75247

I honestly think it will be a lose lose situation for both sides.

Employers who require everyone to come back and work in the office 100% of the time are flat out going to lose people. Some of them will be the highest performers who always have options and will be hard to replace.

On the other hand, as others have mentioned, employees who have a hard line on 100% remote work might leave those jobs in haste. They then might find out that it will be harder to find 100% remote work than they thought. The high performers will be okay but the non-high performers might just end up in another job that is 100% in the office or hybrid and they might even take a pay cut. Never mind the period of adjusting to a new company and not knowing if they'll like the company or not.

I think it will be incredibly important for both sides to work together. Both companies that are set on 100% in person and employees that are set on 100% remote work will end up hurt IMO. The best route is probably some sort of hybrid schedule (2 days in office, 3 days home. 3 days in office, 2 days home. Work from home but available to come in for meetings and other work functions as needed).

I will say I think it's going to be interesting to see if employees call the Morgan Stanley CEO's bluff. I think as long as you are performing well Remote Work/Work From Home should be allowed. I also have no problem with the company adjusting pay to your new location. I just wonder if the CEO will honor what he said to or if it's just a threat to try to get people back to NYC.

quote:

---

Ohhh the poor middle aged white man…


We live such a horrible existance, we should all sky scream in unison so our voices are heard… I’m literally shaking right now from all the hate directed at us

---

Tell this to men who get to go through divorce courts and essentially lose everything. And those same middle aged white men are the ones who get screwed in particular.

There's a reason that mental health is so poor among middle aged white men and why so many, especially in poorer areas (but not limited to poor areas) like Appalachia, off themselves.

The point is our society would never use the ills of modern women for a show to poke fun of them, but yet we gladly do it for men.

Never mind that many of these shows have accurately predicted that men would become emasculated hollow souls who are basically b*tches to their wife.

quote:

---

he son is the half man due to age and height you moog. Lmao.

---

I understand that but honestly it's more Alan Harper who's truly the half man. I didn't watch the series much after Charlie Sheen left (I don't think anyone really did) but obviously Charlie was a real man and even the kid character as he grows up becomes more of a man than Alan. If I remember correctly the kid character even goes into the military at some point. I'm not sure if it wasn't just a creative play. People assume that the half man part references the kid but really it's far more appropriate for Alan. I know, thinking too much into it. :lol:

More of a general discussion topic so I figured the TV/Movie board wasn't the best place to post this. What TV Shows do you find best predict what has happened to men?

I bring this up because I am currently out of town and staying in a hotel and that's pretty much the only time I ever just flip channels. Some channel was showing one of the original Two and a Half men episodes.

While I remember the show being funny it also hit me how sad it really is. Look at the character of Alan Harper (the Jon Cryer character), he is absolutely the epitome of the emasculated modern man. He's what women say (sometimes actually think) they want when the reality is even though they hate Charlie Harper (Charlie Sheen of course) that's who they truly want. Someone who is truly a man.

Most people look at the half part of Two and a Half men and assume it's in reference to the child character. I'm not sure it wasn't actually meant to reference the Alan Harper character as he truly is half a man.

It also struck me that even though it's not terribly old, it's a show that would never get out of concept today. Mainly because of how it treated women. Sadly people would still ignore the real pain of men. In real life an Alan Harper type would be a prime candidate to off himself. Yet in the show we just laugh at him. Can you imagine if they had reversed the roles and it was a woman who was getting divorced, kicked out of her house and being used for laughs? The feminist groups would go absolutely nuts.

You could actually argue that a show like Two and a Half men is far more relevant today than it was when it originally ran.

Any other TV shows that looking back in hindsight really predicted what would happen to men?

quote:

---

You are making a nice case for open borders (when govt entitlements are ended). I feel bad for people born in authoritarian hellholes are have no choice but to remain there. Like Ron Paul would say, building walls might be to actually keep up trapped inside....

---

I've always been split on the issue. On the one hand I think we need to have strict immigration policies to keep out the bad actors. On the other hand hopefully a lot of these immigrants from Venezuela and Central America will hopefully vote against Communism and Authoritarianism as they've seen the results. And like you said you have to watch out for walls. You could argue walls are more effective at keeping people in than keeping people out.

I would like to see some sort of setup between the U.S., Canada, UK, Eastern Europe, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and potentially Western Europe (if they can get their act together on immigration) that would essentially allow open travel between those countries.

quote:

---

Then leave. Or move to an area of the country dominated by the culture you seek.

---

You do realize it's not always that simple right? My parents are in their 70s and my mom has started to have health problems. I wouldn't be able to move out of the country until after they are gone.

Besides that there's still the process. Take East Asian countries for example. I would love to eventually move to Japan or South Korea but those countries are traditionally very difficult to move to. At best I would maybe be able to get permanent residency status (and even that's difficult) but I would never be able to obtain full citizenship which means I would always have to remain a U.S. citizen and pay U.S. taxes every year. Never mind there are parts of both countries where a white guy like me would always be an outsider.

Plus Asian languages like Japanese and Korean are traditionally some of the hardest languages to learn. That's definitely a barrier that I wouldn't have going to many European countries but I don't have a huge desire to live in Europe (loved visiting but probably wouldn't want to live there).

Not attempting to make excuses. Just saying it's not as easy as you make it sound.

quote:

---

I did enjoy the music in the 80’s introduction of MTV etc.

---

Exactly. I listen to a lot of music from the 70s and 80s but yeah I didn't get to experience any of it live.

Besides music though being able to be an adult in the 80s and 90s when the economy was booming and you could still largely live a middle class lifestyle on one income. And live a good portion of my adult life pre-internet and pre-smart phones when life was simpler.

I was born in the early 80s so I grew up in the 90s. I would've loved to have turned 18 in the mid-70s. Late enough to avoid the Civil Rights movement and Vietnam but early enough to have truly enjoyed the amazing music in the 70s and 80s.

I would say Pennsylvania, with New Orleans being like Philadelphia. The rest of Pennsylvania hates Philly just like the rest of Louisiana hates NOLA. Trash politics and high crime in the city but also good food (Chessesteaks in Philly being similar to Po-boys in NOLA). Great local support for their respective football teams.

When I went to Philly in 2016 I definitely felt like it was a northern version of New Orleans.