Trains, bitches - and WFH for people who have no business being in an office.
Lol I have no reason to be in the office for my job. My company started forcing people back in January. I take the train in. It takes me 2.5 one way, 5 hours total. Doesn't make any fucking sense that I have to make the journey, and it makes no fucking sense that the train ride takes an hour and 45 minutes
If there only were trains, or trams, or busses. In many areas, public transport consists of "the morning bus" and "the afternoon bus".
And not everyone can WFH. Actually, most people with lower pay grades can't, so they still have to be present whereever they work.
wfh for people who have no business being in an office
I don't belong in an office but it's kinda hard to mop the floors where I work from home. 😭
but it's kinda hard to mop the floors where I work from home.
Yeah, the "everyone should work from home" factions seems to forget those of us whose work requires us being able to touch the things we're working on.
Sounds like an engineering problem to me
And while we're at it, everyone gets a pony.
I'd love more trains and I'd love more WFH jobs, but that's not the reality in 2024 and just declaring "trains, bitches" is not helpful or particularly cordial to all of the people who have no choice but to make long commutes to their jobs.
I would wager most people don't actually have no choice but to make a massive commute. Often it just comes down to policy choices. As a country, we've made deliberate decisions to ignore developing mass transit, just as we've decided homes should be treated as investment vehicles. If we built out and maintained more trains, buses and light rail, congestion could be cut down and more people could travel much more rapidly and efficiently. If we didn't obsess over the idea that property values must go up without fail and encouraged building affordable housing, people could actually afford to live closer to where they work, rather than being pushed ever farther into the suburbs and countryside in search of a place they could afford to live in. Some people make insane commutes chasing higher pay in a neighboring region. I knew of people at one company who commuted from Philadelphia to Brooklyn every day, because NYC pay was higher and Philly rents lower. That said, that's absolutely a conscious choice those people make.
Likewise, not every job is capable of being done from home, but many are, yet workers are still forced to come into the office anyway. This is a choice by company execs, not an inevitable fact of life.
I'm sure there are some jobs that are relatively remote, yet need to be done in person despite the long commutes. Let the people doing them be compensated accordingly, but this is absolutely not something that should be normalized for the population at large.
Ah yes, "find a cheaper place to live or get another job." What a 'choice' you're saying people have.
Individually, no, but this is the decision people have been making in aggregate for decades with the people they vote into government to represent them. You can still see it happening when people oppose any attempts to build out public transportation when they believe it would either personally bother them in some way, or give poor people an easier way to access their communities.
Heck, you saw it earlier this year where municipalities around NY have fought and ignored the mandate to build up more dense housing, or the congestion pricing being walked back now. Housing costs being unaffordable is a serious issue when it impacts them or their acquaintances, but that's a sacrifice they're willing to make if it keeps poor people and minorities from also being able to afford to live in their town. Something needs to be done about traffic and air quality in Manhattan, right up until it means they would either need to pay up or take the train.
The governor is taking most of the heat for these policies, bud meanwhile, people keep reelecting the same local and state officials that aggravate the problems that the public is chronically complaining of. They'll shoot themselves in the foot if it means they can hurt others too.
This still sounds like victim blaming to me. It should be the job of the opposition to these candidates to educate the public about what they're voting for. Blaming the public for voting against their best interest when no one's telling them that's what they're doing is a little silly.
I would have more sympathy for them if these were new issues, but they've been perennial problems for more than three decades at this point. There comes a point where it's either willful ignorance, or being so woefully stupid you probably ought to be declared a ward of the state and get a minder to make sure you don't get caught off guard by your own saliva and drown in it.
Like, it's utterly stupid on its face. If you have the right to vote, you're struggling to afford to keep a roof over your head, yet you keep voting for the politicians who block the very affordable housing that your continued ability to live in your community depends on because it'll let the "wrong kind of people" move in, or "dilute the character of the neighborhood" and bring down property values, yet you cannot understand how this is voting against your own interests without someone breaking it down for you, you make a very compelling case for the shortcoming of democracy with universal suffrage. Even then, these are topics that have been gone over to death
Blaming the public for voting against their best interest when no one’s telling them that’s what they’re doing is a little silly.
Emphasis mine, but the public has been told over, and over, and over again. At what point does it stop being everyone else's responsibility that they just don't want to hear it, or are willing to ignore it if it hurts someone else?
Told over and over again by whom? Who is telling them? Where are they telling them?
At this point, you're just being disingenuous. Like, where have you been? Two seconds searching will give you article after article after article on this very topic. This has been a subject of public commentary since before people fell for trickle-down economics, and to pretend otherwise is to be entirely dishonest.
So... things they're supposed to read when they're uninterested in reading in sources they wouldn't trust.
Let me know when Fox News tells them about it.
So...when they won't read articles on the topic and won't listen to news coverage outside the very media that's designed to convince them to vote against their own interests, it's still other peoples' fault for not educating them, somehow? That is just willful ignorance on their part. That's like saying nobody has tried to educate young earth creationists on the Earth being older than 6,000 years, because we just have articles in text books and scientific journals they don't trust, but really, we need to get it into the bible for them to read.
Also, way to move the goalposts there. We went from
Blaming the public for voting against their best interest when no one’s telling them that’s what they’re doing is a little silly.
to, "Well, yeah, someone asked them to read, and people they don't like tell them, but you need to get the media empire that convinces them to vote against their interests in the first place to tell them that's what's happening, or else it doesn't count." At what point are good faith efforts enough for you, when these people aren't interested in them to begin with? Do we need to strap them into one of the rapid-learning machines from Battlefield Earth and just shoot the knowledge straight into their brain?
Yes, it is other peoples' fault for not getting them out of the media bubble they have been put in all their lives, starting with the parents who raised them. You're expecting the cult member to free will themselves out of the cult. That's not how it works.
You cannot endlessly blame other people for failing to undo that indoctrination. They need to be open to at least considering other view points, you cannot enter their mind and flip a switch for them. Either way, that's an entirely separate matter from your original claim, that nobody has told these people.
As a country, we've made deliberate decisions to ignore developing mass transit,
But as an individual, I need to have an income, and I need a place to live that my income will support sustainably.
I don't get a say in where the affordable homes are in relation to where my work needs to be done. And I don't get a say in the transportation infrastructure between those locations.
Trains, bitches - and WFH for people who have no business being in an office.
Lol I have no reason to be in the office for my job. My company started forcing people back in January. I take the train in. It takes me 2.5 one way, 5 hours total. Doesn't make any fucking sense that I have to make the journey, and it makes no fucking sense that the train ride takes an hour and 45 minutes
If there only were trains, or trams, or busses. In many areas, public transport consists of "the morning bus" and "the afternoon bus".
And not everyone can WFH. Actually, most people with lower pay grades can't, so they still have to be present whereever they work.
I don't belong in an office but it's kinda hard to mop the floors where I work from home. 😭
Yeah, the "everyone should work from home" factions seems to forget those of us whose work requires us being able to touch the things we're working on.
Sounds like an engineering problem to me
And while we're at it, everyone gets a pony.
I'd love more trains and I'd love more WFH jobs, but that's not the reality in 2024 and just declaring "trains, bitches" is not helpful or particularly cordial to all of the people who have no choice but to make long commutes to their jobs.
I would wager most people don't actually have no choice but to make a massive commute. Often it just comes down to policy choices. As a country, we've made deliberate decisions to ignore developing mass transit, just as we've decided homes should be treated as investment vehicles. If we built out and maintained more trains, buses and light rail, congestion could be cut down and more people could travel much more rapidly and efficiently. If we didn't obsess over the idea that property values must go up without fail and encouraged building affordable housing, people could actually afford to live closer to where they work, rather than being pushed ever farther into the suburbs and countryside in search of a place they could afford to live in. Some people make insane commutes chasing higher pay in a neighboring region. I knew of people at one company who commuted from Philadelphia to Brooklyn every day, because NYC pay was higher and Philly rents lower. That said, that's absolutely a conscious choice those people make.
Likewise, not every job is capable of being done from home, but many are, yet workers are still forced to come into the office anyway. This is a choice by company execs, not an inevitable fact of life.
I'm sure there are some jobs that are relatively remote, yet need to be done in person despite the long commutes. Let the people doing them be compensated accordingly, but this is absolutely not something that should be normalized for the population at large.
Ah yes, "find a cheaper place to live or get another job." What a 'choice' you're saying people have.
Individually, no, but this is the decision people have been making in aggregate for decades with the people they vote into government to represent them. You can still see it happening when people oppose any attempts to build out public transportation when they believe it would either personally bother them in some way, or give poor people an easier way to access their communities.
Heck, you saw it earlier this year where municipalities around NY have fought and ignored the mandate to build up more dense housing, or the congestion pricing being walked back now. Housing costs being unaffordable is a serious issue when it impacts them or their acquaintances, but that's a sacrifice they're willing to make if it keeps poor people and minorities from also being able to afford to live in their town. Something needs to be done about traffic and air quality in Manhattan, right up until it means they would either need to pay up or take the train.
The governor is taking most of the heat for these policies, bud meanwhile, people keep reelecting the same local and state officials that aggravate the problems that the public is chronically complaining of. They'll shoot themselves in the foot if it means they can hurt others too.
This still sounds like victim blaming to me. It should be the job of the opposition to these candidates to educate the public about what they're voting for. Blaming the public for voting against their best interest when no one's telling them that's what they're doing is a little silly.
I would have more sympathy for them if these were new issues, but they've been perennial problems for more than three decades at this point. There comes a point where it's either willful ignorance, or being so woefully stupid you probably ought to be declared a ward of the state and get a minder to make sure you don't get caught off guard by your own saliva and drown in it.
Like, it's utterly stupid on its face. If you have the right to vote, you're struggling to afford to keep a roof over your head, yet you keep voting for the politicians who block the very affordable housing that your continued ability to live in your community depends on because it'll let the "wrong kind of people" move in, or "dilute the character of the neighborhood" and bring down property values, yet you cannot understand how this is voting against your own interests without someone breaking it down for you, you make a very compelling case for the shortcoming of democracy with universal suffrage. Even then, these are topics that have been gone over to death
Emphasis mine, but the public has been told over, and over, and over again. At what point does it stop being everyone else's responsibility that they just don't want to hear it, or are willing to ignore it if it hurts someone else?
Told over and over again by whom? Who is telling them? Where are they telling them?
At this point, you're just being disingenuous. Like, where have you been? Two seconds searching will give you article after article after article on this very topic. This has been a subject of public commentary since before people fell for trickle-down economics, and to pretend otherwise is to be entirely dishonest.
So... things they're supposed to read when they're uninterested in reading in sources they wouldn't trust.
Let me know when Fox News tells them about it.
So...when they won't read articles on the topic and won't listen to news coverage outside the very media that's designed to convince them to vote against their own interests, it's still other peoples' fault for not educating them, somehow? That is just willful ignorance on their part. That's like saying nobody has tried to educate young earth creationists on the Earth being older than 6,000 years, because we just have articles in text books and scientific journals they don't trust, but really, we need to get it into the bible for them to read.
Also, way to move the goalposts there. We went from
to, "Well, yeah, someone asked them to read, and people they don't like tell them, but you need to get the media empire that convinces them to vote against their interests in the first place to tell them that's what's happening, or else it doesn't count." At what point are good faith efforts enough for you, when these people aren't interested in them to begin with? Do we need to strap them into one of the rapid-learning machines from Battlefield Earth and just shoot the knowledge straight into their brain?
Yes, it is other peoples' fault for not getting them out of the media bubble they have been put in all their lives, starting with the parents who raised them. You're expecting the cult member to free will themselves out of the cult. That's not how it works.
You cannot endlessly blame other people for failing to undo that indoctrination. They need to be open to at least considering other view points, you cannot enter their mind and flip a switch for them. Either way, that's an entirely separate matter from your original claim, that nobody has told these people.
But as an individual, I need to have an income, and I need a place to live that my income will support sustainably.
I don't get a say in where the affordable homes are in relation to where my work needs to be done. And I don't get a say in the transportation infrastructure between those locations.