If everybody were content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s then economic growth would stall, unemployment would skyrocket and all the industrialized countries would suffer a massive depression.

    Since the end of World War II, the only thing keeping us all afloat has been economic growth: the entire global economy is essentially a Ponzi scheme, utterly incapable of sustaining itself without the shared expectation that future investment will always increase. And it's going to stay that way for as long as we keep insisting that the worth of a human being is in some way related to their spending power.

    There comes a point where more is worse, not better, and to my way of thinking we in the industrialized world did indeed pass that point some time in the mid 70s. It is utterly ridiculous that the majority of the world lives in grinding poverty while the rest of us suffer from diseases of excess, but there you have it; we're a ridiculous species and we have yet to work out how to organize ourselves on any basis more sophisticated, sustainable or compassionate than fuck you, I got mine.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @arh said:
    If you are content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s, it shouldn't be much of a problem. The reason you still have to work so much is because you want this big house, this nice car, maybe an extra car, a fancy phone, breast implants for your wife and ecological lettuce hand-picked by exotic virgins.

    It's a huge problem. If everybody were content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s then economic growth would stall, unemployment would skyrocket and all the industrialized countries would suffer a massive depression.

    Since the end of World War II, the only thing keeping us all afloat has been economic growth: the entire global economy is essentially a Ponzi scheme, utterly incapable of sustaining itself without the shared expectation that future investment will always increase. And it's going to stay that way for as long as we keep insisting that the worth of a human being is in some way related to their spending power.

    There comes a point where more is worse, not better, and to my way of thinking we in the industrialized world did indeed pass that point some time in the mid 70s. It is utterly ridiculous that the majority of the world lives in grinding poverty while the rest of us suffer from diseases of excess, but there you have it; we're a ridiculous species and we have yet to work out how to organize ourselves on any basis more sophisticated, sustainable or compassionate than fuck you, I got mine.

    We're a race of greedy psychotic apes, doin' our best...


  • @flabdablet said:

    It's a huge problem. If everybody were content with the living standards of the 60s or 70s then economic growth would stall, unemployment would skyrocket and all the industrialized countries would suffer a massive depression.
     

    Unemployment would skyrocket only if every employed person worked the same weekly hours as now. See, technology makes every worker more productive. So, we can either produce more, or work less. Currently we produce more. If we worked less, we could do so either by having each person work less, or by having only some people work. The latter option is called "high unemployment", and we don't like it. The former option, with shorter working hours, is less efficient, because every employee has to be trained, so employers don't like it.

    However, it should be possible to prohibit employers from hiring the same employee for more than, say, 25 hours a week, instead of 45 or 37.5. In that case, everybody's living standard would instantly drop, but unemployment would not skyrocket. Economic growth would not stall, as it is a result of the development of technology. Scientists can keep developing technologies even for 25 hours a week.

    The problem would be that people would be bored.



  • You don't have to alter the society in any way to do this. It's basically as simple as working part-time or in periods. At least where I live, general unemployment rate is pretty low and it's not uncommon to work less because you want more time for your kids, hobbies or whatever, and employers are generally ok with it. It's a life choice, not a social reform.



  • @da Doctah said:

    ut if work makes people happy
    No. Work makes you free.



  • @levbor said:

    However, it should be possible to prohibit employers from hiring the same employee for more than, say, 25 hours a week, instead of 45 or 37.5. In that case, everybody's living standard would instantly drop, but unemployment would not skyrocket. Economic growth would not stall, as it is a result of the development of technology. Scientists can keep developing technologies even for 25 hours a week.

    Develop them all they like, and it won't matter if everybody formerly on 40 hours is now working 25 and doesn't have the disposable income required to buy them. The stalled economic growth and massive unemployment I'm talking about is an inevitable knock-on effect of the reduced demand inherent in masses of people becoming content with a lower standard of living.

    Did you not know that it's your patriotic duty to consume?



  • @flabdablet said:

    Did you not know that it's your patriotic duty to consume?

    How come a Kindle edition is not available for purchase? Maybe they ran out of copies..


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @alegr said:

    @da Doctah said:
    ut if work makes people happy
    No. Work makes you free.

    Work makes you free sounds better in the original German.



  •  Work does not set you free. It is tying you to your desk. Think about it.

     

    @FrostCat said:

    @alegr said:
    @da Doctah said:
    ut if work makes people happy
    No. Work makes you free.

    Work makes you free sounds better in the original German.

     



  • @Nagesh said:

    @FrostCat said:
    @alegr said:
    @da Doctah said:
    ut if work makes people happy
    No. Work makes you free.

    Work makes you free sounds better in the original German.

    Work does not set you free. It is tying you to your desk. Think about it.

    You do realize where the phrase "Work makes you free" is from right? Just how broken is your sarcasm detector?



  • @flabdablet said:

    And it's going to stay that way for as long as we keep insisting that the worth of a human being is in some way related to their spending power.

    What's this "we" business? You're the one who keeps insisting on this.

    @flabdablet said:

    There comes a point where more is worse, not better, and to my way of thinking we in the industrialized world did indeed pass that point some time in the mid 70s.

    And to add insult to injury, we live longer under this cruel oppression.

    @flabdablet said:

    It is utterly ridiculous that the majority of the world lives in grinding poverty while the rest of us suffer from diseases of excess, but there you have it; we're a ridiculous species and we have yet to work out how to organize ourselves on any basis more sophisticated, sustainable or compassionate than fuck you, I got mine.

    This is a huge reason to oppose global warming fanatics bent on keeping the poverty stricken parts of the world from improving their situation. That said, it's a very difficult problem to figure out how to get them from where they are to having the sorts of institutions that we have that have allowed us to prosper.



  • @boomzilla said:

    This is a huge reason to oppose global warming fanatics bent on keeping the poverty stricken parts of the world from improving their situation.
    Fuck off.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @boomzilla said:
    This is a huge reason to oppose global warming fanatics bent on keeping the poverty stricken parts of the world from improving their situation.
    Fuck off.

    I know, it's not easy to own up to your choices sometimes.





  • @flabdablet said:

    Pull your willfully ignorant Fox-fucked head out of your huge complacent arse and take a look around, you smug insufferable cunt.

    Hey, I know it sucks to realize you are the thing you hate, but don't shoot the messenger, bro.

    Seems like most (all? I didn't look at all of your links) of the people in those places would be better off if they were more like prosperous countries. Natural disasters and cyclical climate shifts aren't only endemic to the third world. Sadly, their history hasn't lead them to the sorts of institutions that make it happen, and no one really knows how to get from there to here. I know you aren't thinking, "Fuck them, I've got mine," but that's the end effect of your pseudo-science religion's effect on your policy prescriptions.

    I love how much free rent Fox / Murdoch get in your head. I wonder why the Kochs haven't taken up there yet.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I didn't look at all of your links

    Totally not surprised, since actually looking at what's actually happening in the actual world might risk actual thought, as opposed to endless regurgitation of the comforting denialist pap your buddies at the Heartland Institute so lovingly spoon feed you. Fuck off and take your worthless opinion with you.



  • @flabdablet said:

    @boomzilla said:
    I didn't look at all of your links

    Totally not surprised, since actually looking at what's actually happening in the actual world might risk actual thought, as opposed to endless regurgitation of the comforting denialist pap your buddies at the Heartland Institute so lovingly spoon feed you. Fuck off and take your worthless opinion with you.

    I looked at several of them. You couldn't even be bothered to make a point in your post. I keep giving you a chance to look like a person with a thoughtful point of view instead of a cliché. It would be cool if you could make original and witty insults and what-not among actual points. I guess I should be glad that you strained yourself and came up with something other than Fox for this particular two minutes' hate.



  • Not to spoil the fun, I love watching this fight just as much as anyone else, but this TED talk makes a very interesting point in regards to the developing world going industrial and all, and might benefit your discussion: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine

    Disclaimer: I hate it everytime someone wants me to watch a video that's more than 5min, but this was actually worth it.



  • @arh said:

    this TED talk makes a very interesting point in regards to the developing world going industrial and all, and might benefit your discussion: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine

    Yes, that is a very good talk.



  • @arh said:

    this TED talk makes a very interesting point in regards to the developing world going industrial

    The developing world absolutely should continue to industrialize, because industrialization has a proven track record for improving all kinds of hideous living conditions. But as Rosling points out, what the developing world does is far less important, from a climate change perspective, than what the already industrialized world (his "airliners") does.

    We in the industrial West currently have a huge opportunity to improve things for ourselves and for everybody else. Green energy has the potential to become an absolutely massive employment generator, mainly because so much of it is inherently human scale: fitting solar panels on roofs employs a lot more people per installed megawatt than does using enormous machinery to chuck thousands of tons of coal into a central burner. Decentralized green energy is also a good fit for places that simply can't afford huge planned centralized infrastructure projects and need to implement their power supplies piecewise over time.

    So there's a fundamental policy choice for the industrialized world: use subsidies and graft to foist the same kind of outdated huge centralized energy supply infrastructure that still supplies most of our energy on the developing world, or pay attention to what the energy supply market is already doing - i.e. its best to make household-scale and town-scale decentralized renewable generation ubiquitous - and get behind that or at the very least get out of the fucking way.

    What the developing world does is primarily a matter for its own governments, whom I would not presume to advise; I'm with Rosling on that point. But if they're as smart as I think they are, they'll learn from our errors as well as our successes, and the world will continue to shift inexorably toward decentralized renewable energy generation regardless of how much FUD those unprincipled cancer-shilling cunts at Heartland try to muddy the policy waters with.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Green energy has the potential to become an absolutely massive employment generator, mainly because so much of it is inherently human scale: fitting solar panels on roofs employs a lot more people per installed megawatt than does using enormous machinery to chuck thousands of tons of coal into a central burner.

    Why not use spoons?

    @flabdablet said:

    ...its best to make household-scale and town-scale decentralized renewable generation ubiquitous.

    That would be a great leap forward.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @boomzilla said:

    @flabdablet said:
    Green energy has the potential to become an absolutely massive employment generator, mainly because so much of it is inherently human scale: fitting solar panels on roofs employs a lot more people per installed megawatt than does using enormous machinery to chuck thousands of tons of coal into a central burner.

    Why not use spoons?

    Additionally, Jobs Are a Cost Not a Benefit.

    @Worstall said:
    @The Guardian said:
    Shale gas exploration also supports fewer jobs than renewable energy generation – hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created in offshore wind, solar power and other green energy, but drilling shale gas wells requires minimal manpower.

    It is simply nonsense that we should prefer using the labour of more people to achieve a goal than using less labour to achieve the same goal. Absolute, arrant, nonsense.



    Whatever it is that we want to do we want to gain our goal while using the fewest resources we have to to gain that goal. We wouldn’t say that using 500,000 tonnes of copper when we could use 5,000 was a good idea. We wouldn’t say that using 500,000 joules when we could use 5,000 would be a good idea. So why is it that people completely flip their lids when we start talking about the use of labour?



  • @PJH said:

    Additionally, Jobs Are a Cost Not a Benefit.

    @Worstall said:
    @The Guardian said:
    Shale gas exploration also supports fewer jobs than renewable energy generation – hundreds of thousands of jobs could be created in offshore wind, solar power and other green energy, but drilling shale gas wells requires minimal manpower.

    It is simply nonsense that we should prefer using the labour of more people to achieve a goal than using less labour to achieve the same goal. Absolute, arrant, nonsense.



    Whatever it is that we want to do we want to gain our goal while using the fewest resources we have to to gain that goal. We wouldn’t say that using 500,000 tonnes of copper when we could use 5,000 was a good idea. We wouldn’t say that using 500,000 joules when we could use 5,000 would be a good idea. So why is it that people completely flip their lids when we start talking about the use of labour?

    Unless Worstall knows of some more socially acceptable method for distributing purchasing power than exchanging it for labour, his argument makes no sense at all. In fact if you look carefully at what he writes, there isn't actually an argument there - merely a false analogy between people and inanimate resources wrapped in a tediously re-stated opinion.

    Now, I am personally all for the development of some socially acceptable way to distribute purchasing power that does not require exchanging unpleasant or otherwise unrewarding labour for it. But the closest we currently have to that is assorted forms of welfare payment and charity, both given sparingly and grudgingly; we have yet to work out a popular method for making sure everybody gets a fair share of everything that can't be brought undone by humanity's allergic loathing for a minority of visible freeloaders.

    Of course, it's only unacceptable to be a freeloader if you're poor. If you're a pudding headed cunt in a stripey shirt and tie who has clearly never been short of a crust in his entire useless life, you can just scribble any old shit and folks will nod and smile and pay you to keep doing it.



  • @flabdablet said:

    Unless Worstall knows of some more socially acceptable method for distributing purchasing power than exchanging it for labour, his argument makes no sense at all. In fact if you look carefully at what he writes, there isn't actually an argument there - merely a false analogy between people and inanimate resources wrapped in a tediously re-stated opinion.

    I can't see how you got that from the quote (or the article). I pretty much agree that what he's saying seems obvious, but you seem to be missing it somehow. To produce any good or service, there is some cost. Traditionally, we categorize those costs into labor and capital. The point of the job, like the purchase of machinery or raw materials is to produce, not to simply keep someone busy or randomly purchase stuff. Arbitrarily increasing costs makes us less wealthy than we'd otherwise be.

    @flabdablet said:

    Now, I am personally all for the development of some socially acceptable way to distribute purchasing power that does not require exchanging unpleasant or otherwise unrewarding labour for it. But the closest we currently have to that is assorted forms of welfare payment and charity, both given sparingly and grudgingly; we have yet to work out a popular method for making sure everybody gets a fair share of everything that can't be brought undone by humanity's allergic loathing for a minority of visible freeloaders.

    It's not just finding a "socially acceptable" way of doing this, but finding one that doesn't violate stuff like thermodynamics or basic arithmetic. Of course, no one will ever agree on what "a fair share" means, either. Eventually, we all have to live in the real world and its consequences.

    @flabdablet said:

    Of course, it's only unacceptable to be a freeloader if you're poor. If you're a pudding headed cunt in a stripey shirt and tie who has clearly never been short of a crust in his entire useless life, you can just scribble any old shit and folks will nod and smile and pay you to keep doing it.

    TDEMSYR



  • @boomzilla said:

    The point of the job is to produce
     

    That's only half the equation. What you got there is the employer's viewpoint; the position of the person who relies on the support of his workers to produce a thing. You can talk about workers moving sand from one place to another, or luxurious jobs like programmers typing to make the pixels on their screens change, but the structure is the same.

    @boomzilla said:

    The point of the job is not to simply keep someone
    busy or randomly purchase stuff.
     

    The employee's point of the job is to keep busy and non-randomly purchase stuff.

    I know, because I am an employee.

    If I were self-employed, then the purpose of my job would be both at once!

    Some other things:

    - I'm making a distinction between job and
    work. Work is whenever something's being produced of modified, job is a
    formalized agreement to do work. I don't meant to be pedantic and a
    'splainer, I just want to be clear.
    - A job is to produce but that's
    not the point of a job. It is my job to produce code that does what it's
    supposed to, but that's most definitely not the point of my job. The point of my job is to get money so I can pay rent and play games and drink beer.

    --Wow, I only just noticed how working-class I sound. WELP. So be it.

    @boomzilla said:

    @flabdablet said:
    Of course, it's only unacceptable to be a freeloader if you're poor.

    TDEMSYR

    It's widely believed (by me as well, but in the interest of progress I do require some correction on these ideas) on the left that your opinion is that poor is a choice, and that asking for support means you're lazy and a freeloader, and in a spectacular twist of noble intent, that any form of support is somehow disrespectful of the person's self-sufficiency and that it's best to withdraw support because that'll teach 'em to grow and become stronger, and that's better for them than handouts and playing nanny. 

    I've seen this picture where Fox News put sarcastiquotes around the word "poor" because the supposedly poor family in the picture owned a refrigerator. How dare these poor people! Clearly they are wealthy and not poor! They got a fridge!

    Uh. Okay. Right.

    I only see clown pictures like that for Fox News. Maybe Fox the network puts on some good shows (not that I watch TV or series), but as far as I've glimpsed through my information bubble, the News is crazy balls-out nuts. Or propaganda.



  • @dhromed said:

    What you got there is the employer's viewpoint

    @dhromed said:
    The employee's point of the job is to keep busy and non-randomly purchase stuff.

    No, I'm saying it's the reason the job exists at all (excepting obvious makework bullshit). Your motivation for working the job is irrelevant to that.

    @dhromed said:

    - I'm making a distinction between job and
    work. Work is whenever something's being produced of modified, job is a
    formalized agreement to do work. I don't meant to be pedantic and a
    'splainer, I just want to be clear.
    - A job is to produce but that's
    not the point of a job. It is my job to produce code that does what it's
    supposed to, but that's most definitely not the point of my job. The point of my job is to get money so I can pay rent and play games and drink beer.

    You're getting hung up on the word "job." If you look at what I wrote, I started by talking about labor. The job itself is just the agreement (formal or not) between the employer and employee for the provision of labor. Your employer hiring you was a way for him to invest in some labor. If he didn't need someone to do what you do, he wouldn't pay for it. Just like (I presume!) he didn't procure a bulldozer for you to build web pages with.

    @dhromed said:

    I
    t's widely believed (by me as well, but in the interest of progress I do require some correction on these ideas) on the left that your opinion is that poor is a choice, and that asking for support means you're lazy and a freeloader, and in a spectacular twist of noble intent, that any form of support is somehow disrespectful of the person's self-sufficiency and that it's best to withdraw support because that'll teach 'em to grow and become stronger, and that's better for them than handouts and playing nanny.

    There are certainly voluntary aspects of being poor. At one extreme, if you are mentally retarded (literally) you may be completely unable to work to support yourself. But at the other extreme are people who don't have any true physical or mental handicap and simply refuse to even consider working. The place where you live has a lot of influence, too. Most people are not in the extreme case where they truly have no options, even if some of those are distasteful or difficult.

    The tough love approach is certainly difficult and uncomfortable to think about. The problem is usually not the truly needy, IMO. I think there are a lot of good reasons to have social safety nets. It's not at all obvious to me that making them part of the government is the best way to do it. It is clear to me that there should be a stigma attached to relying on the safety net. This provides incentives to get out. Again, the stigma should obviously be different for the people who really can't work. But losing the stigma just creates intergenerational poverty among otherwise healthy people.

    @dhromed said:

    I've seen this picture where Fox News put sarcastiquotes around the word "poor" because the supposedly poor family in the picture owned a refrigerator. How dare these poor people! Clearly they are wealthy and not poor! They got a fridge!

    Obviously, there is poor and there is poor. Upthread, flabdablet posted a bunch of links to stuff like people living in mud huts and unable to cope with things that we mostly shrug off. Often, advocates for our safety nets seem to imply that the poor people in the US are like those people living in mud huts. The poor in the US today are not at all like that (though it wasn't too long ago that the comparison wasn't ridiculous), in part because of our safety nets, but mostly because we're simply orders of magnitude wealthier as a society.

    @dhromed said:

    I only see clown pictures like that for Fox News. Maybe Fox the network puts on some good shows (not that I watch TV or series), but as far as I've glimpsed through my information bubble, the News is crazy balls-out nuts. Or propaganda.

    There are opinion shows (some of which definitely lean left, contrary to what you might have heard) and there are news shows. The opinion shows are a lot less crazier than their counterparts on competing networks (e.g., saying that an opinion piece on rape re-rapes rape victims), and they actually have a more balanced coverage of the news. At minimum, in the topics they even mention, but typically in the way they cover, too. They're people, and so they have biases and make mistakes like anyone else. I'm hoping that Glen Beck's news network starts getting picked up. It will be good for Fox to get some actual competition.



  • @dhromed said:

    I've seen this picture where Fox News put sarcastiquotes around the word "poor" because the supposedly poor family in the picture owned a refrigerator. How dare these poor people! Clearly they are wealthy and not poor! They got a fridge!
    I only see clown pictures like that for Fox News.

    Keep in mind that the Fox News channel is in the category of "24 hour news" but do to how shows on it are actually qualified they have more than 12 hours a day of "opinion" which is where lots of the pants on head crazy things that get thrown around comes from.



  • This executive summary is worth reading.



  • @flabdablet said:

    This executive summary is worth reading.

    I think analyses like this overemphasize the costs (e.g., health) and underemphasize the benefits (e.g., developed world health is better than ever) of the current energy regime. And I think we don't currently have the technologies to achieve the kinds of results they're talking about.

    I suspect (ass pull) that synthetically produced petroleum (or byproducts) will be the next big leap in energy production. We've already got storage, transportation and usage of that stuff figured out, so it can start small and mature without the chicken and egg problem other technologies will have. And that assumes stuff like batteries / capacitor technology can get to a reasonable state.

    But probably the biggest changes will be very incremental and only look big over longer time periods. And likely driven at least as much as voluntary reactions as top down directives.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I think analyses like this overemphasize the costs (e.g., health)

    I think you still just can't be arsed reading anything you might disagree with, as usual.

    @TFA said:

    Those “external” costs, paid not at the fuel pump or electric meter but in our taxes, wealth, and health, are not counted in the Reinventing Fire analysis

    @boomzilla said:

    and underemphasize the benefits (e.g., developed world health is better than ever) of the current energy regime

    @TFA said:

    Making a dollar of U.S. GDP in 2009 took 60% less oil, 50% less energy, 63% less directly burned natural gas, and 20% less electricity than it did in 1975, because more efficient use and alternative supplies have become cheaper and better than the fossil fuels they’ve displaced. Yet wringing far more work from our energy is only getting started, and is becoming an ever bigger and cheaper resource, because its technologies, designs, and delivery methods are improving faster than they’re so far being adopted.

    @boomzilla said:

    And I think we don't currently have the technologies to achieve the kinds of results they're talking about.

    @TFA said:

    The key barrier to success is not inadequate technologies but tardy adoption. The rate of implementation required to reach Reinventing Fire’s ambitious goals is challenging but manageable—just as it was in 1977–85, when the U.S. cut its oil intensity at an average rate of 5.2%/y. Our analysis assumes that on average, the entire United States will ramp up over decades to the rates of efficiency and renewables adoption that the most attentive states have already achieved. Whatever exists is possible.

    @boomzilla said:

    (ass pull)

    This is my amazed face.



  • Another couple of articles from the same source, worth a look by anybody not totally committed to propping up the most WTF aspects of today's economy:

    [quote user="Buildings"]America’s 120 million buildings consume a prodigious amount of energy—42 percent of the nation’s primary energy, 72 percent of its electricity, and 34 percent of its directly used natural gas. They use more energy than any country except China and the whole United States. But the U.S. buildings sector presents juicy opportunities to profit from new business initiatives, drive innovation, and save money...[/quote]

    [quote user="Empire State Building efficiency retrofit"]Visionary building owner Tony Malkin, in an effort to revive the 2.7 million-square foot New York landmark, assembled a team of leading organizations—Rocky Mountain Institute, Johnson Controls, Jones Lang LaSalle, and the Clinton Climate Initiative—to develop a retrofit program that would not only maximize energy savings, but build a strong economic case, saving 38 percent of the building’s energy and $4.4 million annually—and created 252 jobs to boot. ... Amory Lovins, RMI chairman and chief scientist: “This is not a problem of technology and economics, but of adoption. We need to take to scale what is done.”[/quote]



  • @flabdablet said:

    I think you still just can't be arsed reading anything you might disagree with, as usual.

    And you're wrong, as usual, too.

    @flabdablet said:

    @TFA said:
    Those “external” costs, paid not at the fuel pump or electric meter but in our taxes, wealth, and health, are not counted in the Reinventing Fire analysis

    My point here is that prematurely making stuff more expensive will make those things worse, not better. And they're begging the question that the stuff they want to do will have a net reduction in those costs.

    @flabdablet said:

    @TFA said:
    The key barrier to success is not inadequate technologies but tardy adoption.

    @TFA said:

    ...including making the entire electricity system clean, secure, reliable, resilient, flexible, and at least 80% renewable.

    Right. So, how could we possibly supply 80% of our electricity like this with anything that already exists?

    OTOH, something I agree wholeheartedly with:

    @TFA said:

    Their value, feasibility, and practical uptake can thrive in our immensely diverse and politically fractious society if we focus on outcomes, not motives—if we simply do what makes sense and makes money, without having to agree on why it’s important.

    And this is why that stuff hasn't been done yet. It's simply not mature or economical enough to replace what we have.



  • @flabdablet said:

    ...worth a look by anybody not totally committed to propping up the most WTF aspects of today's economy:

    I can't see how anything I've said is about propping up any part of the economy. That's pretty much the opposite of my basic philosophy.

    @flabdablet said:

    [quote user="Buildings"]...
    [/quote]

    I am certain that new buildings are already better than old ones, and that there is probably a lot more they could do with existing technology.

    @TFA said:

    Energy savings are likely to rise above those from smarter technology alone, because we’re also becoming better enabled than ever before to change how buildings’ occupants use building services. These behavioral changes are not about discomfort, privation, or curtailment, but instead about increasing people’s access to information about how much energy they’re using and how much it’s being wasted, so they have the option to make smarter choices.

    I think this is likely wrong, based on how people have reacted to more fuel efficient cars. "I can drive more now!" instead of, "Look at all the money I'm saving!" Calorie counts on menus don't seem to do much, either.

    @flabdablet said:

    [quote user="Empire State Building efficiency retrofit"]...

    [/quote]

    This looks like a success story, and the sort of thing that often takes some early adopters to prove it out.

    I wonder why you think I'd like energy inefficient buildings? Or energy inefficient anything?



  • @Angelface said:

     

    Do you feel that you work too much?  I do and need to stop but some days i just have too much to do.



    As someone who has worked every day this weekend, knowing full well that they'll stop paying me sometime around Tuesday when I hit 40 hours... yeah, I can feel this sentiment.

    But thanks to some higher up deciding we have to do something a certain way without knowing how the system works to begin with, I'm stuck. I can either slip deadline and deal with the fallout, or work weekends. At least I can take some solace in knowing I'm not the only person working weekends because of this guy's decisions.

    11 more days until vacation!



  • @CodeNinja said:

    knowing full well that they'll stop paying me sometime around Tuesday when I hit 40 hours...
     

    So you stop working, obviously.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.