American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Maybe I'm just getting bitter and jaded with age, but it seems like any societal shift that improves quality of life for the lower and middle classes at the expense of wealthy business owners is becoming more and more difficult to implement on a large scale. That's capitalism for you, I guess.

Less commute time means less profit for the auto and O&G sectors, probably fewer people going out after work for dinner a beer, etc etc. The people who makes the rules lose out, so it's not likely to happen, even if the facts demonstrate it would benefit everyone else.

There are many benefits to corporates also. Less people in the office means not spending on the office building. Less necessity to have your workers in major urban centers with high costs of living means offering lower salaries to match the lower costs of living where they reside. More blurring of the lines between work and non-work time may well mean work taking over more personal time. Adapting management to a distributed and remote workforce means being more capable of managing overseas workers and outsourcing.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by peter12

Phasing out fossil fuels can't just come with expectations that nothing will change in our lives as we deal with the encroaching global crisis of climate change. Yes, electric vehicles and renewables may have some marginal effect on helping us maintain our current way of life, but we will really have to fundamentally rethink how we live, build, and work in our cities.

We need to have serious conversations about densifying not only our urban cores, but our suburbs, and how to implement public, mass-transit solutions into each and every neighbourhood. The day of long drives alone to our giant house in the suburb are not sustainable as we move into an increasingly uncertain future.

Spot on. It’s the inconvenient truth of the environmental movement. O&G dominate our energy mix because they are the cheapest sources dense enough to sustain our standard of living (and improve that of developing nations). To succeed, our standard of living needs to change greatly and likely for the worse.

However global warming is real. And it is caused by carbon emissions. Solving the optimal balance between sustainability, standard of living, affordability, and the laws of thermodynamics is a tricky one.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by rubecube

COVID has demonstrated that people are perfectly capable working from home.

Capable maybe, but I hate this. I miss interacting in person with my colleagues. I hate not being around people. Our SLT have just decided that we won't be Phase 6 (fully open) until July 2021 at the earliest. I have not set foot in the office I work out of for my entire second tenure with the company as I returned back in April.

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Not a fan of working from home permanently. I like and need the social aspect of work.

It’s also a total disaster for new hires and trainees, makes forming bonds so much tougher, can heighten the “cliques” in the office and magnifies the need to be connected with your superiors outside of work to get promoted.

I’ve seen discussions many times about introverts being at a disadvantage. WFH will make that far worse. You can go days without interacting with another human.

Bingo. Existing employees are getting by relying on the 'relationship capital' built up with colleagues. This absolutely sucks for new hires.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Everything needs to change about sustainability, and I agree, cars are just one part of this. Cities particularly need to focus on making better use of existing and vertical space, providing non-personal vehicle transportation options, improving waste and recycling management, planning and allowing sustainable architecture and developments, and providing far better support for mental health and vulnerable people.

And this isn't just for better cities, it's for maintaining a more sustainable tax base and rate of taxes. Technology, densification, and liberal approaches to private sector market responses all play into this.

The current state of the world - on the precipice of AI and IoT technology, changing work and lifestyle cultures, and being at the mercy of a global pandemic - would suggest that we have a golden opportunity to do a "course correction" on conventional urban behavior. The challenge will be getting motivated people to lead the way, letting them lead, and getting a critical mass of buy-in from the general populous.

Maybe I'm a pragmatist, but I tend to think most reasonable people would see that things need to change.

Let's be honest. Electric cars are a minimally-impactful solution. Reducing concrete footprint will be immensely important in the years ahead.

Otherwise, completely agree with you. NIMBYism is probably the most obvious symptom of our incredibly sclerotic society. Unfortunately, the pandemic has retrenched regressive attitudes towards urban development.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Spot on. It’s the inconvenient truth of the environmental movement. O&G dominate our energy mix because they are the cheapest sources dense enough to sustain our standard of living (and improve that of developing nations). To succeed, our standard of living needs to change greatly and likely for the worse.

However global warming is real. And it is caused by carbon emissions. Solving the optimal balance between sustainability, standard of living, affordability, and the laws of thermodynamics is a tricky one.

I look at the Golden Age of Fossil Fuels (1910 to 1970ish?) as taking out a big bank loan to start a new business. You get things going, you get a bit comfortable, but you still have to pay back that loan.

We are currently at the stage when we are several decades in arrears to the bank, and the letters are starting to get more threatening.

It can be done! Even making land use slightly more efficient pays off huge dividends to the climate. Changing a neighbourhood from single family homes to duplexes reduces carbon emissions by over 17%.

I am also of the belief that certain activities will have to shift faster. Long distance transportation, heating and cooling might have to rely on fossil fuels for a little while. We should be taking steps to start curtailing unnecessary behaviour though through a carbon tax or similar measures.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by peter12

Let's be honest. Electric cars are a minimally-impactful solution. Reducing concrete footprint will be immensely important in the years ahead.

Otherwise, completely agree with you. NIMBYism is probably the most obvious symptom of our incredibly sclerotic society. Unfortunately, the pandemic has retrenched regressive attitudes towards urban development.

Couldn't agree more.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Stop I can only get so erect.

Edit: the real concern for me with WFH is when companies normalize salaries. Why pay me Denver rates when they can pay someone from Kentucky less to do the same job?

Isn't that already happening even if there are physical offices in both locations and people doing the same job?

[burn_this_city]

I've been back in the office for 6 weeks now, I miss WFH. Commuting downtown everyday instead of rolling out of bed exactly 2 mins before my 8am zoom meeting sucks.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

I can see dress codes being altered once people return to the office. After wearing pyjamas for a year no one‘s gonna wanna go back to wearing business clothes. Except Peter maybe.

[dino7c]

so about that US election

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Where are you seeing this? The recent 538 polls have McConnell up by 10.

hmm weird. I read an article on google news before bed last night. Now I can't find it again. Fake news i guess.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Azure

The argument is laughable at best right now, and I'm about as pro solar/wind/nuclear/EV/battery storage as anyone on here.

The same way Trump is the least racist person in the room.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I can see dress codes being altered once people return to the office. After wearing pyjamas for a year no one‘s gonna wanna go back to wearing business clothes. Except Peter maybe.

I just buy all my clothing from my pal's store now. Expensive but leisurely.

https://shopnorthamerican.com

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The post-debate polls that weren't online/Twitter polls seem to have Biden winning the debate by a margin pretty much in line with the current national average. The most boring election in history marches on.

Boring? I find this election fascinating.

[rubecube]

Holy crap, do you guys have that much trouble maintaining a social life and making friends outside the office?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Would the vast majority of people want fossil fuels phased out if it means every aspect of their life would cost more?

Transportation, heating, food, etc?

Probably not.

California is a great example of a state with perhaps good intentions, but poor management. Blaming their entire situation on climate change and ICE vehicles just shows your usual lack of understanding as to what is going on.

People who are concerned about the future of the environment want oil and plastic reduced and/or phased out because they believe and in some cases can see there are negative consequences to continued use. They have not internalized the potential cost of doing that, nor has the other side internalized the cost of not doing that.

You’re also basing the equation on today’s situation not an evolving future. EVs are more expensive now, but have significantly lower maintenance costs. If the purchase price continues to drop then it can be a net savings. Renewables are already reaching or in some case exceeding parity with fossil fuels in terms of cost, so that’s a potential win. Yes the distribution and availability model of solar and wind prevents replacing a major part of fossil fuels today and there are switching costs, but with time and investment in improvements and other renewable technologies these will become small issues.

The cost of the transformation will be high, but it’s already happening, driven by economics. Also, all this cost equates to new industries, technologies and jobs being created to the benefit of society, just like every technology wave before.

Will fossil fuels be phased out in 30 years - almost certainly not, if ever, but they will be used at a significantly reduced level, and in increasingly optimized ways, for scenarios that make sense. Just like phasing out horses and buggies didn’t eliminate either horses or buggies. Phase out in x years is an aspirational goal to get society moving in the right direction not a forced march to economic suicide. At least I hope so

Edit: changed typo to not

[GirlySports]

We are not "working from home" right now, we are "at home working". Meaning we are just trying to get by replicating the office environment at home. People who have been working at home for years and years aren't working like we are right now. They have a totally different working environment.

For example, working hours. For the last 6 months at home working, is your workplace still forcing your to keep core business hours? Meaning you MUST be online during your old office hours? If so that's at home working. People who work from home, have their own hours and working agreements.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The same way Trump is the least racist person in the room.

Not really - you only need to look at Azure’s work in the Electric Car thread to see he’s ‘bout that tech.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Holy crap, do you guys have that much trouble maintaining a social life and making friends outside the office?

Well, I can see why your coworkers may not care if they ever see you again.

For the rest of us, we actually like the people we work with. Especially since I spend 40+ hours a week with them and only a few hours per week with friends.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

We are not "working from home" right now, we are "at home working". Meaning we are just trying to get by replicating the office environment at home. People who have been working at home for years and years aren't working like we are right now. They have a totally different working environment.

For example, working hours. For the last 6 months at home working, is your workplace still forcing your to keep core business hours? Meaning you MUST be online during your old office hours? If so that's at home working. People who work from home, have their own hours and working agreements.

But it's not black and white. I think what you might be getting at is that employees are expected to follow office rules from home. Independent contractors/freelancers/business owners more frequently follow a schedule that allows them to maintain a client base.