Full time jobs are not conducive to optimal health

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"?

I mean, the US could just be less productive. The only people it really benefits are the CEOs and shareholders. No one ever lay on their deathbed thinking "I should have worked more."

OK so let's go with this.... I'll assume you are only talking about white collar corporate/bureaucratic jobs. (And ignoring all blue collar, healthcare, lawyer/legal, social and public services, etc. or anybody who produces goods or services that support these "front line" things) Straight up Dilbert style.

And let's agree that only "CEOs and shareholders" benefit. Seems to me the right thing to do is cut a bunch of workers and/or cut a bunch of pay for those workers for those fewer hours. Because as you say, we will be less productive and therefore produce less profit. How good d you think that would be for "optimal health" of people as individuals and a collective?

[Anonymous]

I agree with you, OP. I just saw a chart showing how much fatter Americans have gotten since 1980. The idea of having both partners working full-time and raising kids without outsourcing a huge chunk of household or child reading responsibilities is damn near impossible. Outsourcing can be hiring help or family members, but hardly anyone maintains a sane healthy lifestyling doing it alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is this works for some jobs and not others. If you do this for police, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, doctors, etc. then you need to sudddenly hire a bunch more of them.

...GOD FORBID

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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"?

I mean, the US could just be less productive. The only people it really benefits are the CEOs and shareholders. No one ever lay on their deathbed thinking "I should have worked more."

OK so let's go with this.... I'll assume you are only talking about white collar corporate/bureaucratic jobs. (And ignoring all blue collar, healthcare, lawyer/legal, social and public services, etc. or anybody who produces goods or services that support these "front line" things) Straight up Dilbert style.

And let's agree that only "CEOs and shareholders" benefit. Seems to me the right thing to do is cut a bunch of workers and/or cut a bunch of pay for those workers for those fewer hours. Because as you say, we will be less productive and therefore produce less profit. How good d you think that would be for "optimal health" of people as individuals and a collective?

Pay the CEO's less money. Pay the workers the same for fewer hours. It will never happen, I know. The other thing about "shareholders" is that most of us are the shareholders if we own stocks/ 401ks, or IRAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My govt job only pays me $220K but the result is I have time for parenting and exercise.

I save cooking time with a precooked meal delivery service on weeknights for dinner and it is the best timesaver ever.

God, I love you. DCUM. Never change.

It's the entire HHI (i'm a single parent) so hold your fire.

I’m a single parent and I feel like I’m doing well on my one income of $81k.

Good for you. I guess I am higher maintenance/more greedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8-9 hrs of sleep
3 hrs of cooking/eating
1.5-2 hrs exercise/cool down
30 mins-1 hr sex/physical pleasure
1 hr errands
2 hrs of community/socializing

4-6 hrs working max is what someone can do

LOL, You don't have optimal health if you can't pay your bills and have to sleep in your car because you are not working enough hours.

I only sleep about 5-6 hours most. Igor’s and catch up every third night. Thanks menopause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8-9 hrs of sleep
3 hrs of cooking/eating
1.5-2 hrs exercise/cool down
30 mins-1 hr sex/physical pleasure
1 hr errands
2 hrs of community/socializing

4-6 hrs working max is what someone can do

2-3h/day of sex/physical stuff
3h/day cooking/eating
2h/day socializing
1h/day errands
AND 8-9 sleep?
I think I see the problem here and it isn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8-9 hrs of sleep
3 hrs of cooking/eating
1.5-2 hrs exercise/cool down
30 mins-1 hr sex/physical pleasure
1 hr errands
2 hrs of community/socializing

4-6 hrs working max is what someone can do

2-3h/day of sex/physical stuff
3h/day cooking/eating
2h/day socializing
1h/day errands
AND 8-9 sleep?
I think I see the problem here and it isn’t work.

Also even if you still do all this stuff at the lower estimate which is crazy, that’s still 8 hrs left for work.

[Anonymous]

If I recaptured all the time I waste online I’d have more than enough for everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at 3 hrs of cooking. Nobody I know does that.

It’s cooking and eating

Have you not seen time use studies in Italy?

If you measure all the time you take to cook and eat and clean up …if you are making home cooked meals, you are gonna be close to three hrs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is this works for some jobs and not others. If you do this for police, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, doctors, etc. then you need to sudddenly hire a bunch more of
them.

...GOD FORBID

NP but I don’t get the eye roll. You would be fine raising taxes to hire more of the jobs listed above so hours could be shortened? And I assume raising wages because some of those professions are experiencing shortages as is.

[Anonymous]

I switched careers to a healthcare profession. I work 7am-7pm 3 days/week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHO is doing this daily?!

"30 mins-1 hr sex/physical pleasure
1 hr errands
2 hrs of community/socializing"

DAILY??? Nope.

Who cooks and eats for 3 hours a day??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You lost me at 3 hrs of cooking. Nobody I know does that.

It’s cooking and eating

Have you not seen time use studies in Italy?

If you measure all the time you take to cook and eat and clean up …if you are making home cooked meals, you are gonna be close to three hrs

I spend 3 hours cooking and cleaning up after cooking. But I don't cook everyday. I cook large batches 2 times a week and freeze.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I recaptured all the time I waste online I’d have more than enough for everything else.

Me too.