It really boggles my mind that we intentionally make a good chunk of our doctors incredibly sleep deprived on purpose (see: residency schedules). |
. Same. |
|
Agreed. Especially if you throw in kids or any kind of family care (like an aging parent).
I've been part-time for the last 5 years and it's been a huge boon for my mental health and our family. Downside is obviously the money, but we've made some sacrifices to make it work, and it's well worth the trade off. Working 20-30 hours a week is great because you still get the benefits of a paycheck and the sense of satisfaction that you can really only get from paid work, but so much more time for everything else. |
|
1926: Henry Ford popularized the 40-hour work week after he discovered through his research that working more yielded only a small increase in productivity that lasted a short period of time.
1938: Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which required employers to pay overtime to all employees who worked more than 44 hours a week. They amended the act two years later to reduce the work week to 40 hours. 1940: The 40-hour work week became U.S. law. So here we are stuck with archaic standards from 80 years ago when computers didn't exist and women were encouraged to stay home when they had young children. |
True, you should look up the history as to how that came about. OTOH, my DH is a specialized surgeon and he has clinic days and hospital days , where he’s in the OR. If he worked less and so did his colleagues the price to society would be many more preventable deaths or people living a horrible quality of life being unable to work or function because they can’t access treatment. |
Women can still stay home with young children theoretically. You don’t have to, but it is not a physical impossibility. Two full-time incomes takes two full-time work, anything other than this, you are really asking for someone or the government to subsidies your child rearing. I'd rather support struggling single moms or struggling old ladies first. |
What kind is fed job to you have that pays you 220k/yr and you work less than 40hrs a week? |
And how it’s it healthy to not spend time cooking while also inhaling your food as fast as possible? I’m American, but spent a year in Italy and it was so so lovely to have long meals that took live and care and time to prepare. |
God, I love you. DCUM. Never change. |
Wtf is cooking and eating for 3 hours a day? Your mom? |
?Who said I eat once a day? A meal delivery service just removed the content treadmill of "what's for dinner," as well as the time spent shopping, unloading groceries, cooking and cleaning. I still have groceries for breakfast and lunch but that is so much easier than the sisyphean task of "what's for dinner," which coincides with the end of the workday and the extracurriculars runaround. |
It's the entire HHI (i'm a single parent) so hold your fire. |
Sometimes it's more during crunch times but generally I only need to work 8 hours a day. |
|
I'm not really sure how to think about this idea. Your premise seems to be that there is not enough time in a day to do all of the things that a human "should" do. If true, the answer there is to do less of some things or combine some things, no?
Couldn't you also just say that cooking isn't conducive to optimal health? Or errands are not conducive to optimal health? And there is no socializing that can occur while running errands or working or exercising or EATING? And even if the premise/conclusion was true that getting rid of the fulltime job is the ONLY thing you could do to achieve "optimal health", what do you suggest doing about that? How do you suppose we create more workers out of thin air? Or more GDP? And is everything else you do in life all designed to achieve "optimal health"? |
+1 |