I thought the whole point of this article was that work-life balance doesn't exist because you should merge the two, not separate them into competing aspects. Thus, if you hate your job, it will always be a competition.
I thought the whole point of this article was that work-life balance doesn't exist because you should merge the two, not separate them into competing aspects. Thus, if you hate your job, it will always be a competition.
The best part about it is the first sentence:
"I'm a work-at-home-mom"
You're right. I love eating, not sleeping on the sidewalk and/or having to go to the bathroom in a bucket or on said sidewalk. Therefore I must love having a job.
I'm a single adult so I don't need "away from the kids time."
It is a myth that most people enjoy their jobs, which is something this article heavily relies on.
Work/Life balance myth #1: Most people enjoy their job.
Grown, but ironically the smaller man.
This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard. I guess "90/90/1 rule" sounds nice so it must work. Seriously? I'm supposed to work on my novel at work for 90 minutes? Derp-a-derp-a-doo!
Anyone who gives 40+ hours to an employer of any type deserves a living. If that means a Big Mac costs $10 then I guess Big Mac's aren't truly economically viable given labor costs.
The world needs more than accountants (me) and engineers. Get off your high horse and throw away that broad brush.
Calling me a tool is the first correct thing you've said. Thank you, sir.
You're right man. There is no reality I can present that defends me. You are a champion of internet commenting. Have a fantastic day.
Cool bro. You're right. Being waived by the Cavaliers (pretty much the worst team in the league at the time) after 20 games is the same as being the sixth man. I'll just let my words defend themselves at this point.
Dude. The five most talented basketball players in the world can have synergy that makes them greater than the sum of their parts. You really don't get it. Talent is irrelevant. Synergy is complementary - each person's talents (regardless of how great the absolute level of talent) are IMPROVED by their SYNERGY…
But if you replace Adam Clayton with Les Claypool (a far more talented bass player), U2's popularity and success will likely drop tremendously because of his style of music clashing with that of the other members.
Your comment also implies a misunderstanding of synergy. You and your friend have good chemistry. You do not have synergy on work projects.
I'm pretty sure he isn't saying "I have no clue how to play bass, but when we get on stage together, it just clicks!"
As a musician myself (albeit amateurish), I think U2 is a band that has become successful off it's synergy as a band far more so than any individual's talent. Bono is charismatic and can sing quite well, but Edge is not exactly a revolutionary guitarist and I can't even name their drummer without a Google search.
Les Claypool
"Taxes only go up"
While the tax benefits are absolutely true, what you're saying is nonsense. If "dude" makes 50k and contributes 5k to his 401(k), he has 45k of taxable income considering nothing else. If dude makes 50k and contributes $0 to his 401(k) his taxable income is 50k. If he donates that 5k to charity, guess what, his…