Slashdot Mirror
'Flexible' Working Can Keep You Stressed Out For Longer, Lead to Illness (theguardian.com)
schwit1 sends news about the effects of flexible working schedules on the people who try them. Research has found that many employees fall into a "grazing" pattern for work — constantly being interrupted while working, and continuing to keep up with work emails when not — which results in having elevated stress levels for a longer period of time. This can make such workers more susceptible to illness, and it shows distinct biological consequences to having a poor work-life balance.
Flexible working policies can also raise the risk of poor working conditions, and create resentment among colleagues ... The findings are a blow to advocates of more sophisticated measures for enabling people to achieve a work-life balance in rich economies that tend to overwork some people while underutilising millions of others. With an estimated 10m working days lost to work-related stress in the UK last year, finding a good balance between the demands of home and the job now dominates concerns about the impact of work on health.
The commenter is pointing out that a person on welfare programs likely also doesn't have everything they need, and very likely also has to try to find work or do something to maintain a balance. For example I've a family member that is trying to get into a new career later in life. They can't do fulltime work (for a piss poor pay rate of $9.50) which would help them get into a position they want, or they lose medical benefits that they need in case something hits the fan, which is likely.
There are many cases where people will be poorer for making more money.
In other words, welfare for individuals isn't enough to live on, and the Opportunist was attempting a rhetorical question to show a fallacy in the general assumptions made.
At your income level, the amount of money that the government takes is negligible.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's the same with being on-call in an IT-support gig. Some people are happy to carry a pager and responded to it now and then, others for some reason that I don't understand get really stressed by it and feel on edge the whole time the pager is on their belt.
The problem is that there is an expectation of interruption, if there is a possibility of interruption.
It's the same reason that approximately 50% of us can't work in an "open plan" office as effectively as if we had offices, and why approximately 15% of us can't think as deeply or profoundly about a problem when there is the risk of an interruption. It doesn't matter if it's the kids, or it's the wife, or it's a phone call, or it the "bong" from an incoming email or text message, or it's the vibration of your cell phone.
Being constantly "on guard" for an interruption means you have to divide your attention between monitoring the sources of potential interrupt for the interruption happening, and the thing you actually want to be or should be doing.
Almost all advertising in fact *relies* on the concept of attention economics, and interruptively stealing attention away from other pursuits in order to engage the target with the advertiser.
See also: Continous Partial Attention
wow talk about taking things out of context.
inflation has gone up so much that you need two incomes to compensate for it. When women started working people suddenly had extra income. which they then spent on things. businesses expanded, which hired more workers, and the situation pushed farther and farther. now you need two incomes to survive.
Also back then medical expenses where cheap yes but then so was the care. no mri, no cat scans, more people died on the table than lived. etc. medical expenses are sky rocketing because we have old people who need constant care, but can't pay for it. however if we take away that care they get pissy. try it. in the USA our budget is easily broken down into 30% for medicare, 30% for SS and 30% for military with he balance for every thing else.
not once will you hear any political talk about cutting SS down sharply to pay for the ever growing debt.
now back to inflation. yes officially the USA government puts it 2% a year more or less, however it all secondary markets (not food, gas, etc) it goes up on average 5%. with some goods like TV's or dishwashers actually going down -2%. that is why new tv's keep coming out, and why refrigerators are still $500-$1000 the same price they were 30 years ago. Car however keep going up. with base models of basic cars used to $12k in 2000, it is closer to $18k for the same model(mostly) now.
lastly before medicare. 60% of the population didn't have any health care. doctors are for the rich after all. that is your moto is it not? Currently 30% of the population doesn't have decent medical care. I can't afford visits to my primary care doctor. I can't afford the co-pay even with health care. I don't have an extra $100 per visit to spend.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.