[picafrost]

Employers, government or not, still wield far too much power over the personal lives of employees. I think it is rather meaningless to try and understand why RTO is en vogue now.

Why is the discussion so rarely focused on the fact that your boss can demand that you uplift your life or else you're fired, immediately and with impunity, and what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing?

Maybe I am baffled by this because I live and work in Europe where the relationship is a bit better (though I am not sure for how much longer it will remain as such). Americans seem very content to allow this behavior as normal because, obviously, other employees (but not me, I am a great employee!) must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.

[9rx]

> must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.

The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.

[senordevnyc]

I’m so confused by this comment.

Other than physical abuse, what entity do you think should be empowered to force a spouse to “play nice”?

Do other countries have government agencies that force wives to be nice to their husbands, or vice versa?

[9rx]

Consider me equally confused. What should be is what is. If it shouldn't be that way, it wouldn't be that way. What, exactly, is your question trying to ask?

Are you trying to ask me to invent hypotheticals of how things could be if there was some kind of parallel universe where Americans hold different relationship values? I can try to fumble around on that idea, even if it is a little silly.

A previous comment indicates that some people value autonomy in choosing where (as in physical location) to participate in a relationship, even if contrary to the desires of another party in the relationship, without reprisal. Perhaps we can work off that?

What does that mean in practice? Hard to say. I've never been to that parallel universe to truly understand it. But, perhaps, that means something like penalties for a party who chooses to leave a relationship if they are unhappy with how frequently another party is physically present in the relationship?

I'll admit I am too engrossed in the "American way" to go any deeper with that. It seems normal and expected to me that if any party wants to leave a relationship, it is their life to live and other parties should be accepting of their choice. Anything else is foreign to me. I can't offer much here as a result, but maybe someone from a different culture that sees relationships in a different light can chime in?

[senordevnyc]

Well, I assumed that your critique of “American values” meant that you had some other model of values in mind that would be superior. I guess not?

[9rx]

You must have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button originally?

The only thing that might even begin to resemble a critique that I posted was pointing out that the idea that American relationship norms in the workplace are driven by some kind of quest for economic productivity doesn't work because the same relationship culture is found across all types of relationships in America, even those without economic concern. It is not exclusive to one type of relationship as the original commenter was under the impression of.

But that's akin to noting that 1+1 equals 2 in follow up to someone stating that 1+1 must equal 666. Call that a critique if you want, but I don't see how that could possibly leap into having "some other model" in mind? Consider me even more confused than before.

[wrfrmers]

Having just started working again after a long run out-of-a-job (and an even longer run outside of the office), I couldn't tell you, either. My job so far only requires a handful of tasks that can't be done remotely (and that, frankly, could be replaced with access to a print center and a courier). Still, I'm required to make a commute that's minimum one hour, and approaches two for the method I can afford. My bosses have also taken offense at my "lateness" (8-8:30 arrival time, instead of 8 on the dot or earlier; sorry, the 6:45 bus hits traffic). Lots of downtime. Few complaints about my actual performance.

This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).

[kcplate]

When you took the job, did you know it was in office work and how long the commute was going to be?

I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.

[wrfrmers]

When I took the job, I trusted my employers' word that the role's tasks required being in-person, against my own suspicions. That, combined with no other prospects, meant either I took the potentially raw deal or face destitution.

Now, I've had worse jobs, but that doesn't mean it's right that this one is arranged the way that it is. Not for me or for the business.

You're saying that no one has standing to criticize a deleterious deal after someone has taken it, and I have to reject that. It's the kind of attitude that excuses all kinds of exploitation because "you knew what you were getting into." In reality, you have people forced into definitively bad situations to avoid potentially worse ones, or ambiguity regarding the conditions that doesn't resolve itself until they're in the thick of it.

Go back to basics: if an employer is made aware that their work conditions are unreasonable, they should strive to make them reasonable, even if they have leeway not to because of a prior agreement. That's just an ethical reality. Such conscientiousness also engenders loyalty and trust; tapping the employment contract instead is why workers are happy to serve out their "term" and then quiet quit or actually quit.

[LUmBULtERA]

>Americans seem very content

The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."

[benterix]

Even that would be a wrong conclusion. I'm not sure all people who voted for the current POTUS are happy with higher pricing of diabetes drugs, forced RTO and other nonsense. Maybe some do, but for sure not all.

[surgical_fire]

I am not from the US, but I have a curious anecdote.

My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power.

Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug.

I am sort of a centrist, so I can get along with people no matter their political views (and mostly because I don't put politics front snd center of life anyway).

[wrfrmers]

I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights. I don't know why and I don't know what those insights might be yet, but that's my gut feeling. I also feel like there might be some analogy to the phenomenon where people who say, "I only give people respect when I get it from them," actually mean, "I only give people basic dignity when they defer unconditionally to my judgment or will." Then again, maybe expectation is what's at the root of most suffering.

[surgical_fire]

> I feel like unpacking that, "They're smug," sentiment might yield important insights.

I agree, but I never dug enough to get these answers. I just noticed the pattern of behavior.

I think that the progressive discourse since the turn of the millennium did get increasingly preachy, to the point where even I, who am sympathetic to many of their pleas, find them annoying quite often.

Another friend I have hypothesizes that what is generally seen as "left" during that time frame moved on from class struggle and economic inequality (which used to be major talking points in the 80s and 90s) to more soft social issues. As a result, some of the lower classes started to embrace ideas of those that blamed others for their misfortune (be it immigrants, gays, blacks, etc). I find that an interesting argument, but never took the time to more thoroughly inspect it.

[wrfrmers]

I can't buy your friend's conclusion, because people have been blaming immigrants, [insert analague for gays here], blacks, etc. in America and beyond for at least 100 years.

That said, I think what I'm interested in picking at that word, "preachy". It's an inherently subjective sentiment, so what does it really mean, to this person or that one? Are they offended (or maybe angered, or maybe threatened, or maybe repulsed) by the message, or the way the message is conveyed, or real/imagined ramifications of the message, or...

I just don't want to take this feeling for granted without really understanding what it is, you know? Anything like it is rooted both in reality and our interior lives, even when the two are at odds; teasing out how much goes into which is a part of that process of understanding.

[rsync]

"My friends that consistently vote for extreme right wing are, perhaps ironically, the ones that will suffer the most if they ever get on power."

This is a very common - and very self-serving - trope: the poor dummies who vote against their economic interests.

Haven't you and I voted for taxes ? Possibly progressive taxes ? Possibly even progressive taxes whose sole purpose was wealth redistribution ?

I have voted for things like that and they are absolutely counter to my own economic interests.

Shouldn't we expect participants in a democracy to consider more than simple economic benefits when casting votes ?

If your own decisions are complex and nuanced why would you assume that's not the case for others ?

[surgical_fire]

> This is a very common - and very self-serving - trope: the poor dummies who vote against their economic interests.

I did not call them poor dummies, and I never said anything about economic interests. Are you projecting your own perceived prejudices on me?

> Haven't you and I voted for taxes ? Possibly progressive taxes ? Possibly even progressive taxes whose sole purpose was wealth redistribution ?

> I have voted for things like that and they are absolutely counter to my own economic interests.

Except those things are not counter to my economic interests? I certainly wouldn't suffer with less economic inequality.

> Shouldn't we expect participants in a democracy to consider more than simple economic benefits when casting votes ?

Absolutely. I just mentioned that my friends that vote for the extreme right wing do so out of spite. They put their spite and anger above other interests. That is nuanced on its own right.

> If your own decisions are complex and nuanced why would you assume that's not the case for others ?

Once again you are assuming that I consider my own voting decisions somehow superior - or "complex and nuanced" as you put it. What implies that I consider them to be simpletons.

Except my original reply had no such connotations. I am not a giant my friend, I am just a windmill.

[throw0101d]

> Why do they vote for the extreme right wing, you may be wondering? Mostly out of spite. They really hate people on the left, who they see as smug.

People would rather bear illness (themselves, family) and even die than let the 'wrong people' get some assistance (which would also help themselves):

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_of_Whiteness

[surgical_fire]

That's interesting, I didn't know od this book. But it is similar to the anecdote I was pointing to.

They would rather vote for politicians that will increase economic inequality by benefitting the upper classes with tax breaks and dismantle every semblance of a safety net for the general population, just because they really hate the people on the left.

I perceive this because whenver their extreme right has any victory (and I say this in the broader sense, for example, if the leftist government gas to withdraw a proposal because it was successfully blocked) they don't celebrate that the proposal that was withdrawn was bad, they celebrate that those assholes in the left got pwned.

[scarface_74]

The left and the right have routinely ignored “rural White America”. Trump at least pays lip service to them. Of course all of his policies actively hurt them. But as long as he can stir up discontentment and use the religious right, he is good.

I’m not saying that’s the reason he won this time. It’s entirely the fault of the DNC and them doing the real life version of “Weekend at Bernie’s” with Biden.