Is “back to the office” just a tool of the patriarchy?

A flexible work environment seems to be more conducive to female employment. Some would argue that almost everyone prefers it, but when it comes to whether or not it’s a deal breaker, women (as a group) are either less willing or less able to sacrifice time with their family for the sake of a job.

This is nothing new. Men have historically been more willing to work long hours, take more business trips, etc., than women. Women value other things more. (Again, I’m speaking in terms of groups not individuals.)

Therefore, the “back to the office” push (from some companies) and efforts to crack down on “flexible” work schedules is in tension with an effort to get (or keep) more women on the payroll.

Is this …

(1) The patriarchy trying to push women out of the office? or,

(2) Employers who genuinely believe the old, “in the office 9-5” (or so) model is better, and care about the increased productivity more than they care about women’s employment?

Let’s assume it’s #2.

Some people will take issue with the assumption that the old (in the office) model is better. They’ll say flexible work environments are more efficient.

This is one of those areas where you can find studies to justify your preference. I eye them all with suspicion because of how closely they’re tied to this socially charged issue.

In my mind it’s more interesting to look at the issue this way.

Some would argue that even if the “in the office for long hours” assumption is true, it’s socially damaging because it limits female participation in the workforce, and that’s more important than the productivity question.

You could make an analogy to child labor. Even if companies are more productive and efficient if they can hire children, it’s simply not something we want in our culture. IOW, the bottom line is not always the final arbiter of these questions.

And that’s where the problem lies.

Is the goal of getting more women to participate in the workforce (1) a goal everyone shares, and (2) worth the hit to productivity?

I have some sympathy for this Gen Z complainer

You may have seen this video in which a Gen Z worker complains about the unfairness of the current work environment.

I think many conservatives react to this with some version of “quit complaining, work harder, and stop spending your money on $1000 phones.”

I have a different reaction.

We’ve been devaluing labor for decades to (1) feed our appetite for cheap crap, and (2) increase corporate profits.

Neither of those things are bad. Being able to buy things for less makes citizens more wealthy, and corporate profits fund 401(k) accounts, create jobs, increase the GDP, etc.

But there is a cost, which is what this young lady is talking about. In order to have cheap things at Walmart, we can’t pay the Walmart workers very well. Or the people who work in the factories that make the stuff on the shelves.

I’m not inclined to accept simple answers to this situation. Yes, we want more efficient production of goods. But we also want people to be able to get a job, get married, earn a living, raise a family, etc. And I think we’re failing at that, and it’s only going to get worse as Biden welcomes 482 billion new people into the country.

On the reliability of polls

We all know that the way you frame a question can influence the answer.

There are lots of different ways to do this, e.g., by making a question positive or negative, by emphasizing different aspects of the question, by making it complex or simple, by using charged / loaded language in the question, by the order in which things are presented, etc. And it’s not amateur hour. People study how to do this.

Knowing that pollsters can influence an answer, which is more likely with reference to political polls: (1) that pollsters are seeking an honest read on the situation, or (2) that pollsters are trying to get to a predetermined conclusion?

I think it would be a mistake to assume that it’s always 1 or always 2.

It’s well-established that political campaigns use “push polls” to influence public opinion, and it’s well established that media outlets have political agendas.

At the same time, …

  • news organizations get some level of acclaim when their polls accurately reflect results, and
  • some races (we are told) are particularly difficult to predict with polling.

Taken all together, I’m leaning toward the idea that early polls are more likely to be an attempt to influence the election (e.g., push a preferred candidate), while later polls are more likely to be relatively honest.

When I say “preferred candidate,” I don’t necessarily mean “a candidate the pollster likes.” I mean a candidate the pollster would rather have in the race, for whatever reason.

What do you think?

Who was Jeffrey Epstein?

It’s an interesting story that raises a lot of questions.

From what I can tell, nobody’s quite sure how he made his money. That seems to imply that he got it illegally — e.g., by bribing people, or doing nefarious deeds — or that he was on some secret payroll. Eric Weinstein (who honestly strikes me as a bit of a nut) says he might have been an asset for an intelligence agency.

That makes some sense. It would tie together several different threads.

But there’s a lot that needs to be investigated.

It’s odd that his client list been suppressed for so long, and seemingly protected by very powerful people. Why?

There are some serious questions about the circumstances surrounding his death. Although I should note that the famous skeptic Michael Shermer dismisses a lot of those questions and believes Epstein committed suicide.

The Epstein story fits with the increasingly popular view that there’s a cabal of rich and powerful people who run things behind the scenes, live by their own set of rules, and protect one another.

It’s possible that’s all it is. Maybe Epstein is simply a convenient avatar to attach to that story.

I think there’s more to it, but I don’t know how much more.