Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,502
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    Weathernoob335
    Newest Member
    Weathernoob335
    Joined

Spring Banter


Baroclinic Zone
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Several of my employees have stated they want to return because they need a break from home/kids/spouse.

I get that. Being home all day every day while trying to work 40+ hours a week is not for everyone. It can be especially hard if your house is small and you have many noisy kids.

My wife wants to go back just a couple days so she can hang out with her friends from work, they go out for lunch and dinner a lot so she kind of misses that. I wouldn't mind having the house to myself a couple days a week either. I've been home full time since 2006.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Several of my employees have stated they want to return because they need a break from home/kids/spouse.

I get that. Being home all day every day while trying to work 40+ hours a week is not for everyone. It can be especially hard if your house is small and you have many noisy kids.

I WFH, on my tan, my house, my garden. No going back for me. Like being a teenager again. Life is good.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been WFH full time since 2008, don't know if I could ever go back to 5 days in person at this point in my life.  Maybe a few days a week.

Didn't mind full time office work when I did it mainly because I was in my 20s pre kids/wife and most of my colleague's were also in their 20s and enjoyed the energy/vibe. The office was in a prime spot in downtown San Diego- that certainly helped too..ha.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

leases for commercial real estate typically are for five-year or ten-year terms.  it's not an annual lease like you have for residential real estate.  companies want their employees to return to the office, at least part-time, because they're stuck with these leases for at least another few years, and so, in their minds, they might as well make use of their office space.  don't believe the "team building" and "collaboration" corporate buzzword nonsense.  they like to use those buzzwords to convince their rank-and-file but that's not the driving force behind these decisions.

flexible and remote work should have been adopted en masse at least five years ago.  the baby boomer managerial regime that still prevails in the c-suite of corporate america has refused to adopt it.  it's a cultural, generational thing where they simply don't believe people are working unless they can "see" your butt in a seat.  micromanagers also favor forcing everyone into an office 5 days per week for obvious reasons.

there are some people who climb the corporate ladder by schmoozing and  navigating office politics -- not because of their work.  those people have struggled recently because, well, you need an office to schmooze and politick. 

the hybrid option will probably be the preferred approach for many workers.  although i think that some manager types will discriminate (subconsciously) against people who choose to be full-time WFH,  because surely if you show up at the office, you must be a great worker.  so you may have workers who go into the office strictly because of perception -- and not because it's the most productive environment for them to work in.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, fujiwara79 said:

leases for commercial real estate typically are for five-year or ten-year terms.  it's not an annual lease like you have for residential real estate.  companies want their employees to return to the office, at least part-time, because they're stuck with these leases for at least another few years, and so, in their minds, they might as well make use of their office space.  don't believe the "team building" and "collaboration" corporate buzzword nonsense.  they like to use those buzzwords to convince their rank-and-file but that's not the driving force behind these decisions.

flexible and remote work should have been adopted en masse at least five years ago.  the baby boomer managerial regime that still prevails in the c-suite of corporate america has refused to adopt it.  it's a cultural, generational thing where they simply don't believe people are working unless they can "see" your butt in a seat.  micromanagers also favor forcing everyone into an office 5 days per week for obvious reasons.

there are some people who climb the corporate ladder by schmoozing and  navigating office politics -- not because of their work.  those people have struggled recently because, well, you need an office to schmooze and politick. 

the hybrid option will probably be the preferred approach for many workers.  although i think that some manager types will discriminate (subconsciously) against people who choose to be full-time WFH,  because surely if you show up at the office, you must be a great worker.  so you may have workers who go into the office strictly because of perception -- and not because it's the most productive environment for them to work in.

 

As an employer, if two people produce equally but one comes to the office to work side-by-side with the team every day and the other sits at home on his couch and barely knows his coworkers, you will choose the former every time. That's just basic human nature and a smart decision for team health. Humans are social animals.

Many of those who argue they hate the "schmoozers" are just socially dysfunctional people envious of those who can network and talk to the boss without getting overly nervous. I see that all the time. Often, they aren't even very good at their own jobs; humans are really bad at noticing their own failings but really good at noticing the supposed failings of others.

I wouldn't personally be super proud to be a militant WFH supporter who thinks working side-by-side with other humans is weird and old-fashioned. It's not a great look, IMO. WFH has its place and is an important part of a balanced corporate HR strategy, but it has major limitations too, especially for junior employees. 

 

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of those who push very loudly for permanent WFH are mid-level workers who have reached that "burned-out and jaded" stage. I get it, we all end up there at some point. But you need to remember that as a junior employee you were able to take advantage of in-person mentoring, shadowing, and the ability to watch and mimic more senior employees. That's a huge part of how people learn to survive and succeed in the adult world. By forcing junior employees into WFH right out of the gate, you rob them of that opportunity you had. It's pretty unfair and causes massive turnover for young people as they join a firm, quickly fail because they lack any sort of structure or accountability, and then get flushed.

  • Weenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most leases can be negotiated tho, and it is in the better interest of the landlord or rep for property share holders to do so because legally all “binding” agreements are based upon a presumption of liquidity ... If the latter freezes the landlord has two options .. they can either impose a fee and never get it because of frozen assets, or they can work with the client to reduce cost measure to try and work it out-
 

 a pandemic, forcing companies to close doors and reduce on site staffing by mandate outside of their control certainly qualifies as special circumstances. I mean you’re talking about a “soft apocalypse”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Office space is a tiny expense compared to fringe costs such as healthcare. Those costs are becoming crushing now for employers. Keeping a leased office that is mostly empty is no big deal unless maybe it's a skyscraper in Manhattan or something like that. My healthcare costs positively dwarf my monthly rent for the office. It's insane how much we spend per employee on healthcare. Just nuts, and rising every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, PhineasC said:

Office space is a tiny expense compared to fringe costs such as healthcare. Those costs are becoming crushing now for employers. Keeping a leased office that is mostly empty is no big deal unless maybe it's a skyscraper in Manhattan or something like that. My healthcare costs positively dwarf my monthly rent for the office. It's insane how much we spend per employee on healthcare. Just nuts, and rising every year.

Health care/ Heath insurance costs is another area that is going to burst in the near future I think. Untenable in the long term with the current price structure.

My employer pays 75% and I pay 25%... between dental and health for just my wife and I... that’s costing me about $350 a pay period (bi weekly).

That cost is rising literally every year without fail by 30 or 40 dollars on my end.

A coworker of mine jumped ship to a job that paid about 10k less a year in November, but they paid 100% of the health insurance costs. The crazy thing is, is he made a good financial decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding CTE and youth football. I coached my sons teams throughout pop warner. Its a little different now in the older divisions (not so much by weight but by age) , but back then it was a combination of weight and age, for instance we had older/lighters - kids that were older but undersized weight wise- ostensibly to protect them - but those kids were the most "football aware" . 99% of the kids at young ages, i'd say up to puberty, aren't playing the game where they are exposing their head in contact - they are more dancing than hitting. unfortunately there is that 1% , that i call football aware that are the kids who aren't afraid of the contact and , too often, lead with their  head no matter how much you try and coach that out of them.

Those are the kids that are the most accomplished in the game and go on to play beyond high school. so yes those kids are exposed to years of head contact and where CTE can become an issue and its mostly when they run into like minded kids on other teams. i coached a couple of kids who had concussion issues in PW, so much so that we had to end their seasons. One ended up as the gatorade player of the year in Ri his senior year and went on to play at Bryant and made it to an NFL camp - so basically 15 years or football, i worry about him. Another continued with his  concussion issues as a HS freshman and quit football. My point is for most kids playing youth football the exposure minimal, so if the kid wants to play let them play, but there are some kids , and you can see it early, who are headed in the wrong direction and they are usually the ones that play for an extended period.

Personally i played organized football six years from puberty through senior year in HS with what i believe was only one concussion without any lasting effects

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, S&P said:

Regarding CTE and youth football. I coached my sons teams throughout pop warner. Its a little different now in the older divisions (not so much by weight but by age) , but back then it was a combination of weight and age, for instance we had older/lighters - kids that were older but undersized weight wise- ostensibly to protect them - but those kids were the most "football aware" . 99% of the kids at young ages, i'd say up to puberty, aren't playing the game where they are exposing their head in contact - they are more dancing than hitting. unfortunately there is that 1% , that i call football aware that are the kids who aren't afraid of the contact and , too often, lead with their  head no matter how much you try and coach that out of them.

Those are the kids that are the most accomplished in the game and go on to play beyond high school. so yes those kids are exposed to years of head contact and where CTE can become an issue and its mostly when they run into like minded kids on other teams. i coached a couple of kids who had concussion issues in PW, so much so that we had to end their seasons. One ended up as the gatorade player of the year in Ri his senior year and went on to play at Bryant and made it to an NFL camp - so basically 15 years or football, i worry about him. Another continued with his  concussion issues as a HS freshman and quit football. My point is for most kids playing youth football the exposure minimal, so if the kid wants to play let them play, but there are some kids , and you can see it early, who are headed in the wrong direction and they are usually the ones that play for an extended period.

Personally i played organized football six years from puberty through senior year in HS with what i believe was only one concussion without any lasting effects

I had more concussions from skiing before helmets became a thing than football but obviously CTE is brutal from constant head banging

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Day 2 Moderna shot 2 zero side effects

My sister in law and friend who had covid last year had pretty severe reactions to the Moderna vaccine. My sister in law said she has sores in her mouth and a skin rash and flu like symptoms. She said she might not take the second dose. It probably doesn't make sense for someone that had covid to get it. I'm thinking the vaccine messes with their natural antibodies. Both had mild cases of covid originally and said the vaccine was worse than actual covid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, S&P said:

Regarding CTE and youth football. I coached my sons teams throughout pop warner. Its a little different now in the older divisions (not so much by weight but by age) , but back then it was a combination of weight and age, for instance we had older/lighters - kids that were older but undersized weight wise- ostensibly to protect them - but those kids were the most "football aware" . 99% of the kids at young ages, i'd say up to puberty, aren't playing the game where they are exposing their head in contact - they are more dancing than hitting. unfortunately there is that 1% , that i call football aware that are the kids who aren't afraid of the contact and , too often, lead with their  head no matter how much you try and coach that out of them.

Those are the kids that are the most accomplished in the game and go on to play beyond high school. so yes those kids are exposed to years of head contact and where CTE can become an issue and its mostly when they run into like minded kids on other teams. i coached a couple of kids who had concussion issues in PW, so much so that we had to end their seasons. One ended up as the gatorade player of the year in Ri his senior year and went on to play at Bryant and made it to an NFL camp - so basically 15 years or football, i worry about him. Another continued with his  concussion issues as a HS freshman and quit football. My point is for most kids playing youth football the exposure minimal, so if the kid wants to play let them play, but there are some kids , and you can see it early, who are headed in the wrong direction and they are usually the ones that play for an extended period.

Personally i played organized football six years from puberty through senior year in HS with what i believe was only one concussion without any lasting effects

This may be a contrarian take-but I actually think we'll see incidence of CTE stay flat or decline in the future, even among those who play for a long time. 

I worked as a student manager for our football team in college (2014-2017) which was division one and there was lots and lots of attention paid to concussions and head injuries. I can think of five guys off the top of my head who had their careers ended because the doctor told them "you don't want to get another concussion or you'll have serious long-term consequences." 15 or 20 years ago, I'm not sure most medical professionals were saying that, or maybe they were, but teams were less inclined to have those doctors on staff. At Rice, which is comparatively under resourced to many programs in division one, we even had a neurologist in addition to the regular team doctor (who handled the "musculoskeletal" side of things).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/neuralink/status/1380303902139031553
 

good ole Neurolink with its implantable chip . Using “telepathy “ to play a video game , hands free .  Do we want peoples thoughts manifesting in the physical world so easily ...

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to contrive science fiction in a world where science fact competes with, and in so many ways, outpaces the imagination.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's becoming increasingly more difficult to contrive science fiction in a world where science fact competes with, and in so many ways, outpaces the imagination.

Why do people always go to the most cynical outcomes with new technologies.

Whether it be mRNA vaccines or neuralink which was intended to help those paralyzed, we always think the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, STILL N OF PIKE said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/neuralink/status/1380303902139031553
 

good ole Neurolink with its implantable chip . Using “telepathy “ to play a video game , hands free .  Do we want peoples thoughts manifesting in the physical world so easily ...

I'd be more concerned if it wasn't a Musk operation. But snake oil sales men are going to snake-oil so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SnoSki14 said:

Why do people always go to the most cynical outcomes with new technologies.

Whether it be mRNA vaccines or neuralink which was intended to help those paralyzed, we always think the worst.

Are you talking about me ... or the previous poster -

I'm not making any sort of distinction predicated upon any bias or 'cynicism' with what I posted - I'm merely stating an observation ... The science and discovery are leaving creative writers behind. That's just one example.  

For muse: Robots ...like "Gort" from the classic, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" ... were very primitive, but paved where the next 20 ...30 years of fiction would emerge. By the 1980s the Cyberpunk sub genre of SciFi was born ...Writers got free reign, honing the 'visionary science space' right down to the sophistication of cyborgs - seemingly to the point of real theory and not just the fiction of "Robocop" - big budget obsurdity, but plausible enough to suspend disbelief to the target bourgeoisie.  Soon after, "Data," depicted by the uncannily on-point performances of Brent Spiner, seemed to reign it in with a statement, 'That's pretty fun, but this is 'who' the idealized model would likely  become.' 

Now ..out here in the real world, M.I.T. engineers in robotics have recently demoed dancing 'bots to actual syncopated rhythm, ...inexorably leading to Neurolink or those like it.   Which intuitively, if one wants to make an artificial human brain utilizing the human brain as the natural model ... they are going to have to successfully engineer something like those  "neurologically linked interface-able" systems at some point or another along the inCREdibly sagacious forethought in whether we we truly want or need our species taken over by self-aware A.I.  What if that spontaneously manifested 'self preservation' as an unintended, emerged consequence of complex synergistic operating system...?  That is the key - consciousness is created 'synergistically' as a result, a gestalt, of quantum scaled interacting wave dynamics (energy); and so nested intrinsically in there is thus, the "uncertainty principle" - ... So ... hate to say the trope but it is unfortunately, apropos - we are fiddling with aspects that took a billion years of evolution to create, and it is a realm where the more of it that gets exposed, only engenders more questions of its ultimate power -  

So, for someone that is a sci fi writer ... what can one contrive that isn't already been done?  Lol..  interesting - but the purpose of sci fi is to extrapolate plausibility based upon actual science - usually the application of the latter.  Well it challenges the imagination if science fact is winning the race to those destinations.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...