ok first off lots of people seem to want to change to be remote, so how the hell can McKinsey's consultants be right that workers "...want social and interpersonal connections with their colleagues and managers", oh wait, it's McKinsey
never mind.
Second, one of the oft noted problems with white collar work is that you have to spend a lot of time in offices, where you should somehow also manage not to have inappropriate relationships etc.
The job consumes a lot of your life, and then the pandemic comes along, shows you your life has been hollowed out, obviously people going to go looking for meaning.
on edit: white collar not white color, I guess I'm a bit preoccupied today.
But the other fundamental this article raises is that the "new" role winds up subject to the same constraints: if they traded up pay it may be a net win, but some regret is inevitable. But otherwise, one office is pretty much like another. Same HR rules apply, same expectations on behaviour and outcome.
> ...want social and interpersonal connections with their colleagues and managers
Many people want it. Say you get a remote position and move from NYC to Colorado.
How do you make friends? How do you get inside the local social circle? How do you get laid in a way that enables you to still look yourself in the mirror with respect (meaning not resorting to Tinder, dating websites or escorts).
Work gives individuals a sense of meaning but also a sense of commonality with others. Working towards a common goal with other people is a very powerful feeling. It's a watered down version of the High School locker room, you get to experience the elation of the wins and the sadness of the losses together, and sure it's watered down but it's still there. A total shift to remote would completely obliterate the concept.
Remote is favored by those whose social life is essentially over (married people with kids)
> [I]t is structurally impossibl[e] for the power to draw a clear line of separation and to prevent only the misuse of human rights, while not infringing upon their proper use, the use that does not violate the [Ten] commandments.
> There is a somewhat homologous situation with regard to the heterosexual seduction process in our politically correct times. The two sets, the set of the politically correct behavior and the set of seduction, nowhere effectively intersect; that is to say, there is no seduction which is not in a way an incorrect intrusion or harassment. At some point you, if you are a seducer, you have to expose yourself to make a pass, as we usually put it.
So does this mean that every seduction is all the way through an incorrect harassment? No, and therein resides the catch. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the other, the potential partner, and she decides retroactively, by her reaction, whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. And there is no way to tell in advance what her reaction will be. This is why assertive women often despise weak men, because they fear to expose themselves, to take the necessary risk. And perhaps this holds even more in our politically correct times. Are not the politically correct prohibitions rules which in one way or another are to be violated in the seduction process? Is not the seducer's art to accomplish this violation properly, so that afterwards, by its acceptance, its harassing aspect will be retroactively canceled?
Just because it is mckinsey stating something does not mean they are right or wrong.
Most often than not, companies hiring tend to be very different from what they sell to candidates because the jobmarket has also been much more competitive. HR today is also about sales & marketing where closing a sale is getting a candidate onboard.
If I am not asking what's wrong with the company and not stating upfront I expect them to be clear on this matter, then yes, I am being naive.
Not even accounting for those who could afford to move or pause until they find something they feel might be better (I know a few) due to rising asset prices. Let's see how it plays going forward with another tech bubble deflating.
15 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 46.6 ms ] threadSecond, one of the oft noted problems with white collar work is that you have to spend a lot of time in offices, where you should somehow also manage not to have inappropriate relationships etc.
The job consumes a lot of your life, and then the pandemic comes along, shows you your life has been hollowed out, obviously people going to go looking for meaning.
on edit: white collar not white color, I guess I'm a bit preoccupied today.
Many people want it. Say you get a remote position and move from NYC to Colorado.
How do you make friends? How do you get inside the local social circle? How do you get laid in a way that enables you to still look yourself in the mirror with respect (meaning not resorting to Tinder, dating websites or escorts).
Work gives individuals a sense of meaning but also a sense of commonality with others. Working towards a common goal with other people is a very powerful feeling. It's a watered down version of the High School locker room, you get to experience the elation of the wins and the sadness of the losses together, and sure it's watered down but it's still there. A total shift to remote would completely obliterate the concept.
Remote is favored by those whose social life is essentially over (married people with kids)
By hitting on your co-workers, one of the things that HR departments are notoriously for!
> [I]t is structurally impossibl[e] for the power to draw a clear line of separation and to prevent only the misuse of human rights, while not infringing upon their proper use, the use that does not violate the [Ten] commandments.
> There is a somewhat homologous situation with regard to the heterosexual seduction process in our politically correct times. The two sets, the set of the politically correct behavior and the set of seduction, nowhere effectively intersect; that is to say, there is no seduction which is not in a way an incorrect intrusion or harassment. At some point you, if you are a seducer, you have to expose yourself to make a pass, as we usually put it. So does this mean that every seduction is all the way through an incorrect harassment? No, and therein resides the catch. When you make a pass, you expose yourself to the other, the potential partner, and she decides retroactively, by her reaction, whether what you just did was harassment or a successful act of seduction. And there is no way to tell in advance what her reaction will be. This is why assertive women often despise weak men, because they fear to expose themselves, to take the necessary risk. And perhaps this holds even more in our politically correct times. Are not the politically correct prohibitions rules which in one way or another are to be violated in the seduction process? Is not the seducer's art to accomplish this violation properly, so that afterwards, by its acceptance, its harassing aspect will be retroactively canceled?
https://www.lacan.com/zizek-human.htm
I mean, he is only so serious. But am I supposed to mock him? I don't think so.
Can I nitpick what he wrote? Sure. For example, the framing as "seduction" is -- I hate this word -- problematic.
Nevertheless, there is a kernel of truth: You have to stick your neck out.
Usually, in my experience, when you do this, it's actually appreciated. But yes, it's a little dangerous. That's life.
I would like to be paid a good salary without having to do any work.
Most often than not, companies hiring tend to be very different from what they sell to candidates because the jobmarket has also been much more competitive. HR today is also about sales & marketing where closing a sale is getting a candidate onboard.
If I am not asking what's wrong with the company and not stating upfront I expect them to be clear on this matter, then yes, I am being naive.
Not even accounting for those who could afford to move or pause until they find something they feel might be better (I know a few) due to rising asset prices. Let's see how it plays going forward with another tech bubble deflating.