Imagine that a firm required its employees to be constantly monitored by the new rapidly-improving techs for reading face/body/voice tones. Employees must also wear body sensors to measure their heart rate, skin sweat, etc., to further read their mood and emotions. This firm argues that this will let them better measure who is working how hard, who is really engaged in their work, etc. Are you outraged? Will laws be passed to stop this?
Status quo sexual roles.But now women and men both strive for looks and fame, at least much more.I will not throw my points on how cooperation is preferable to competition, but our instincts need to be reinvented and stimulated, obviously, they can't be censored, they exist.Some say they can't be reinvented, true about the quality and nature of instincual stimulus, but the cause for these stimuli and our interpretation really adapt to the context, so no fixed and monolitic natural selection.
The additional usefulness of a car in committing crimes over walking is a set fixed amount. You are arguing that 'liberty < crime + car benefit', while - apparently - accepting that 'liberty > crime + walking'.
How, exactly, is the additional usefulness of a car *exactly* the right amount to push totalitarianism over in the 'good idea' slot? Isn't this a remarkable amount? Would you have predicted this before cars came into existence? If cars could go 120mph (as in, say, Germany), what additional restrictions would this justify? Why do we not have these restrictions for bicycles or horses or segways or other forms of transportation that are faster than walking? (Or is your totalitarian calculation so fine-balanced that one has to go all the way up to a car before the balance finally tips?)
To summarize: why should anyone believe you are doing anything but post hoc rationalizing of a status quo, exactly as Vladimir predicted was the case?
For all that commuting ranks among the least enjoyable things that people do, working with actual humans is way better than working alone at home. Many people get the vast majority of all social contact in their lives from working with others.
Once the norm of having to come into work goes away, the norm that it has to be done by a local goes away. If it can be done from your computer 15 miles from the office, it can be done from China. Even if it's a job that requires being an American, it can be done (for much less) by an American in a low cost part of the country rather than by you in Manhattan or any nice place you really want to live.
Having the option to work from home one or two days a week would add nice flexibility. Having businesses realize that the vast majority of office work really can be done from anywhere would be a nightmare for a lot of workers.
That depends on the individual, as well as on the setup at the office and at home. (Bear in mind that you are much more likely to be able to improve the latter than the former.) I find working at home markedly more productive.
Wally: Is it okay if I work from home one day a week?Pointy-Haired Boss: How would I know you were working?Wally: How do you know I'm working when I'm here?Pointy-Haired Boss: When you're here I know you're unhappy and that's the same as work.
There are probably other good reasons for face-to-face interaction aside from employers being able to monitor employees. Could allow for better team cohesion, more motivated workers, etc.
I agree that the sole function is not monitoring ... It is more like agglomeration. There are benefits from e.g. a bunch of defense contractors being near each other and the Pentagon that have nothing to do with monitoring. In fact, no one from Northop Grumman actually can monitor employees from Lockheed Martin, yet there is a benefit.
"It has nothing to do with status quo bias and everything to do with the fact that such monitoring would reveal things about you that not only are irrelevant for your employer but are deeply personal."
I argue that face-to-face interaction does that as well. Some people are better at hiding their responses in face-to-face interaction, but many people are forced to reveal irrelevant personal details by being forced into face-to-face interaction.
I think that you're begging the question here. The point, to me, is not whether the sort of electronic measurement is a good thing, but why we treat the electronic measurement so differently from face to face interaction that accomplishes most of the same things (but far more expensively.)
Who are you to tell other people that face-to-face monitoring isn't personal?
The problem is that some people are much better at those sorts of "natural defenses" than others. Now in some jobs, those natural defenses are related to useful work skills. But in others they aren't.
Honestly, this could be an improvement. If I've been demonstrably working hard for some time and my productivity is falling off, I can show that I need a break and take it without worrying what I'm signalling. If I need to socially demonstrate hard work, I need to stay hunched over my computer even when I'm not being very effective. In the right social and organizational framework, that's a deal I'd happily take; in the wrong one, it gets ugly fast, however...
So, you'd say driving doesn't require any particular skill or carry any dangers beyond being a faster, wider form of walking? No, let me rephrase that:
Someone who's trying to murder you is one hundred feet away, approaching at top speed, and you've just noticed them. You are currently in the open, but given another three seconds you can duck out of the way behind a concrete barrier; a few minutes after that, police will arrive and at the very least force your assailant to flee. How would you rate the killer's chances of success (you being dead, critically wounded, or them at least escaping to take another shot at some later date) given that they're armed with:
a) a pistol?b) a rifle?c) a knife?d) a pickup truck?
Bearing in mind of course that a vehicle traveling 60 mph can close that distance in a bit over one second.
Above all, telecommuting does not necessarily reduce travel! People's travel time budget has remained constant for a long time. It is most likely that people use the extra time they saved from telecommuting for other trips, including non-work trips.
Even if you had a tech defense against tech monitoring, your working contract would probably forbid you from using it at work. And if it would be invisible, employees would be randomly tested.
The advantage of the natural defense is precisely that you have no option to remove it.
Status quo sexual roles.But now women and men both strive for looks and fame, at least much more.I will not throw my points on how cooperation is preferable to competition, but our instincts need to be reinvented and stimulated, obviously, they can't be censored, they exist.Some say they can't be reinvented, true about the quality and nature of instincual stimulus, but the cause for these stimuli and our interpretation really adapt to the context, so no fixed and monolitic natural selection.
With this I don't agree
The additional usefulness of a car in committing crimes over walking is a set fixed amount. You are arguing that 'liberty < crime + car benefit', while - apparently - accepting that 'liberty > crime + walking'.
How, exactly, is the additional usefulness of a car *exactly* the right amount to push totalitarianism over in the 'good idea' slot? Isn't this a remarkable amount? Would you have predicted this before cars came into existence? If cars could go 120mph (as in, say, Germany), what additional restrictions would this justify? Why do we not have these restrictions for bicycles or horses or segways or other forms of transportation that are faster than walking? (Or is your totalitarian calculation so fine-balanced that one has to go all the way up to a car before the balance finally tips?)
To summarize: why should anyone believe you are doing anything but post hoc rationalizing of a status quo, exactly as Vladimir predicted was the case?
Two points that seem to have gone mentioned:
For all that commuting ranks among the least enjoyable things that people do, working with actual humans is way better than working alone at home. Many people get the vast majority of all social contact in their lives from working with others.
Once the norm of having to come into work goes away, the norm that it has to be done by a local goes away. If it can be done from your computer 15 miles from the office, it can be done from China. Even if it's a job that requires being an American, it can be done (for much less) by an American in a low cost part of the country rather than by you in Manhattan or any nice place you really want to live.
Having the option to work from home one or two days a week would add nice flexibility. Having businesses realize that the vast majority of office work really can be done from anywhere would be a nightmare for a lot of workers.
That depends on the individual, as well as on the setup at the office and at home. (Bear in mind that you are much more likely to be able to improve the latter than the former.) I find working at home markedly more productive.
http://dilbert.com/strips/c...
Wally: Is it okay if I work from home one day a week?Pointy-Haired Boss: How would I know you were working?Wally: How do you know I'm working when I'm here?Pointy-Haired Boss: When you're here I know you're unhappy and that's the same as work.
There are probably other good reasons for face-to-face interaction aside from employers being able to monitor employees. Could allow for better team cohesion, more motivated workers, etc.
I agree that the sole function is not monitoring ... It is more like agglomeration. There are benefits from e.g. a bunch of defense contractors being near each other and the Pentagon that have nothing to do with monitoring. In fact, no one from Northop Grumman actually can monitor employees from Lockheed Martin, yet there is a benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"It has nothing to do with status quo bias and everything to do with the fact that such monitoring would reveal things about you that not only are irrelevant for your employer but are deeply personal."
I argue that face-to-face interaction does that as well. Some people are better at hiding their responses in face-to-face interaction, but many people are forced to reveal irrelevant personal details by being forced into face-to-face interaction.
I think that you're begging the question here. The point, to me, is not whether the sort of electronic measurement is a good thing, but why we treat the electronic measurement so differently from face to face interaction that accomplishes most of the same things (but far more expensively.)
Who are you to tell other people that face-to-face monitoring isn't personal?
The problem is that some people are much better at those sorts of "natural defenses" than others. Now in some jobs, those natural defenses are related to useful work skills. But in others they aren't.
In the sample, income correlates positively with commuting time, and also the study re-surveys individuals over time as their commuting times change.
Honestly, this could be an improvement. If I've been demonstrably working hard for some time and my productivity is falling off, I can show that I need a break and take it without worrying what I'm signalling. If I need to socially demonstrate hard work, I need to stay hunched over my computer even when I'm not being very effective. In the right social and organizational framework, that's a deal I'd happily take; in the wrong one, it gets ugly fast, however...
So, you'd say driving doesn't require any particular skill or carry any dangers beyond being a faster, wider form of walking? No, let me rephrase that:
Someone who's trying to murder you is one hundred feet away, approaching at top speed, and you've just noticed them. You are currently in the open, but given another three seconds you can duck out of the way behind a concrete barrier; a few minutes after that, police will arrive and at the very least force your assailant to flee. How would you rate the killer's chances of success (you being dead, critically wounded, or them at least escaping to take another shot at some later date) given that they're armed with:
a) a pistol?b) a rifle?c) a knife?d) a pickup truck?
Bearing in mind of course that a vehicle traveling 60 mph can close that distance in a bit over one second.
Unfortunately, for that very reason he likely never will.
Above all, telecommuting does not necessarily reduce travel! People's travel time budget has remained constant for a long time. It is most likely that people use the extra time they saved from telecommuting for other trips, including non-work trips.
For more details, please read my recent work on telecommuting at http://works.bepress.com/pe...
Indeed, we need better measures to monitor workers when they are working at home. But tone monitors and body sensors...hmm....
Even if you had a tech defense against tech monitoring, your working contract would probably forbid you from using it at work. And if it would be invisible, employees would be randomly tested.
The advantage of the natural defense is precisely that you have no option to remove it.