Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses IT Technology

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy 710

Posted by Soulskill
from the being-productive-vs.-looking-productive dept.
An anonymous reader writes Work/life balance is a constant problem in the tech industry. Even though experienced and mature engineers have been vocal in fighting it, every new generation buys into the American cultural identity of excessive work being a virtue. Each generation suffers for it, and the economy does, too. This article backs up that wisdom with hard numbers: "The 40-hour workweek is mostly a thing of the past. Ninety-four percent of professional workers put in 50 or more hours, and nearly half work 65 or above. All workers have managed to cut down on our time on the job by 112 hours over the last 40 years, but we're far behind other countries: The French cut down by 491 hours, the Dutch by 425, and Canadians by 215 in the same time period. ... This overwork shows up in our sleep. Out of five developed peers, four other countries sleep more than us. That has again worsened over the years. In 1942, more than 80 percent of Americans slept seven hours a night or more. Today, 40 percent sleep six hours or less. A lack of sleep makes us poorer workers: People who sleep less than seven hours a night have a much harder time concentrating and getting work done."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

Comments Filter:
  • by BenSchuarmer (922752) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:10PM (#47311105)
    I just need to finish this one thing...
    • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:45PM (#47311359) Journal

      And what's up with this "In 1942, more than 80 percent of Americans slept seven hours a night or more. Today, 40 percent sleep six hours or less" part?

      I had to do some mental math to convert those equilvent comparisons 20% got less than 7 hours in 1942, and today 40% get less than 6.

      Why would they make me do mental math when they know I probably didn't get enough sleep last night?

    • Just one more turn...
  • by Baldrson (78598) * on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:15PM (#47311137) Homepage Journal

    They've finally figured out why sleep deprivation kills you -- and its also why it makes you make stupid mistakes.

    Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain [kist.re.kr]

    Problem is it is mainly during slow wave sleep that the cleaning crew works on the CSF, and as people age they their slow wave sleep diminishes.

    • by zijus (754409) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @04:08AM (#47313199)
      Hi there. IMO this is to be linked to the cult of "work hard play hard". The problem is... always over-driving one's life, leads faster to problems. Playing too hard also leads to problems. Hopping to balance one's over-work by some over-play is - maybe counter-intuitively for some - not a sollution. In french it is named "sur-régime" : if you always drive a car with the engine spinning well beyond what's necessary, well you may go faster, but you will certainly die earlier. Over-performing, over-working, and so on, has a cost. Ciao.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:16PM (#47311145)

    Not seeing the outside of an office for most of your adult life is considered as a virtue only by fools. Sadly many will post here supporting this form of modern day slavery.

    The wtf moment of missing what life is all about will come when it is too late.

    • by MrL0G1C (867445)

      lol at you got modded as interesting rather than insightful, slashdot mods are properly brainwashed and think overtime is good.

      The people I really can't understand are the ones who do overtime for free - these people are robbing unemployed people of work and aren't even getting paid for it.

      • by ultranova (717540) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @06:26AM (#47313537)

        The people I really can't understand are the ones who do overtime for free - these people are robbing unemployed people of work and aren't even getting paid for it.

        "Real nice job you have here. Be a shame if anything happens to it. You don't mind doing this little thing after work, right? Be a team player, don't bother telling accounting."

        Strong unions could put a stop to that, but everyone is too busy ensuring Joe Slacker gets no unearned benefit to ensure they get their earned ones. It's classic divide and conquer, helped along with everyone thinking they're not only above average but such special snowlakes they can write their own ticket as soon as someone notices their talents - any day now. Of course the resulting economic collapse is taking the employers with them as well, but it's one thing to release the beast and another to put it back into the cage.

        American economy is a self-imposed Hell where the only real goal anyone has is to escape from the looming specter of poverty. That's why get-rich-quick schemes never fail to find victims there. And that's also why it works worse and worse over time, as increasingly desperate people find short-term gambits more and more attractive as long-term plans yield less and less realistic chances of improving your situation or even maintaining it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:16PM (#47311151)

    totally people are addicted to working longer hours. Not, maybe, and this is just a shot in the dark here, the proles are being taken advantage of by the bourgeoisie, business as usual.

  • by rsilvergun (571051) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:17PM (#47311153)
    Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice. Companies are demanding we do more with less. If you don't like it there's not much you can do. The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better. Off-shoring and abundant work Visas guarantee that. You're given X amount of work to do and Y amount of time and if you don't do X you're fired, so you put in extra hours. Again and again and again. Heck, it's even worse for the Visa holders. They're practically indentured serfs. If they don't put the hours in it's back to where they came from with a black mark to boot. And those are the guys we're competing with for jobs....

    Heck, is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the workers? Maybe it's because the capitalists own the media... Heck, I don't know.
    • by TsuruchiBrian (2731979) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:06PM (#47311507)

      Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice.

      Calling it "Workaholism" actually implies we are addicted to "wrokahol", and the notable feature about addiction is the lack of choice. Maybe some would argue that alcoholics can decide not to be addicted as hard as this may be. I would also argue that workers can decide not to accept jobs that overwork them.

      If you don't like it there's not much you can do. The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better. Off-shoring and abundant work Visas guarantee that. You're given X amount of work to do and Y amount of time and if you don't do X you're fired, so you put in extra hours. Again and again and again. Heck, it's even worse for the Visa holders. They're practically indentured serfs. If they don't put the hours in it's back to where they came from with a black mark to boot. And those are the guys we're competing with for jobs....

      Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer. You can hire people for essentially nothing, and rake in huge profits for doing very little work.

      Heck, is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the workers? Maybe it's because the capitalists own the media... Heck, I don't know.

      I don't really see anyone blaming the workers. I do see people suggesting that workers take appropriate steps to protect their interests. Maybe workers should learn skills that indentured serfs don't have. Maybe workers should take advantage of a world with cheap unskilled labor rather than being a part of the unskilled labor force and therefore causing a higher supply to demand ratio of unskilled labor (as I implied earlier). Maybe workers should actually vote. Workers clearly have an electoral advantage. They, however, continue to vote for republicans and democrats that are selling them out to corporations (or simply don't vote at all).

      Is it "blaming the workers" to point out the actions that workers could do to achieve their goals? Is it "blaming the workers" to tell them that no one is going to fight for them if they won't fight for themselves?

      If you want something, you need to fight for it. No one is going to just give it to you. If you're strategy is "complaining" about it, then it had better be at a level that causes politicians to be voted out of office, because what is happening right now isn't doing anything.

      "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve." --possibly Alexis de Toqueville or Joseph de Maistre

      • I think the difference is we either pity or look down on alcoholics, where as people that kill themselves

        And nobody has the goal to be the worlds greatest middle manager. You're goal something else. Buy your kid braces, keep your car running just a little longer, pay for your Grandma's doctor's visits.

        And again, I'll ask why we're racing to the bottom? There's a difference between fighting for something you want just trying to survive one more day. A man swimming the English Channel is fighting for
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:15PM (#47311555)

      "Don't mourn. Organize"

      Don't let the bosses control the work place.
      Don't let the union leaders become bosses.
      You have to fight for it, then fight to keep it.

      Or you'll get used up.

    • If you can take a pay cut, you can find better alternatives. Even though I'm exempt like most of IT, I never work over 40 hours outside of emergencies (only three times in five years with this company). On those rare times, I was paid for them. This was something I negotiated from the beginning: no overtime unless I'm paid.

      My pay is about 15% below market average, but this was the tradeoff I was willing to make in order to have a less stressful work life (and my lifestyle is such that I could afford the cut

    • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdotNO@SPAMworf.net> on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @01:16AM (#47312653)

      The irony of the whole thing is that it's a death spiral. By asking employees to do more with less and get less sleep, their health suffers which is a negative on the company in MANY ways. First, tired workers simply are less productive, period. It's very possible that the 10, 12 hour days they're putting in they're simply not going to be as productive than if you forced them to go home after 8 and let them have a good rest, ready to take on the challenge tomorrow.

      Second, there are health issues.First, weakened immune systems mean workers get sicker easier. And sick employees almost always come to work (a term we call "presenteeism", the opposite of absenteeism). Well, you have a sniffling, sneezing, coughing worker spreading their germs to everyone. What's THAT going to do for productivity?

      Third, safety and quality. A tired worker just isn't safe, period. Accidents in the workplace, increased workplace compensation costs. Quality goes down because workers are less attentive and less likely to spot flaws.

      Of course, short term crunches do work. In the short term. Once they become chronic, well, the whole workplace suffers and you end up at some middling level of productivity caused by sick employees, tired less productive employees, and the lack of safety and quality in the final product.

      Perhaps the phrase "they don't make 'em like they used to" might actually be true - workers end up producing crap because they're too tired to take pride in their work and to do a good job!

      The other problem is cultural - who hasn't heard the old brag "I work hard! I did 100 hours last week!" as if working long days at the office was something to be proud of?

      Finally, we're not Japanese. The Japanese get away with overwork because companies generally care about their employees - they get hired from university or high school and work until retirement where their every need is taken care of, including family. Here you're lucky to even get a email on your birthday or anniversary.

      But I suppose that's what happens when you boil everything down to numbers.

      Small anecdote - there was a company that bought a bunch of coconuts for their ship's provisions. They usually bought 100 coconuts a day, at around $1 a coconut. They asked how much it would be if they increased their order to 200 coconuts a day. The price rose to $2 a coconut! (you'd expect what, 75 cents or so, right?). The reason is that the coconut gatherer would have to work that much harder to collect their 200 coconuts, the increase in stress and longer working hours meant in effect the guy had to do a lot more, and earn less on it, and that's bad for business when your employees have to work their butts off just to be in the same place.

  • job security (Score:4, Insightful)

    by confused one (671304) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:22PM (#47311199)
    what were we talking about? sorry tired. Hey, my 80 hour work-weeks are what kept me employed during the recession. They couldn't fire me -- I was doing too much work for next to no pay. Yeah, I made a few mistakes. But I fixed 'em. Sure, my salary history will work against me when I go apply for another job. At least I stayed employed in my field. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need some more coffee before I pass out at my desk.
    • The point is that past a couple of weeks 80-hour work weeks are useless not just for you but for your employer as well. You are providing LESS productivity so it would really be in your employers interest to stop.

  • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:25PM (#47311219) Homepage Journal

    Seriously. Try getting by on $30-35K a year. Now try doing it WITH KIDS.

    Cost of living alone is insane. Let alone other things, like an apartment/house, utilities, etc.

    Now have a bad month or two. Or get sick, or injure yourself in a way that prevents you from working. Rent/mortgage don't pay itself!

    Most people in this country aren't working +40 hours because they WANT to, or because they LIKE it.

    They're doing it as a buffer to stay ahead of instantaneous bankruptcy and poverty in case they cannot work for some reason.

  • by Prien715 (251944) <agnosticpope@gmai l . c om> on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:27PM (#47311241) Journal

    Dear team,

    After coming back from my vacation in Aruba, I've decided that in these times of trouble we need to do more with less. We're in a troubled economy -- do you realize how much yacht gas has gone up in the past year? In addition, the Affordable Care Act has made it cost ineffective for our FTNE (Full Time Non-Employee) initiative to continue.

    Moving forward, we'll need to tighten our belts and take on other responsibilities. Some of you will work longer hours than usual. My performance bonus is based on how much money we can save, so I'm simply going to let go anyone who refuses to comply with this iniative -- I'm sure I can find someone to replace you.

    Cheers!
    PHB

  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:44PM (#47311355) Homepage Journal
    To see how workaholism saps productivity and rarely leads to better results, look at Japan. Overtime is sacrosanct in Japan, at the company I worked at previously it was a badge of honor that the average amount of overtime was 60 hours a month. Japan has the lowest per-hour output in the G7 [wikipedia.org], and it's a small wonder why. Managers will often times not buy hardware that can increase productivity because hey, you can simply make the workers work longer hours for free, whereas hardware costs money. The result is a populace that is unhappy, unhealthy, and well dying. The low birth rate is well known, what is less well known is that the Japanese have the least amount of sex in the developed world. The technology industry that everyone once thought would rule the world has come to be dominated by the west because managers have very little incentive to innovate, to increase productivity. And as the cherry on the shit sundae, the low productivity means that wages in Japan are lower, i.e. longer hours for less money. Trust me, you don't want to go down this route.
  • by NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:46PM (#47311373)
    If everything I've read about it is true(and I mentioned this in another article here on /.) you literally can't get more than 40 hours of work out of people anyway. Oh sure, the first couple of weeks they do more work but then they get tired and slow and make mistakes. After a few weeks of that they're working more than 40 hours but aren't producing any more work. Go ahead, read stuff like Peopleware where they point this out. (That working overtime makes no sense, you don't get anything but pissed off employees.) Before anybody asks, no I don't work more than 40 hours a week. (And yes one of the big reasons is I'm old enough to recognize I don't get any more work done if I do. Plus the fact you do it and your manager quickly abuses it.)
    • So I work 40 hours of real work and an additional 20+ of so-so work. That's not a bonus, that's to prove I'm a valuable enough to keep my full-job. I'm waiting till they replace me with three young grads. Churn-n-burn baby. There's always a fresh supply of graduates that will slave their way to pay off the student loan debt.

    • by Jesrad (716567) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @04:34AM (#47313269) Journal

      you literally can't get more than 40 hours of work out of people anyway.

      Try 20.

      For most of our existence as a species, 18-24 hours of work per week has been the world-wide average [google.fr] time spent satisfying our basic needs. All the rest was leisure, endeavours in curiosity and socializing. This observation still verifies with the few primitive tribes still around. It also verifies in our records of ancestral agricultural tribes. That's the intensity of work our bodies have attuned to over hundreds of thousands of years of recent evolution.

      From my professional experience too it verifies, and I'm curious about what other people may want to report about that. People around me may log long or short hours over the days but once you substract the pauses, all the staring at the screen in a blank mind right after lunch or at the end of the work day, all the heated discussions about this hot topic or that, all the trying to figure out or motivate yourself about what you should be doing next, and concentrate on the actual, value-adding focus and thinking and doing, that's hardly more than 3 to 5 hours a week-day, typically 1-3 hours around 10 in the morning and 2-3 hours around 3 P.M. Even middle management types who try to commit, who show up first and leave last everyday, spend most of their time socializing rather than actually organising things up (basically they're downrate, modernized tribes' chiefs).

      If you've got a flexible enough mind, it's a lot more efficient for you (and healthier and easier and saner and...) to wake up without an alarm clock, and not rush to the office, help yourself with organising your tasks with basic methodology, then get stuff done in those 4-5 hours. And outside of those hours relax, talk with your colleagues, allow yourself to enjoy your lunch, etc. There's litterally no point trying to force it beyond that.

      Also, you'll benefit immensely from cutting the crap out of your life at home too. Stop inflicting incessant news updates, FB status updates, tweets and 24/7 information TV on yourself, your brain is NOT built for that kind of abuse. Stop thinking in terms of pain/gain balance: an hour of treadmilling is not compensating a handful of cupcakes, not in any way you can measure utility for yourself, ever ; and similarly inflicting huge stress and deadlines and job abuse on yourself so you can then indulge in a more wasteful home and car and lifestyle is NOT balanced either.

      That one most precious but limited resource that you have in a basically fixed amount for life: your time... stop throwing it away so liberally. You just need to spend half as much as your income [mrmoneymustache.com] (give or take a quarter of your income, there's quite a margin) and then you can get retired in your 30s (or 40s if you're already late in the game), even on a $40-50 000/year job.

  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @08:54PM (#47311431) Journal
    I work my 45-50+ hours a week minimum like everyone else in tech land, but I also normally only have a 10 minute commute. (I'm currently visiting another office and the commute is 30 minutes from my hotel, bleah.)

    I know people who are losing two hours of their life a day commuting each way, in addition to working our nasty hours, leaving fewer hours to actually live. It's either cut out eating or sleeping, and thus it's usually sleep that takes the hit.

    I could make twice as much money if I committed to a horrible commute but I value my free time too much.
  • by marcgvky (949079) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:02PM (#47311477) Journal
    They lie to you in the interview, "oh, it's rare, but there are a couples of weeks here and there, that we burn the midnight oil." Yeah, bullshit. 50-hours minimum, and everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM. Suck it, corporate America. Sell your soul to the corporate idol for NOTHING in return. Once again, suck it.
    • by PPH (736903) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:29PM (#47311653)

      everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM.

      Look at Yahoo! and their recent policy on telecommuting. It used to be you'd get your assignment done. Whether it takes you 30, 40 or 50 hours per week, nobody will know. Now, you've got to make your appearance at the office where everyone judges you by seat time instead of productivity.

      You can land the best job, but when some asshat takes over as boss, it's all over.

      • by Bryan Ischo (893) *

        In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers. Notice I said as a whole - there is the rare telecommuter who is more productive. But most are not. So I completely understand corporate policy that lights fires under telecommuters' butts. It's what I would do if I were the boss.

        I speak as someone who was a telecommuter at one time. I have a very hard time believing that the factors that made it difficult to be productive for me are not common for everyo

        • by jemmyw (624065) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @11:15PM (#47312149)

          This is rather anecdotal. I refuse to believe that I'm in a 5% percentage of people more effective working from home than in the office. The office is full of distractions, noise, people to waste time with, toys like pool tables and so forth. I go in every so often because some of those distractions are important.

          But home is nice and quiet. Can move between desk, sofa, bed, outside with laptop. I suspect that those who find distractions working at home will find distractions working in the office.

          I've noticed that the best workers in my company are the ones who have gone remote. I'm not saying that they are best because they're remote. But they're probably the ones who don't feel they need to be seen in the office to prove their worth.

  • by rabbin (2700077) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:07PM (#47311513)
    Yeah, nevermind that workaholism makes the overwhelming majority of people miserable--certainly that couldn't be more of a reason (or even a sufficient reason) to be concerned. Would someone please think of the upper class's ability to maximize profits by squeezing the life out of the working cla--I mean the Economy, would someone please think of the Economy?
  • by msauve (701917) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:19PM (#47311589)
    "All workers have managed to cut down on our time on the job by 112 hours over the last 40 years"

    In a summary addressing the "work week," how does one end up reducing it by 112 hours or more?
  • 94%, really? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JeffOwl (2858633) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:33PM (#47311689)
    Does anyone else find that 94% figure for professionals working more than 50 hours a week rather high? I know it isn't anywhere near that where I work and we are relatively well paid.
  • by mckellar75238 (1218210) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:43PM (#47311757)
    I've read comments above about loving your job, about pressure from management, about socialism, about Obamacare, and none of them seemed really to address the issue -- at least, as far as I could see. I worked in IT for 25 years, plus another 15 or so in other fields. I absolutely loved programming, the others just paid the bills, but there was one constant: my productivity maxed out at about 45 hours a week. If I worked 50, I didn't get any more done (net, i.e., after fixing errors) than if I had only worked 40; if I worked more than 50, things just got worse. I'm sure I lost some job offers along the way, because I was always careful to ask about overtime and then describe my experience if I was told it would be significant. Yes, I would work overtime if it was necessary; if it needs to be done, then "suck it up" is the rule of the day. But long term, heavy overtime costs more than it gains -- even if it's unpaid.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @09:49PM (#47311781)

    That's at least what I tell my people. I can't use them if they burn out.

    I made that mistake once and lost a very valuable employee that way. I didn't notice it. He was always around and, hey, who doesn't like an employee who seemingly never sleeps? Until one day he didn't show up anymore. Burnout. Boom, gone. To understand how severe that really is, it takes AT LEAST three months for someone to get our workflow down. If, and only if, they are not only clever but also know the relevant underlying security protocols and process systems. Else, double it. Including the hiring process, the screening, the preparation and all the crap associated with HR and security procedures to actually get someone into our crystal palace, from the moment you decide you want someone to the moment he is actually a full member of your team... let's put it that way, conception to birth is faster.

    So we had the additional workload of that person for a whole year on our shoulders. Which, as you can imagine, nearly costed me more people due to overtaxing.

    Never again. Of course I can't protect myself and my team against one of them having an accident or even becoming unable to return to work forever. Even though risky sports are already "unofficially" disallowed (can't really outlaw them legally 'cause what you do in your spare time is your business, but it is "frowned upon". Let your imagination come up with what this means in a corporate environment...).

    But at the very least I can ensure that I don't add to the problem. Nobody here clocks more than 40 hours (unless the fecal matter got into contact with the air transportation device, and then you will go and take those hours out as soon as you can).

    I don't need my people to spend time in the office. I need them to get stuff done. That can mean that I might suddenly call them at some rather odd hours and ask them to come in, but I don't see any compelling reason to keep them around when there's nothing to be done on time. It's an agreement we have, and so far both sides can live perfectly with it.

  • by Kittenman (971447) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @10:16PM (#47311905)
    I worked in the UK in the late 90s for a multinational. The company sent me to Philadelphia for an interview. Offer included two weeks holiday a year. I asked the recruiter why this was so low (in the UK it was four) - she replied that the folks there really loved to work.

    Uh-huh....
  • by CaroKann (795685) on Tuesday June 24, 2014 @11:38PM (#47312243)
    Aside from the lack of sleep and general burnout, working overtime also tends to skew expectations with management. Upper management is not going to be aware of exactly the amount of effort required complete a project. They are only going to see the results, the number of employees, and the amount of resources it took to achieve those results. So, if everybody gives it 110%, with lots of overtime and everything, that has the effect of raising the expectations of management. This leads management to believe employees can accomplish this great feat as a matter of course, when in fact, that type of effort can't be repeated. It all ends up with management making unrealistic demands while believing it is entirely reasonable.
  • Lack of sleep? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Evtim (1022085) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @01:51AM (#47312767)

    One of the most dangerous conditions known to medicine - prolonged lack of proper sleep increases the risks of developing depression and psychosis apart from the other detrimental effects [which are many].

    Sleep deprivation is a method of torture that leads eventually to insanity.

    But don't worry, fellow Americans - your insanity is spreading fast around the world. Our brave leaders, here in Europe, work around the clock [with apparent lack of sleep - see symptoms above] to implement every detrimental [to humans and society] system and method disguised as "increased efficiency" and "cutting costs".

    And here too, the new generation is brainwashed to accept all this as normal. "Work harder and we will make it" - yhea, right. Work harder under artificial, manipulative and downright abusive financial system which can delete your life [together with your hard work] in a second? Work harder when the rules of the game are not what they are professed to be? Work harder so that 0.1% of the wealth you actually produced trickles down to your ever shrinking middle class budget? Work harder and we will increase your children tuition fees by 100%. Work harder and will keep on increasing the costs of living [energy, housing, food, water, education, health care] with a rate that outpaces the increase in your income by factor of 2 or more?

    I don't mind working and I do like to do many things. I love to feel appreciated and I love the thought that I am contributing in my own way to my life and the whole of humanity. But I do not accept to be a hamster in wheel who has to run ever faster [shortening my life in the process] in order to stand still [or go backwards as it happens in the last decade].

    People, we have to stop this insanity and the first step is to realize that we are manipulated into "camps" so that we keep on fighting each other. Reading the discussions about such topics I notice that at least half of the population has bought into the scam and will defend the system with their lives. I do not see any way how this can be changed. I have spent years trying to convince a handful of people to look a bit further than the next meal without substantial success. And I am bloody good when it comes to talking and convincing people.

    Any ideas?

  • by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday June 25, 2014 @04:51AM (#47313299)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Forget that its an ad for a bad product by a bad company... and just focus on over arching message... which is just a cultural difference between the US and a lot of other places.

    Enjoy your free time, euros... You're welcome to it. Americans want to work.

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberrys!" -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Working...