Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only if you are allowed to pay 1/2 of your bills

It does not have to be this way. Most jobs have tons of wasted time.

+1

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"?

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.

What kind is fed job to you have that pays you 220k/yr and you work less than 40hrs a week?

Sometimes it's more during crunch times but generally I only need to work 8 hours a day.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eating three times a day (and spending 3 hours cooking and eating) is not optimal for your health after the age of 22.

So I just found you an extra hour. You're welcome.

You're not running one hour of errands every day. You're not having sex for an hour every day. You're not socializing with the community for two hours every day, although you can have a job where you socialize.

?????????

You think people should eat once a day?

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.

?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.

Anonymous wrote:WHO is doing this daily?!

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

DAILY??? Nope.

Wtf is cooking and eating for 3 hours a day? Your mom?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eating three times a day (and spending 3 hours cooking and eating) is not optimal for your health after the age of 22.

So I just found you an extra hour. You're welcome.

You're not running one hour of errands every day. You're not having sex for an hour every day. You're not socializing with the community for two hours every day, although you can have a job where you socialize.

?????????

You think people should eat once a day?

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.

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.

What kind is fed job to you have that pays you 220k/yr and you work less than 40hrs a week?

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes

Sounds great

First line responders should not be overworked and deserve sleep also.

It really boggles my mind that we intentionally make a good chunk of our doctors incredibly sleep deprived on purpose (see: residency schedules).

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Well duh. I think my health was fine when I worked full time and had a commute. But since kids? Not possible. There's just not enough time for exercise, sleep, socializing, downtime. There aren't enough hours in the day when you spend so many of them taking care of other people and work fulltime.

.

Same.

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.

Yes

Sounds great

First line responders should not be overworked and deserve sleep also.

It really boggles my mind that we intentionally make a good chunk of our doctors incredibly sleep deprived on purpose (see: residency schedules).