Workplace Stress Is Literally Killing People; Mass Lawsuits Are Imminent

[CarbAppreciator]

Revolution absent energy consumption growth and productivity growth just results in slave labor GULAGs. There's no political solution at all. The social and political problems are to do with energy, same as with an organism. Britain ran out of anthracite coal in the late 20s, with predictable consequences. America peaked out on cheap, abundant low sulfur oil in 1969. The Soviet Union did a little later. America was shrewder about orchestrating global shenanigans to keep the energy flowing homeward.

I fear our American future almost inevitably looks like 90s Russia. Nobody has done anything serious about the energy problem. We are out of coal and oil. The time to establish space based solar and thorium reactors was ten years ago.

I agree with your assessment that energy prices are critical to economic growth, but I do not at all agree that the US is running out of oil, or energy in general. In fact the US is soon poised to officially become the worlds leading energy producer, and that's before the ANWR fields have begun to be drilled, not to mention other reserves that are currently cordoned off. Also, it seems we are on the cusp of moving towards more sustainable energy solutions any way.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Absent major new energy technologies the sustainable population of this planet is way less than 6 billion and there is no sane policy prescription other than population control. A sustainable population of the USA absent new energy sources is probably under 150 million. Current projections under debate in the context of our insane immigration policy have the USA breaking 500 million people some time in the 2060s, which is simply not going to happen, one way or the other. Mean reversion is not a pleasant process; it is attended to by the four horsemen, and also apparently by a fifth who wields booze and heroin and fentanyl.

US collapse is unlikely to look like USSR collapse. Americans can't feed themselves, have no community, food stores and the economy is far more complex. Deagel forecast on the US population and economy seems a lot more accurate:

United States of America

 

[Spokey]

Agreed, but the ones you mentioned are really hard to deal with. AC is a given in most companies and employees will probably freak out if it is gone. The lightning type is set by law and incandescent bulb are being phased out. I think there is even a ban on business in some states using incandescent in offices. Fire hazard and electricity drain, they say. And the EMF - wifi is mandatory in most companies nowadays, so not likely to get turned off. Maybe monitor screens that block blue light would be feasible but that's about it. So, yes, the impactful changes we need are probably not many and mostly known but they are not easy to implement.

The EMF exposure at my last job (which I quit on account of stress) was very heavy I think. I felt noticeably unwell in the office and I'm not sure what to attribute that to but I always wondered about the wifi.

 

[Mossy]

I know people that could quit their jobs and do the same work on their own, but just don't. I always had the impression that these are weighted decisions.

If you fail inside a company, at least you'll have people directing you on what to do, supporting you, or even challenging you to become more capable. If you fail on your own, there's no one else to blame; the feeling of complete lack of utility to the world is more terrifying than the stress of a workplace because on the worst cases it's always possible to degrade to less demanding positions.

Related to work, for every people that I've met which were in dishonest jobs and positions, all of them had this in common:
"The criminal, often is not equal to his act; he diminishes and debases it." - Friedzord

This post is very relevant for me. I worked for myself, but the weight of failure is just as you say--all on you. So, I applied at a good company and was hired--it had the support and challenge of others, and was a great balance. I thrived at that position and produced my best work--but, as with all things good in the life, it ended by corporate takeover . A huge company bought our company and all went to hell. The corporate world is insane, where 1+2=4, "No" is not an option, truth is relative (to profit), and reason is for the weak. Ultimately, that stress almost did kill me--still working on serious health issues today.

So, I'm back to position 1, working for myself again; though, the weight of failure and the lack of peer-to-peer challenge are there. Ultimately, the goal will be to get back to a good company, with support and challenge, or to establish one of my own, because..."no man is an island" - John Donne, and "it's not good that man is alone" - God.

 

[Amazoniac]

This post is very relevant for me. I worked for myself, but the weight of failure is just as you say--all on you. So, I applied at a good company and was hired--it had the support and challenge of others, and was a great balance. I thrived at that position and produced my best work--but, as with all things good in the life, it ended by corporate takeover . A huge company bought our company and all went to hell. The corporate world is insane, where 1+2=4, "No" is not an option, truth is relative (to profit), and reason is for the weak. Ultimately, that stress almost did kill me--still working on serious health issues today.

So, I'm back to position 1, working for myself again; though, the weight of failure and the lack of peer-to-peer challenge are there. Ultimately, the goal will be to get back to a good company, with support and challenge, or to establish one of my own, because..."no man is an island" - John Donne, and "it's not good that man is alone" - God.

Thank you for sharing. It's difficult to afford working on your own without the belief that the work is meaningful. It's only when people start to rely on you that the usual feeling of utility that you get on a company reappears.

 

[Mossy]

Thank you for sharing. It's difficult to afford working on your own without the belief that the work is meaningful. It's only when people start to rely on you that the usual feeling of utility that you get on a company reappears.

No problem. Well said--that indeed is the main satisfaction of work, the meaningfulness of it. As you say, that meaningfulness usually needs "the company" to be it's fullest.

 

[mr_mercer]

the US is soon poised to officially become the worlds leading energy producer

The USA is now producing very large volumes of tight oil but people do not understand the EROI dynamics of this. In actual fact, North American shale and tar sands plays are yielding very little net energy. Perhaps 3:1, whereas older conventional fields yielded more like 40:1. This 40:1 figure is closer to what is necessary to support a lifestyle anything like what Americans are used to. Furthermore, the shale plays are financial basket cases that will mostly shut down catastrophically in the next recession. They are all losing money hand over fist and are funding operations by geometrically growing piles of junk debt. All the Western oil majors (Exxon, BP, etc.) are poised for disaster. They haven't found any more oil and their costs are massively escalating.

Mexico is poised to become a net oil importer within three years, which will probably mean political revolution, as Pemex revenue is essentially what is holding the place together. The "color revolutions" throughout the mid-east closely coincided with oil depletion. Egypt became a net oil importer, food became unaffordable to a large enough fraction of the population, and then there was revolution.

 

[mr_mercer]

I am asking is that mr_mercer mentioned some very specific numbers for US so I am assuming this has been studied and something published that ties the 150mil number to things like natural resources and possibly energy production.

"Scientific" arrival at such a number is simply impossible. Sure, you could probably have two billion people in the USA living a standard of living comparable to Bangladeshis. At least for some matter of decades before ecological collapse ensued.

It is, however, very telling that the native born American population growth rate fell to replacement right around 1970. By some reasonable accounts this is right about when the real economy stopped growing on a per capita basis. There were 180mm Americans at the time.

A *truly* sustainable population, if we are to define sustainable as something that can last indefinitely, is almost certainly far lower than even the 150mm figure I tossed out. The pre-Columbian population is not a crazy guess. Our way of life is utterly dependent on non-renewable resources including phosphates, nitrogen made from natgas, and massive quantities of hydrocarbons for energy. Our mechanized agriculture inevitably runs down the topsoil and we are facing serious topsoil depletion problems within this century.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1441993975

 

[mr_mercer]

Spacex is a great example of how computer tech has come into "adulthood" and starting to really accelerate progress in the world of atoms.

SpaceX is essentially a taxpayer funded scam, same as the rest of Musk's ventures. Their launch costs are not competitive with Chinese and Indian launchers and have no clear potential to ever be. The big question in my mind is whether Musk eventually winds up in jail or not. Every venture he's involved in is a big mess of accounting problems and tax subsidies that will eventually blow up.

 

[Seleniodine]

Multiple themes on this thread, but regarding stress and environment; @Spokey and @Mossy , I am shocked when my work occasionally takes me into the depths of corporate office environments.
The consideration of EMF and RF risks would be laughed at by the average person but I think it is prudent in today's world to buy and learn how to use a RF meter so that you can know what kind of levels are floating around you in any given situation.
When combined with the stress of corporate culture that seems borderline insane (when seen from the outside) then the best hope is for one's internal survival mechanism to kick in and come up with a plan to get out!

The EMF exposure at my last job (which I quit on account of stress) was very heavy I think. I felt noticeably unwell in the office and I'm not sure what to attribute that to but I always wondered about the wifi.

The corporate world is insane, where 1+2=4, "No" is not an option, truth is relative (to profit), and reason is for the weak. Ultimately, that stress almost did kill me--still working on serious health issues today.

 

[sladerunner69]

Absent major new energy technologies the sustainable population of this planet is way less than 6 billion and there is no sane policy prescription other than population control. A sustainable population of the USA absent new energy sources is probably under 150 million. Current projections under debate in the context of our insane immigration policy have the USA breaking 500 million people some time in the 2060s, which is simply not going to happen, one way or the other. Mean reversion is not a pleasant process; it is attended to by the four horsemen, and also apparently by a fifth who wields booze and heroin and fentanyl.

Where have you surmised these number from?

I think the people here may not be aware of some of the advancements in energy technologies made since the turn of the millennium. To say that no strides in tech have been made since the 60's... even the every bit of technology and machinery is far more efficient than it was 20 years ago, and orders more efficient than 50 years ago. Any lowly working class "labor slave" can afford a Honda civic with a 4 cylinder engine that not only runs much cleaner, but is faster and handles better than a V8 corvette from the 60's. Any person with a smart phone also has much more computing power than the world's top leading scientists did in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, and even early 90's!...

Technological progress has never been about sudden great leaps forward, that is an impression created by human perception of stories and myths. Progress is slow, gradual, constant, and nearly undetectable. The improvements are in the details, the nuances, the fine tuning and adjustments. I mean we now have created automated cars, which will cut traffic fatalities down to insignificant levels within a few decades. Even a relatively underpaid working man has broad access to tech that past generations would have drooled over, from their television sets to solar panels.

The scarcity of energy has always been an issue and probably always will be, this is nothing new. In fact the scarcity of oil has actually remained relatively constant over the past 150 years, and adjusted for inflation has always been around 2.50$ p/gallon. Being concerned about the tapping out of low sulfur oil is strange, and seems to me to be nonsense. The US never made a significant portion of GDP or revenue on it. The US does not boast a geography rich in accessible oil reserves, and has always recognized that which is why the foreign policy advisors have always had a job of positioning itself, through force if necessary, in areas that do have plenty of oil such as Alaska and the Middle East. Further, your claim about domestic coal being used up is just plain false. The US has always been very abundant in coal, which has never gone scarce. The use of coal has subsided because of concerns over pollution and the development of natural gas which doesn't have the adverse affect on air quality. Where you around in the 1970's? Everyone in Los Angeles remembers when the city ran on oil and coal, there were many days when one wouldn't step outside into the grey/brown air unless it were an absolute necessity.

Drawing parallels between your perceived decline of US economic autonomy and the USSR collapse is also, I'm afraid, just nonsense. The US economy is much larger, so much more diversified, so interconnected and fundamental to the world, the two economies can barely even stand for comparison. The USSR never made significant GDP, and only participated two the binary world order of the cold war through spending nearly 50% of their revenue on military-imperialistic endeavors, where the US has never spent more than 5% of its revenue on defense. Looking back, Russia was never much of a hegemon, but a rogue state with significant power due to their large geography. Oil and precious metals form most of their GDP, and when their market share began to be pushed out in the 1970's by various competitors around the globe, thus began their inevitable decline. Entirely different situation to the US.

 

[Fractality]

Demographics and the coming deflation of the "everything bubble" will vastly change how the world looks. We have relied on cheap and easy credit for years. When that goes, look out! Get used to living simply. This should be the goal regardless of how "good" the economy is.

 

[Mossy]

The hi-tech corporate (ie G00gle) fix for these workplace issues seems to be to provide all the extra things you could need; restaurants, gyms, game rooms, nap rooms, barbers etc etc so that way you never have to leave work at all! Problem solved!

Indeed. It's the tech version of mining companies, power plants, and whatever else fit the category of having the employee housing/life next to the factory/plant. Granted, this tech version does have significant improvements, in the way of amenities, and your salary will get you much more than the 20" x 20" box house, but at the heart, it's the same wrong--it's an attempt to compensate for the soullessness of it.

 

[Cydanic]

What would be some examples of "Peaty" jobs that still have a good pay scale?

 

[haidut]

Mexico is poised to become a net oil importer within three years, which will probably mean political revolution, as Pemex revenue is essentially what is holding the place together. The "color revolutions" throughout the mid-east closely coincided with oil depletion. Egypt became a net oil importer, food became unaffordable to a large enough fraction of the population, and then there was revolution.

SpaceX is essentially a taxpayer funded scam, same as the rest of Musk's ventures. Their launch costs are not competitive with Chinese and Indian launchers and have no clear potential to ever be. The big question in my mind is whether Musk eventually winds up in jail or not. Every venture he's involved in is a big mess of accounting problems and tax subsidies that will eventually blow up.

Both of these are very valid points. I think not many people realize (or are purposefully led astray from that conclusion by MSM) that the Middle East revolutions were all driven by poverty and not some sudden drive for freedom and human rights. The fact that the toppled regimes were all replaced by even worse ones should be a good enough evidence that something more basic/fundamental was at play. The US government was quick to claim credit for those revolutions but the people who lived there that I talked to all said the situation is dire and driven by hunger.
The point on Musk's ventures is also a very valid one. It seems that his ventures dwarf even the infamous Solyndra in terms of sucking taxpayer money like a black hole.
Can we wean Elon Musk off government support already?
"...Musk is, to be sure, an ideas man. Private, commercial space travel? Check. Washington to New York in less than half an hour in what he calls a “hyperloop” train that will travel at 800 miles per hour? Check. A new kind of tunneling engineering? Check. Solar energy? Check. Electric cars? Check, check. As wide-ranging as these various entrepreneurial ventures may be, they all have one thing in common – not a single one of them would get funding in a competitive private capital market if it weren’t for massive (and I do mean massive) taxpayer-funded government subsidies. A study published two years ago by The Los Angeles Times revealed that just three of Musk’s ventures – SolarCity Corp. (which manufactured and installed solar energy systems before its 2016 merger with Tesla Motors Inc.), Tesla Motors Inc. (which manufactures electric vehicles), and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX (which builds rocket ships) – had received $4.9 billion in government subsidies to that point in time. By now, Musk’s various ventures have sucked well over $5 billion from government coffers. But granting literally billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to Musk’s firms isn’t the worst of it. No, that honorific is reserved for this little gem: In order to induce car buyers to spend their money on electric vehicles, the federal government offers a $7,500 rebate on the purchase price. Some states enhance that rebate with rebates of their own. In California, for instance, purchasers of electric vehicles get a state-funded rebate of $2,500 more. There’s a phrase for that – it’s called “crony capitalism.” And it stinks."

Speaking of government-funded scams and energy - you mentioned that the time to install solar panels in space on a mass scale was 10 years ago. What makes you think that this government-funded project would not have gone down just like the infamous Solyndra?
Solyndra - Wikipedia
What advantage does the placement in space of these reactors would provide? Beaming that energy back to Earth is probably still not feasible on a mass enough scale to support a nation.

Couple of things that may change the assessment a bit. First, there is always the option of going back to nuclear energy if the situation becomes dire enough. I doubt the concerns about environment or radiation poisoning will bother anybody if hunger starts looming closer.
Second, the US government can (and has repeatedly done so in the past) wage wars abroad to continue the energy flow to US for a long time to come. You already alluded to that in your previous posts, but the wars since 2000 in Iraq, Syria, and the meddling in Venezuela shows that it can be done selectively on oil-rich countries with little political repercussion even if it is blatantly obvious that it is being done for energy source control reasons. Aside from (maybe) Russia, pretty much any other energy source rich country on this planet (including Canada) can easily be declared an "enemy" and appropriated. So, it seems the US government has quite a bit of (military) leverage to keep the standard of living here higher than in most other nations.
Finally, you said that the current immigration policy is insane. Then why is it being pushed? Nobody is that crazy at the national level. So, the other option is it is being promoted on purpose, but to whose benefit?

 

[Mufasa]

@haidut I feel like the main problem of current workspaces is that they are designed as being an "open office".

The Open Office is Naked from Theo Compernolle talks about this in great detail with a lot of scientific references.
But tldr, the following three factors give a chronic increase of stress hormones:

• the constant noise of people talking next to you (or worse, having a phone call) while you are trying to focus
• the lack of privacy and boundaries
• the lack of places to take a good break and relax

Personally, I work in an open office.
Which kind of sucks, but I try to make the best of it, until I one day have my own company.

I use is noise cancelling headphones with white noise and I take a lot of breaks now.
At least 5 minutes per hour.
This helps me personally a lot.

For me a good break is one without any stimuli, and with a lot of privacy.
Taking a walk outside, or doing meditation at the toilet are often the only options I have.
But it is better than nothing I guess.

 

[dfspcc20]

Related to @mr_mercer 's remark ("The social and political problems are to do with energy, same as with an organism."). I think we need to look at it not only in terms of the amount of energy available, but also with how well structured and efficient the energy use is. In other words, the coherent use of energy by the organism (be it an animal or a society). Say if fossil fuels (and nuclear and renewables) are like glucose, what would be the societal/collective equivalent of thyroid hormone or progesterone?

I think much of the energy used today is used chaotically, for lack of better term. An absurd example would be people driving their SUVs to the gym just to walk on a treadmill. Another example is the delocalized, centralized, industrialized agriculture system. At a societal level, it seems that we've been using more and more energy per capita since the start of the industrial revolution, but I think we've plateaued in the in terms of its improvement in terms of health, happiness, sense of wholeness and well-being, etc.

We can likely get by with using a fraction of the energy we're using today without any quality of life if the energy was used more coherently. In my opinion anyway- I'm not sure if there even exists any research to confirm or deny that.

Couple of things that may change the assessment a bit. First, there is always the option of going back to nuclear energy if the situation becomes dire enough. I doubt the concerns about environment or radiation poisoning will bother anybody if hunger starts looming closer.
Second, the US government can (and has repeatedly done so in the past) wage wars abroad to continue the energy flow to US for a long time to come. You already alluded to that in your previous posts, but the wars since 2000 in Iraq, Syria, and the meddling in Venezuela shows that it can be done selectively on oil-rich countries with little political repercussion even if it is blatantly obvious that it is being done for energy source control reasons. Aside from (maybe) Russia, pretty much any other energy source rich country on this planet (including Canada) can easily be declared an "enemy" and appropriated. So, it seems the US government has quite a bit of (military) leverage to keep the standard of living here higher than in most other nations.
Finally, you said that the current immigration policy is insane. Then why is it being pushed? Nobody is that crazy at the national level. So, the other option is it is being promoted on purpose, but to whose benefit?

 

[dfspcc20]

I am also in an open office. I agree there are pros and cons. Additional pros are: more natural light, and being able to see more familiar faces on a regular basis (I remember seeing research on this being beneficial, at least to babies and children, but can't find it now). Additional con (or maybe it's a pro) is less privacy to waste time on internet forums :)

I'm lucky enough that my building has a decent outdoor walking path that I use for my breaks every day.

I feel like the main problem of current workspaces is that they are designed as being an "open office".

The Open Office is Naked from Theo Compernolle talks about this in great detail with a lot of scientific references.
But tldr, the following three factors give a chronic increase of stress hormones:

• the constant noise of people talking next to you (or worse, having a phone call) while you are trying to focus
• the lack of privacy and boundaries
• the lack of places to take a good break and relax

Personally, I work in an open office.
Which kind of sucks, but I try to make the best of it, until I one day have my own company.

I use is noise cancelling headphones with white noise and I take a lot of breaks now.
At least 5 minutes per hour.
This helps me personally a lot.

For me a good break is one without any stimuli, and with a lot of privacy.
Taking a walk outside, or doing meditation at the toilet are often the only options I have.
But it is better than nothing I guess.

 

[haidut]

@haidut I feel like the main problem of current workspaces is that they are designed as being an "open office".

The Open Office is Naked from Theo Compernolle talks about this in great detail with a lot of scientific references.
But tldr, the following three factors give a chronic increase of stress hormones:

• the constant noise of people talking next to you (or worse, having a phone call) while you are trying to focus
• the lack of privacy and boundaries
• the lack of places to take a good break and relax

Personally, I work in an open office.
Which kind of sucks, but I try to make the best of it, until I one day have my own company.

I use is noise cancelling headphones with white noise and I take a lot of breaks now.
At least 5 minutes per hour.
This helps me personally a lot.

For me a good break is one without any stimuli, and with a lot of privacy.
Taking a walk outside, or doing meditation at the toilet are often the only options I have.
But it is better than nothing I guess.

Those are good points. Why do you think the modern office was designed as an open office (akin to a home for a herd)? Was it on purpose or simply bad design?

 

[Steve]

Those are good points. Why do you think the modern office was designed as an open office (akin to a home for a herd)? Was it on purpose or simply bad design?

I work in an open office environment too. I absolutely hate it as I'm an introvert. I get totally stressed out having eyes on me at all times of the day. I'm totally worn out when the day is over. Sometimes I want to take a break & read an internet site for a few minutes or just do something personal, but there are always eyes on me, zero privacy. I think open office craziness came about to keep people off of the internet.
(I realize it's up to me to get myself out of this situation, so I'm working on that).