Hacker News Reader

Comment by blhack | Hacker News Reader

I don't think so...

I think the future of work is going to be ~10 work days, 6 days a week, and minimal benefits.

The problem is that there are SOO many qualified people out there and not enough jobs for them. It's an employers market; they can make ridiculous demands, and people will show up to meet them because they have to.

Look at movies like "Up in the Air"...there really are people that live their lives in airports and hotels. Yes, to the extent that the person in the movie did. This sort of thing is becoming the norm.

In case you haven't seen the movie: it is about a guy who spends something like 300 days per year on the road.

View on HN

"This sort of thing is becoming the norm."

You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?

No, I guess I should have said "This is becoming the norm for me, for nearly everybody that I know, and for nearly everybody that they talk about.".

Your insular social circle is abnormal.

Your insular social circle is abnormal.

You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?

This is something that really irks me about online discussions; we're not having a formal debate here, not passing policies, we're having an informal conversation about jobs.

I gave an opinion and stated it as such...yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?

A simple google search shows that my opinion is valid...Americans are working more hours per capita than they ever have before and this is a trend that is alarming (or at least interesting) to some people (like me).

Here is one such article: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924985484258191,00.htm...

"This is something that really irks me about online discussions; we're not having a formal debate here, not passing policies, we're having an informal conversation about jobs."

Sure. But if someone makes an interesting claim, especially one that contradicts their own experience, knowledge, or intuition, they'll likely want to know if you know something they don't. So, people like me ask for more information, specifically concrete data. If I find out it's just a gut feeling, or a guess, or whatever, that's fine by me. But I just want to know.

"I gave an opinion and stated it as such...yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?"

Maybe.

Not all opinions are valid. Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want, but if you make it public then expect others to ask questions, and absent any evidence or a good argument, to scoff.

(@jamesbritt I accidentally hit the downmod arrow (I meant to upmod) . Could someone up mod this please? Thanks in advance.)

"Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want, but if you make it public then expect others to ask questions, and absent any evidence or a good argument, to scoff."

The "make it public" is key. Sure we are not having a debate, but then no one is asking for results from double blind randomized trials either.

For me to say something (and expect people to accept the truth of what you say - I could be honestly mistaken for example), asking for data is a good thing. It forces me to reflect on why I say what I say and if the "why" is weak, then maybe I need to rethink.

".yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it up?"

Your opinion is valid as an opinion. it isn't valid enough to be accepted by other people without data/logic/whatever backing it up.

It might help if any such request, even if abrasively phrased, could be reinterpreted as"What makes you think so?".

'For me to say something (and expect people to accept the truth of what you say - I could be honestly mistaken for example), asking for data is a good thing. It forces me to reflect on why I say what I say and if the "why" is weak, then maybe I need to rethink.'

That's basically why I've gotten into the habit of asking for backing material when I read what strikes me as flat assertions with no supportive argument.

It's not to turn every casual discussion into an interrogation, but because it helps (as best I've been able to tell) keep the overall quality higher by a) getting people to pause a bit before tossing off casual, overly broad, and often ill-reasoned, comments (e.g. "Perl 6 will never be released"), and b) often gets people to provide links and data.

In the best scenarios, that means some of us learn something new.

To be specific: flying and spending 300 days/year on the road is abnormal, and will always be. It may become more prevalent, but it is at least cost-constrained to the margins of society.

The HN insular social circle is abnormal.

I don't agree, or at least if it does go this route then people will end up getting unions involved. From where I sit people are already sick of 45 hour work weeks so making this even more intrusive is not going to last long.

The unions got us overtime, breaks, lunch and vacation. As a result, we created a two-class system for labor laws; management and workers. However, white-collar workers qualify under the provisions previously reserved for management so the laws created to protect labor no longer apply.

The law isn't some kind of book from "on high" with static text that just is. It is a living body of rules that under the right circumstanced even lowly working class citizens can affect. If people are becoming exploited again and current labor laws can't stop it then those laws need to be changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com