[HN Gopher] If You're So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 7...
___________________________________________________________________
If You're So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?
Author : absolute100
Score : 218 points
Date : 2021-09-08 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (hbr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (hbr.org)
| ruchin_k wrote:
| It's possible that the most self-made successful people see
| wealth / money as a means to pick what they want to spend 70
| hours doing rather than whether to spend 70 hours doing anything.
| If they want to spend 70 hours a week playing tennis so be it. Or
| if they want to work on a new idea they had, equally fair. It is
| likely that success ultimately only buys the freedom to choose
| where to spend your time.
|
| I know I've worked jobs and internships which required only
| couple of hours a day - and I was miserable. Working >70 hours a
| week on my own startup has felt more rewarding than any previous
| job :)
| CraftingLinks wrote:
| Here I am with my 24hr work week! Not an American of course,they
| can't afford that.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Looks like a small demographic of east-coast financial
| professionals was studied? Anyway that's the examples given. May
| have nothing to do with 'us'.
| whytaka wrote:
| Because I'm not nearly as good at any hobbies as much as I'm good
| at my job and being good at something is what gives me day-to-day
| satisfaction. Having a high wage but not enough stored wealth to
| feel invincible against an increasingly uncertain future, I'm
| spending more time feeling good about work than finding and
| investing in a hobby that'll make me truly happy.
| mcguire wrote:
| I used to think that. Several decades of having my good work
| dumped straight into the trash bin followed by years of
| incredibly trivial jobs kind of beat it out of me.
| Salgat wrote:
| This sounds like an unhealthy dependence on work to me. I enjoy
| my work but have far more fulfilling and enjoyable activities
| outside work. But hey, to each their own I suppose.
| whytaka wrote:
| Well, aren't you blessed.
| Salgat wrote:
| Not really. Work is just a way to enrich your employer. I
| don't really find that all that fulfilling unless I was in
| an exceptional position, such as upper management in an R&D
| company developing revolutionary technology. But no, I'm a
| guy who develops insurance software for a wage. It's not
| bad, but it's not hard to find far more fulfilling things
| on my own time.
| golergka wrote:
| > Work is just a way to enrich your employer.
|
| That's an awful way to look at life. Work already
| occupies your most productive working hours, why wouldn't
| you try to make it the most interesting and fulfilling
| activity in your life?
| Salgat wrote:
| I'm not saying what I'm doing is futile or pointless, I'm
| simply acknowledging the reality of how jobs work. I
| enrich the employer with the value I add in exchange for
| a wage. None of this should be romanticized or made into
| something it's not. It's just a job. What I do outside my
| job is far more rewarding and fulfilling because it's no
| longer primarily about making a wage to pay bills.
| saiojd wrote:
| I can't believe you are being downvoted on this website
| of all places. Meaningless jobs are crap, and shouldn't
| be celebrated at all. I'm sorry but deciding that all
| work is pointless, just because that's what your work is
| like, is plain and simple coping.
| asdff wrote:
| Not everyone has the privilege to land a job that is
| interesting or fulfilling. Some people just work until
| their back gives out.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Work already occupies your most productive working
| hours
|
| Unfortunately
|
| > why wouldn't you try to make it the most interesting
| and fulfilling activity in your life?
|
| I can't. I'd do it if I could, but everything the appears
| fulfilling seems to end up being a scam or not obtainable
| or not worth obtaining for the pittance it would pay.
| saiojd wrote:
| What kind of work you could consider meaningful, but
| can't obtain? (honest question)
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| work is the thing i have the least control over.
|
| the most interesting job gets grinded down by process, by
| toxic co-workers, bully bosses, unrealistic expecatations
| and pressures, dealing with shitty "customers" (be them
| internal employees or external to the company).
|
| my wife, my kid, hiking, camping, hitting the beach,
| listening to music, going to a concert, watching a movie,
| reading a book, gardening, yard/house projects, having my
| cat sit on my lap ..are all infinitely more rewarding
| than any piece of shit job could ever be.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| it's been my experience that there's no such thing as a job
| that doesn't suck the fun and joy out of any aligned interest
| and hobby.
|
| the bureaucratic bullshit, the HR bullshit, the "team
| building" exercises - i don't care if it's bowling or
| drinking alcohol, asshole managers, toxic co-workers, at-work
| politics in all it's wonderful forms.
|
| i say this for large companies that pay well but treat you
| more like a number, for the small places that expect
| everything from you but treat you like family (at times), the
| startups, the regional companies, the tech companies, the
| non-tech companies, the customer facing roles, the backend
| roles.
|
| it's all life sucking and life draining and there's no such
| thing, on a long enough time line (this is variable to
| people) that keeps it fulfilling. even changing it up all the
| time once oyu approach burn out.. .has it's breaking point
| where even that doesn't do shit for you.
|
| work is a thing you do so you can live when you're done.
|
| work sucks.
|
| best job i ever had was working a kitchen of a BBQ
| restaurant. 2nd best was building walls and door frames for
| new houses as a teen. everything else i've ever done, blows
| and I'm 40.
| asdff wrote:
| Having a mentality like this seems like it will crush you when
| you do finally retire. No one is good at a hobby from the get
| go, the point is to be bad and develop a talent over time.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Or just do it to do it. Doesn't need to be a progress thing.
| whytaka wrote:
| Everything I've gotten good at I made it my #1 focus. I will
| have no problems getting good at things once I retire.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| america seems to be very ahead economically -- many americans
| could retire in other parts of the world
| at_compile_time wrote:
| Many Americans do.
| justinator wrote:
| > Having a high wage but not enough stored wealth to feel
| invincible against an increasingly uncertain future
|
| Hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is no guarantee
| on what the future may bring, money can't fix everything, and
| true security is a lie. Live your life in the here and now,
| before you regret wasting it.
| kongin wrote:
| I have never had a time in my life where having less money
| would have produced a better outcome than having more.
| whytaka wrote:
| I appreciate the angle but I think it's oversimplified.
|
| I work almost just as much as I used to before but my life
| gets easier and better the more money I make. It's incredible
| to me the difference money makes. Compound interest is real
| and determining when it's enough is about determining the
| rate of growth in absolute terms relative to the cost of
| living you'd be happy with.
| mulderc wrote:
| ok
| notme77 wrote:
| That's because you're already above where money would
| constrain you. The vast majority of people are not. I
| suspect you know this.
| mulderc wrote:
| I assume the person posting that is already there by the
| sounds of it.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You have reached a solid threshold where your basic needs
| are met and you have various luxuries that make life
| comfortable. From here on out you'll have diminishing
| returns on the money/life improvement axis.
| whytaka wrote:
| I used to be rather poor so the difference is more
| pronounced. I've enjoyed a high salary for some time now
| but I'm still reeling from the change.
|
| Being Canadian, I have access to public health, but if I
| get sick with even minor things, it'll take up my whole
| day. Now, if I get sick, I'll just pay the ~$200 fee to
| see a private doctor for 15 minutes, get what I need and
| get out.
|
| Dental is not covered by public health, so there were at
| times I delayed treatment because I couldn't afford it.
|
| I used to live in Vancouver where people will tell you
| they have good public transport but it's a lie. It's
| really only if you live along the skytrain corridors
| because the busses are always late and it's always
| raining. So if you don't have a car, you're wet, cold,
| late, and miserable. Now I just pay for Uber. Better yet,
| I just live downtown and I can walk wherever.
|
| Going to the grocery store when I was poor was also
| difficult. Thinking about what I can afford means
| spending time comparing prices or even stores, and
| compromising on the meals I wanted to make. Now I just
| throw everything I want into the cart and I don't even
| look at the price tag.
|
| Being poor sucks and there are countless more examples.
| fredophile wrote:
| I also used to live in Vancouver and took transit all the
| time. I never needed to own a car while I lived there.
| Could the bus system have been better? Almost certainly,
| but it's still far better than other places I've lived
| since. How many similarly sized cities in North America
| can you name with better public transit?
| ballenf wrote:
| I read the comment to be working hard _is_ what brings
| satisfaction. Some people really enjoy hard work and aren 't
| doing it just as a means to afford leisure.
| Nbox9 wrote:
| I read the comment to say that a hobby might make him
| "truly happy" but because of the uncertainty of the future
| he's working hard and getting some level of satisfaction
| from that. He's maximizing for security not for happiness.
| imtringued wrote:
| When everyone is doing that you have a recession.
|
| http://www.pkarchive.org/theory/baby.html
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Exactly. If society were to fall apart, the number in your
| bank account will matter very little, if it even exists
| anymore...
| jimbokun wrote:
| If society doesn't fall apart, that number could mean an
| awful lot.
| Applejinx wrote:
| Indeed. Money is a bit of a lie in its own right.
|
| Me, I go for functionality. The catch there is, if I've
| acquired plenty of functionality for something I consider
| desirable but then I don't DO that thing, does it still
| exist?
| munk-a wrote:
| That is highly unlikely - thankfully there is a much more
| reasonable way to read how important it is to live for
| today. Nobody intends to be hit by a bus but some people
| are - make sure you're getting what you want out of life
| before you get hit by a bus.
| jltsiren wrote:
| Unlikely but not highly unlikely. If you expect to live
| for another 50 years, there is a nontrivial chance that
| you will face a crisis that happens once every 500 or
| 1000 years on the average. Dying prematurely is one kind
| of risk, outliving your society is another.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Definitely. Planning and saving for the future also has
| to be weighed against the risk of (you) not making it to
| that future.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| If money doesn't matter anymore then it's beans, bullets,
| and bandages.
| yupper32 wrote:
| There are a massive amount of things between "society
| collapsing" and "nothing bad ever happens" where the number
| in your bank account matters greatly.
|
| You have unexpected huge medical expenses. You are no
| longer able to work. You're fired and can't find a job.
| Tech salaries collapse. Your town in burned down/destroyed
| in a hurricane/etc.
|
| etc etc etc
| PeterisP wrote:
| If I look at various social collapses that people around me
| have seen in the last century and a half (and there have
| been many!), then it's clear that while the number in your
| bank account was not _always_ useful, it did often provide
| options to protect you from the worst of society falling
| apart. Other things being equal (of course, often they were
| not equal) having resources during collapse did matter -
| sure, it might turn out that some class of your resources
| became worthless overnight, but generally it wasn 't all
| resources at once; in collapses where land was confiscated
| by a invading nation, having some gold watches to trade for
| a way out on a ship were life-saving; in economic collapses
| where money and stock became near-worthless, having a spare
| farmhouse was a great benefit, etc.
|
| You do need to diversify to something more than a number at
| a single institution, but in general, I'd say that it's the
| other way around - when everything is fine in society, then
| life is okay even if you're a bit lacking, but when things
| become hard and not everyone is going to make it, _then_
| the have-nots will suffer even more due to lack of options
| caused by lack of resources. For a crude example, think
| about the difference between 1930s European Jews who could
| or could not afford to travel overseas (which was a much
| more serious expense than now) when things started to
| become threatening.
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| Seems like you're replying to a different post? Why would
| someone who enjoys work regret "wasting" their life? They did
| what they enjoyed!!
| stronglikedan wrote:
| OP seems like they like their job. If you're doing what you
| like, whatever that may be, then you're not wasting anything.
| MrRiddle wrote:
| Let's not deal in absolutes. Money can't absolutely fix
| everything, but in case I need money I would rather have it
| then don't.
| jlokier wrote:
| True security is a lie, but "relatively comfortably secure
| for the foreseeable future" is not.
|
| These days, it takes a lot of assets to be confident you
| won't be homeless in old age assuming no major surprises or
| threats from society and the environment changing.
|
| I would say most younger people don't earn enough or have
| enough assets to reach that level of basic confidence. After
| all, if you've rented all your life so far due to inability
| to buy a place to live, you probably know, in the back of
| your mind, that when you retire, you can't see any way to pay
| the rent unless something changes between now and then.
|
| No need for any catastrophic surprises. That's foreseeable.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "These days, it takes a lot of assets to be confident you
| won't be homeless in old age assuming no major surprises or
| threats from society and the environment changing."
|
| Uh, that is quite a pessimistic take from someone debating
| on HN, which is a forum of IT-related professionals. Maybe
| your level of required confidence is too high.
|
| Vast majority of old people in the developed world do not
| end up homeless and IT professionals are even better off
| than an average Western employee. So "assuming no major
| surprises or threats..." and assuming you are not at risk
| of becoming alcoholic or drug dependent, you do not really
| need to fear homelessness.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Thats looking it through the last generations lens where
| stability = a geographical location to live with a house on
| it.
|
| Ironically, as climate change effects become more and more
| prominent, going with a RV route is looking more like the
| best possible option for the future, cause you can just
| pick up and leave when bad weather comes.
| athenot wrote:
| > going with a RV route is looking more like the best
| possible option for the future, cause you can just pick
| up and leave when bad weather comes.
|
| That's fine when young and healthy, but when you're
| older, have several recurring doctor appointments and
| some mild impairments, a home is a lot better.
|
| Not saying it can't be done, after all there are nomad
| populations with elderly people who live on the road. But
| they usually have a support system that travels along,
| too.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed a recent family experience revealed that if you're
| in a town where you don't have a primary care doctor and
| you get sick, you're SOL. We ended up having to fly my
| relative back to his home town so he could be treated.
| JTbane wrote:
| >going with a RV route is looking more like the best
| possible option for the future, cause you can just pick
| up and leave when bad weather comes
|
| what's the plan when fuel shortages start happening and
| your RV can't be kept rolling?
| FractalHQ wrote:
| I wonder what the EV RV industry is looking like..
| samjett wrote:
| Near nonexistent. Battery size requirements and battery
| charging rates make EV RVS either really expensive and
| really impractical for distance travel. You would need to
| put a huge battery (say, 300 KwH, which would cost
| $60,000 just for the battery), to get a reasonable range
| of 200-300 miles between charges, depending upon the
| efficiency of your RV. And then, even at a level 3 DCFC
| Charging station (providing 50 KW) you're looking at 6
| hrs of charging to fully charge the battery.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| You know how much new RVs cost right? 200-400k is not
| unusual for a 'big' RV.
|
| Also, with a bigger battery comes higher limits on how
| fast you can charge. If you have a 300kWh battery you
| should be able to charge it at 300kW all day long.
|
| That said, it doesn't really exist since there is no
| market for it at the moment. RV sales aren't exactly
| high, so the niche for EV RVs is even smaller. Plus
| there's no real infrastructure out for it now.
|
| I suspect once EV Semis become more mainstream we'll see
| that trickle down to RV users. They can charge at the
| same place a semi would charge at.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| The thing about RVs is that generally, you won't have to
| drive them often. Average solar panel produces about 15
| watts per square foot, so over a course of a month with
| about 7 hours of sun a day, that is 3 kwh/square foot. So
| 50 square feet of panels, which is the total area of a
| large bed, will get you half the range over a month.
|
| Also, there will undoubtably be hybrid options where you
| can have a multi fuel generator charging your batteries.
| eddanger wrote:
| In this post-apocalyptic scenario I think the range would
| be secondary to using the battery for day-to-day living.
| The RV could have solar and keep the battery topped off
| all the time.
| jpindar wrote:
| The Ford F150 Lightning has a number of features made for
| pulling a trailer.
|
| https://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/f150-lightning/2022/#tow
| ing...
| willcipriano wrote:
| That and a truck camper[0] is probably the way I would
| go.
|
| [0]https://www.lancecamper.com/truck-campers/
| ActorNightly wrote:
| Then you basically are in the same situation functionally
| as having a house, no different from other people. Maybe
| even better considering that you spent less money.
|
| But realistically, hybrid powertrains, or even simple
| multi-fuel generator charging will make this a non issue.
| klyrs wrote:
| > Then you basically are in the same situation
| functionally as having a house...
|
| Provided you're lucky enough to run out of gas in a
| location that your RV won't be a nuisance. And if you're
| in hurricane territory, an RV is _not_ functionally
| equivalent to a house.
| asdff wrote:
| The U.S. would sooner stop fuel exports than let that
| happen. We produce more than we use.
| mywittyname wrote:
| The country is already at the point where a single
| natural disaster can cause regional short-term fuel
| shortages and price spikes because refineries are located
| in geographies susceptible to natural disasters.
|
| It is not unreasonable to work under the assumption that
| temporary petrol shortages become a annual or semi-annual
| event in a future where the gulf coast is hammered with
| ever more frequent and powerful hurricanes.
| JohnWhigham wrote:
| Harvey was parked over Houston for several days, and I
| don't really remember fuel prices being affected that
| much. The bigger thing to worry about is something like
| the pipeline hack (which will assuredly happen again).
| bradstewart wrote:
| Prices didn't move all that much, but you literally
| couldn't get gas in Austin for a week or so, and gas
| stations would frequently run out for another few weeks
| after that.
|
| This is an area where small, distributed solar panel
| arrays and batteries (like on your house) can be much
| more robust. It's a lot harder to destroy thousands of
| small solar power systems than it is to take out a
| pipeline feeding an entire city.
| iso1210 wrote:
| If you have freedom of movement over a large area, if you
| don't have breakdown of law and order, if people don't
| start lynching others when they come into their area.
| asdff wrote:
| RV is the perfect vehicle then for making your way to
| safety at the nearest operating military base.
| WJW wrote:
| Why would the military let some rando in a RV into their
| base?
| asdff wrote:
| Historically the U.S. military provides aid to refugees
| rather than shoot them at the gate so I'm banking on that
| when I roll up to camp pendelton in 2050
| iso1210 wrote:
| Because Will Smith has a dead alien in the back
| kyleblarson wrote:
| People say money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a jet
| ski. Have you ever seen an unhappy person on a jet ski?
| dasil003 wrote:
| Only once, and it was very very depressing to witness.
| eshack94 wrote:
| Please do elaborate :-)
| skt5 wrote:
| I had mentioned it previously on HN. If money doesn't buy
| you happiness, you're probably spending it in suboptimal
| places.
| loudtieblahblah wrote:
| there's no wage worth 70 hours a week. i'd rather die.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| It's debatable then whether you're really successful, no?
| shukantpal wrote:
| No it's not debatable. They're living a satisfying life.
| pb7 wrote:
| >I'm spending more time feeling good about work than
| finding and investing in a hobby that'll make me truly
| happy.
|
| Are they?
| whytaka wrote:
| Generally, yes. I'm rather successful by my own
| standards.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| Of course it's debatable. What's not debatable is that the
| grandparent perceives it as a satisfying, fulfilling life
| right now.
|
| What constitutes a satisfying life is an incredibly gray
| area, and for me, as I get older, I keep having to re-
| calibrate myself and realize life is short, even more so if
| you don't know how to use it.
| meiraleal wrote:
| Unsuccessful people can live a satisfying life because
| that's what they can get. It doesnt mean they are living
| the way they want but the way the think they can
| neogodless wrote:
| The headline itself is an example of a question that answers
| itself.
|
| Another example would be "if you've saved up a lot of money, why
| don't you spend more?" Well because I saved it by not spending
| too much.
|
| And in this case, "success" _is_ working long hours, because of
| what these workers believe. Success is the appearance of working
| hard, and having put the effort in.
|
| The article doesn't really address income/spending, though. Are
| they making excellent money because of working so hard? What do
| they do with it? If they spend most of it, they _have_ to keep
| earning to sustain their lifestyle.
|
| Of course, some people spend little, work hard, earn a lot, and
| perhaps never reach "enough", where they can work less, spend a
| bit more, and actually enjoy the fruit of their labor.
| inetknght wrote:
| No, I don't think people work 70 hours because they're
| successful. I think they work 70 hours out of necessity and
| others think that makes them successful.
|
| If I were successful then I definitely wouldn't be _working_.
| Yet here I am working many hours and others claim I am
| successful.
| neogodless wrote:
| You're defining "successful" as not _having_ to work.
|
| They define it differently (just as "others" define your
| "working many hours" as successful.)
| [deleted]
| mikecoles wrote:
| Get a different job. If you don't love what you're doing, why
| do it? I you love doing something, why not get paid for it?
| People can be working 70 hours a week and enjoying it.
| Because you associate work with being miserable doesn't mean
| others do.
| Nursie wrote:
| I don't, I work about 35, and right now I'm taking a three month
| hiatus.
|
| Always take time to see the bigger picture.
| RIMR wrote:
| This is certainly good for you, but take a moment and reflect
| on how difficult this would be for 99% of working people in
| this world.
|
| Our need for labor should not be allowing us to harm the
| wellbeing of their laborers.
|
| You are clearly in a very privileged position, but it's not a
| position I can disagree with, only one that needs to be
| universal.
| solitus wrote:
| The 3 months hiatus sounds like a luxury for most yes, but 35
| hours a week is standard in many developed country...
| codegeek wrote:
| I work doing what I want to do so I don't count hours. Yes you
| need breaks and cannot always sprint 70 hour weeks but I
| absolutely would continue to do whenever I can because I am
| building my future with it. If you are in a dead end job working
| 790 hours, sucks to be you.
| anovikov wrote:
| Sadly solution to this is to become a dick, be rude to people and
| just filter your interactions a great lot - otherwise lots of
| "nice" people will softly offload their job on you for free.
| AllSeason wrote:
| Ask Elon Musk or any uber-successful person in our culture. What
| would our world look like if Steve Jobs went home early every
| day?
| thisismeme wrote:
| In Germany, the state will punish you if you work more than 32
| hours per week by very high taxes. Germany has the highest
| average tax level for single persons (don't confuse with highest
| possible tax):
|
| https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_I6
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm not successful and I don't work 70hr weeks.
|
| I had worked about that much for a while (40-50 at IT job + 16-20
| at Lowes), and I still wasn't successful.
| Freestyler_3 wrote:
| When you are succesful your work has been very rewarding, you
| will keep chasing that feeling. I don't work that much. I do not
| hate my work at all. I went for something I really enjoy, and I
| don't really need many holidays to "recover" like I hear other
| people say.
| absolute100 wrote:
| "Work exceptionally long hours when you need to or want to, but
| do so consciously, for specified time periods, and to achieve
| specific goals. Don't let it become a habit because you have
| forgotten how to work or live any other way." -- Having
| constraints on your time should help you better prioritize and
| utilize your energy levels during the day to boost your
| productivity.
| whoisstan wrote:
| Because what I do in my so called "work" time is what I would do
| in my "free" time as well.
| asdff wrote:
| What a privileged position to find oneself in
| banku_brougham wrote:
| Burnt out and going to quit soon. Taking a year+ off to try and
| remember what I used to enjoy.
| blamestross wrote:
| I don't. I've hit the peak of promotion that I think I want in my
| career at a FAANG. I work from home and in practice I work 30ish
| hours a week. I do put a decent amount of effort into making sure
| the time that I do work is highly productive. Depression and
| chronic illness practically limited my working hours so I learned
| how to "work with" what I have. If you let go of the ladder-
| climbing and the impostor syndrome, you don't have to work like
| you ego depends on it.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Based on people I know, either (1) they enjoy it and don't have
| anything else they'd rather do. This is common among business
| owners. Or (2) they also spend a lot of money and no other job is
| going to pay them remotely close to what they need to earn to
| continue spending the way they do. This is more common in
| industries like law and finance.
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| There's a high associated with intense work that you only get
| when around other people working hard.
|
| There's a reason why the strongest bounds are formed under
| pressure.
|
| Pity that you can't get _that_ high and peace at the same time.
| Proven wrote:
| Because I like it
| adolph wrote:
| Because the prize for a pie eating contest is more pie.
|
| https://workingwithmckinsey.blogspot.com/2013/03/McKinsey-pi...
| neals wrote:
| Because I know what it means to work a 40hour shitty job. And I
| mean shitty. As in fill paint cans and inhale paint fumes all
| week shitty. I mean crawl into a conveyor belt that's stuck, use
| a torch to heat it up and a sledgehammer to straighten it shitty.
|
| That I'm now able to what I do and earn what I earn, to me, is
| like a miracle and I enjoy every minute of it.
| wccrawford wrote:
| I had intended to keep programming as a hobby, but I had a
| moment of clarity one day when I realized that was my one skill
| that I already had that could make lots of money.
|
| For the most part, I haven't regretted it, though I was correct
| that I wouldn't do as much programming in my free time if I did
| it as a job.
|
| It hasn't really mattered, though. The programming I do during
| my day job is always towards a purpose and usually has a clear
| goal. I generally find the programming itself quite rewarding,
| even if I'm often frustrated with the things around it.
|
| Now that I'm older, I realize I could also have picked a lot of
| other jobs and learned them relatively quickly, but I still
| think I made the right decision. Those other things are now my
| hobbies.
| birksherty wrote:
| Because just being able have a pleasant life is a big privilege
| and most people in the world won't have this ever.
| clipradiowallet wrote:
| I empathize with your sentiment.. I checked out of IT-related
| work in my 20's, and the moment I checked back in was sitting
| on the floor of a production welding shop, impact drilling
| holes through plate steel. I had this moment of clarity when I
| realized that however "unhappy" IT made me, it wasn't nearly as
| miserable as the alternative I had stumbled into.
|
| Or as my dad put it: better to work with your head than your
| hands, isn't it son?
| effingwewt wrote:
| This all still skirts the main issue. Why does the janitor
| get paid so much less for a shitty job almost no one wants to
| do? Why do we have damn near minimum wage construction jobs?
| Many jobs are important, all should be paid accordingly.
| Failing that, shouldn't the most labor intensive jobs
| therefore pay the best? The incentives are so skewed in
| society now. And I say that as someone who has done all kinds
| of crazy jobs from cushy to hell.
| jw433 wrote:
| Skills.
|
| What % of software engineers could competently perform a
| janitorial job, preferences aside? What % of janitors could
| competently perform a software engineering job?
| effingwewt wrote:
| 6 week coding bootcamps would beg to differ with
| 'skills'.
| pjlegato wrote:
| Rate of pay is empirically determined by the intersection
| of supply and demand for that job, not by how important a
| particular person or group thinks a job ought to be
| considered a priori.
|
| Where supply is much larger than demand -- that is, where
| many people can easily replace the person doing the job and
| perform similar work -- wages are low. When not many people
| can do a demanded job, wages are high.
|
| Note that I am not making any moral claims about this fact
| being good or bad; just pointing out that it is indeed an
| objective fact.
|
| This dynamic notably holds true even in non-capitalist
| economic systems, such as in Communist countries where the
| rate of pay is legally fixed at the same level for all
| jobs: people simply barter out of band with non-monetary
| forms of value transfer (blat) instead, to compensate for
| the inability to use money to find the supply/demand
| intersection.
| lentil_soup wrote:
| Ok, but it's also possible to have a non-shitty 40hour job
| saulpw wrote:
| It's also possible to have a non-shitty tech job. So I hear
| anyway.
| asah wrote:
| haha, 70 hours. So cute!
| GDC7 wrote:
| The only true answer is that out there are 8 billion people
| waking up every day.
|
| And all they do is seeking social relevance, and by doing so they
| are inadvertedly diluting your own social relevance.
|
| There is not a mechanism which allows you to stop working and
| freeze your social relevance in place as some sort of videogame
| checkpoint type manner.
|
| You stop working and your relevance is eroded away...hell you
| could keep the amount of work constant or even increase it and
| your relevance would be eroded away if you are in a sector or a
| country which is not performing well.
|
| The biggest lie that those at the top of the social pyramid have
| ever managed to pass onto the rest of us is that "it ain't a zero
| sum game"
|
| Well, matter of fact it is.
| asdff wrote:
| >There is not a mechanism which allows you to stop working and
| freeze your social relevance in place as some sort of videogame
| checkpoint type manner.
|
| This is called retirement
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Not sure social relevance is really on everyone's agenda given
| how many high paying jobs don't really have that.
| milesvp wrote:
| I think this is sort of a false dichotomy, and potentially a
| defeatist take. There is an increasing body of evidence that
| any work done above 40hrs/wk for thought work is only
| beneficial for a few weeks at a time. After which overtime is
| necessary just to maintain what would have otherwise taken only
| 40hrs. What this tells me is that it's essential to learn how
| to strategically work longer hours, knowing that the recovery
| time will reduce your hours by at least as much (personal
| experience is that 2x is actually more realistic to getting
| back to normal measurable output). I see it as no different
| than athletes who learn when to expend that extra energy in
| competition such that it doesn't leave them flagging the rest
| of the match.
|
| I also think you may be overestimating the amount of effort it
| takes to sort of tread water if necessary. I suspect it's more
| of a logarithmic decay function in terms of social relevance.
| I've come to think that the hardest part of staying socially
| relevant isn't the amount of effort it takes to stay on top,
| but to actually recognize when it's important to spend effort
| on some new trend, and when it's important to ignore other
| trends. I think for this it's even more important to take a
| step back and take time out to reflect rather than actively
| trying to work insane hours.
| andreilys wrote:
| Depends on what you define as work.
|
| Is going golfing and having dinner with clients considered
| "work"? How about attending fundraisers, concert events, etc.
| where you have the opportunity to dramatically alter the
| course of your business with the right connection?
| GDC7 wrote:
| > but to actually recognize when it's important to spend
| effort on some new trend, and when it's important to ignore
| other trends
|
| And in order to do that you need to put in the work to study
| the trends and understand if they are the future or a simple
| fad.
|
| The only way to do that is to put in the work, studying
| papers, reading a lot etc.
|
| That is still work, because sure as hell it ain't leisure
| elpakal wrote:
| some people work because they have to though, it's not just
| about "social relevance".
| sgillen wrote:
| True, but this article is about "insecure overachievers" who
| work at "elite professional organizations". I think there's a
| decent argument that these people are largely driven by
| prestige AKA social relevance.
| nomoreplease wrote:
| > 8 billion people waking up every day. And all they do is
| seeking social relevance,
|
| No they don't. Most of this earth is seeking food and clean
| water and substance. You're lucky enough to have that and seek
| your social relevance
| GDC7 wrote:
| > Most of this earth is seeking food and clean water and
| substance.
|
| You are underestimating the intelligence of people in 3rd
| world countries.
|
| They might be fighting violently to procure themselves those
| things, but in their mind there is always the thought of
| reaching a point when their social status is so high that
| they won't have to fight violently, but other people in the
| village would bring food and water to them as a sign of
| respect.
|
| That's basically the sole reason for becoming a shaman or a
| sorcer
| cee_el123 wrote:
| I sincerely recommend you go test your hypotheses out in
| the field.
| cblconfederate wrote:
| some of the richest ppl in the world dont do that, i dont think
| they are socially irrelevant
| cee_el123 wrote:
| no most of those 8 billion are just trying to put food on the
| table by whatever means - relevance is probably the last thing
| on their mind - you can't blame people for trying to survive
|
| yes everything in this capitalism dominated world is owned by
| somebody so even for food to survive, you have to engage in
| economic activity
|
| yes if you work on problems that nobody needs solved, nobody's
| gonna solve any of your problems
|
| there is no biggest lie, those at "the top" are simply enjoying
| the benefits of nature's bountifulness, inheritance,
| corruption, inability of common people to organise and
| negotiate for a better life, etc
|
| it's a zero sum game only by design - that common people play
| partly out of ignorance and partly out of necessity
| GDC7 wrote:
| > no most of those 8 billion are just trying to put food on
| the table by whatever means - relevance is probably the last
| thing on their mind - you can't blame people for trying to
| survive
|
| You are underestimating the intelligence of people in 3rd
| world countries.
|
| They might be fighting violently to procure themselves those
| things, but in their mind there is always the thought of
| reaching a point when their social status is so high that
| they won't have to fight violently, but other people in the
| village would bring food and water to them as a sign of
| respect.
|
| That's basically the sole reason for becoming a shaman or a
| sorcer
| cee_el123 wrote:
| I sincerely recommend you go test your hypotheses out in
| the field.
| sharadov wrote:
| Why do you suppose that people don't enjoy working 70 hours a
| week? My dad regularly worked 70 hour weeks - had multiple
| careers doctor/businessman/public figure. But he had a ton of
| help - manager, personal assistant, chauffeur. Everything on the
| home front was outsourced. He loved it. But he had a lot of
| control.
|
| Most people, I observe who burn out, do because of other reasons
| - work politics, poor health and ultimately not feeling in
| control of their lives. Not everyone is built to work like that,
| but some are. And they can sustain it for long periods of time.
| imilk wrote:
| I'd much rather spend time with the people I love in life
| before I die than the abstract busyness known as "work". But
| that may just be just me.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| Calling work "abstract busyness" devalues workers.
| bmeski wrote:
| Then stop training workers in valueless things like agile
| PM or Product mgmt
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Valueless PM? You must work for a bad company who is not
| product focused.
| flerchin wrote:
| If all the Agile people and all the Project managers got
| stuck in an endless status meeting, no one would ever
| notice.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| It's abstract busyness if those workers don't have a
| significant stake in the businesses they're keeping afloat,
| as they aren't among the owners who are made wealthy from
| their abstracted labor.
| markuse wrote:
| What about actually enjoying your work? I value that
| higher than whether or not I have any ownership in the
| company I work for.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| why not both? I know plenty of people with family businesses
| that operate well. Doesn't have to be binary
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Most people don't enjoy working 70 hours a week.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| I understand that's certainly true for most.
|
| It's just not true for ALL. And yes, that minority are those
| who:
|
| * have higher IQ or higher motivation/grit/work ethic or both
|
| * have a marketable set of skills - both hard and soft
|
| * do not fall into simplistic life memes that induce FOMO -
| they make their own success rather than rely on others to
| define what success must be and how it must be done
| guessbest wrote:
| Many people don't consider being controlling work. Thus the
| long hours.
| hungryforcodes wrote:
| You're not most people. I'll work 40 or 50 hours a week then
| spend another 30 on side projects happily! That's 80 hours
| just working on "stuff". No TikTok. So it really depends.
| Elon Musk famously claimed he worked 100 hours a week.
| xkqd wrote:
| I'm waiting for confirmation but I don't think the comment
| thread is suggesting that all "work" is suspended after 40
| hours. I think they're saying that your obligation to your
| employer should float close to 40.
|
| I'm a big proponent of not regularly giving employers extra
| time, but I urge everyone to make the most of the remaining
| 168-40 hours a week - that means minimizing idle leisure
| too.
| itisit wrote:
| Do you have the data to back that up? /s
| slownews45 wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| A lot of the "so successful" have a TON of help. At the home
| front things are covered - stay at home wife, cleaners etc.
| You come home, home cooked meal, wife happy to hang out go on
| a walk do whatever, kids taken care of.
|
| You go to work, you have the parking spot, the assistant with
| a schedule. Strong managers.
|
| Again, these are the "so successful" folks.
|
| The 70 hours of work is mostly meetings, strategy, bouncing
| ideas off people you got to hire to work with. It's not
| terrible
| conductr wrote:
| I don't get burned out because I outsource it by burning my
| employees out. It works for every other billionaire. /s
| slownews45 wrote:
| The very successful folks working long hours do tend to
| have folks around them working long hours as well.
|
| Ie, Elon Musk is probably working long hours. If my goal
| was to NOT work long hours that would be a bad company to
| work for.
| munk-a wrote:
| I've worked extremely long hours and there's a very big
| difference to me between working on a saturday on green-
| field development where what you're doing takes time but
| isn't particularly full of surprises - and trying to
| grind out a hard to find bug instead of enjoying the
| outdoors. I don't hate hunting down bugs myself - but
| dealing with fatigue from overwork while trying to find a
| needle in a haystack is much different from being able to
| cruise through some reqs like a badass using half your
| brain.
|
| It's quite likely that the billionaires putting in long
| hours are doing so in tasks that are diverse and decisive
| enough to not be soul crushing - while outsourcing those
| soul crushing tasks to their subordinates... in fact if
| that isn't the case then they're executiving wrong.
|
| Finally, being a found who benefits directly from every
| penny your company earns differs significantly from
| working plebs that might just be randomly fired tomorrow
| and will never see any benefit from the company doing
| slightly better. The motivation is there for Musk in a
| way it isn't for those who surround him.
| stainforth wrote:
| Right. It's about the autonomy. I do see a categorical
| difference between being the guy that gets asked to do
| something vs the guy whose job is to do the asking. Where
| does the former turn to? One has flexibility, the other
| has no where to turn.
| codingdave wrote:
| > You come home, home cooked meal, wife happy to hang out
| go on a walk do whatever
|
| That also feels outdated. I don't know many people who are
| happy to sit at home, prepare meals for their absent
| spouse, and then smile and be happy to do whatever that
| spouse wants to do when they get home. That feels like an
| image from the 50s, not 2021.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| It sounds outdated but that's because "modern ideas" have
| tried to replace them. The fact is, you will be more
| successful if you can manage to have a more traditional
| relationship and home life - 50 millennia of human
| history will always trump 50 years of post-modernist
| clap-trap ideas and ideologies. Biology is real and
| trumps politics. Just ask most women over 30-40 who
| aren't married or drugged into a happy coma!
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > happy to sit at home
|
| Believe it or not, even 50s housewives did not sit idly,
| staring at the clock.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I'd totally be a houseman if given the option. Cook nice
| meals, clean up, do laundry, hit the gym/grocery/errands
| during off hours, go for afternoon walks in the park, do
| fun projects with the kids.
|
| Granted it's not for everyone. But I can see why it would
| be appealing.
| kongin wrote:
| You just pay a cook to do it for you.
|
| If you're making mid six figures it's ultimately much
| cheaper than a spouse.
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| Sadly true with modern family courts in divorce... that's
| why MGTOW exists and is radically growing.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| Divorces per 1000 is at 2.7 in 2019, down from 4.0 in
| 2000.
|
| Pretty sure that divorce rate isn't the reason why the
| misogynist community MGTOW exists.
|
| https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/marriage-divorce.htm
| goldenchrome wrote:
| Yeah my wife hates that she doesn't get to experience
| endless office politics and instead has to spend her time
| with our wonderful children and make meals for her loving
| husband who makes money for her.
| X6S1x6Okd1st wrote:
| If y'all are both happy about it, great. That set up is
| less common in the younger generations, especially those
| who were children when divorce rates were dominating
| headlines.
|
| At least anecdotally most of the millennial couples with
| a traditional stay at home set up I know transitioned to
| that after their first kid without expecting to
| asdff wrote:
| Maybe OP should have said doordash instead of wife for it
| to be a 2021 example. It's kinda funny when you see homes
| of very wealthy people and see what they eat. Usually its
| their assistant bringing them a premade salad from
| sweetgreen for lunch and everything in the kitchen is
| used by a professional cook who makes meals and even
| packages leftovers rather than the homeowner.
| hulitu wrote:
| Most people do not really work 70 hours / week. They just are
| present at work.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| You assume that workload is binary you either work or you
| are just present. The intensity fluctuates even if you
| study for 1 hour. This isn't something exclusive to those
| who work more.
| Retric wrote:
| Low intensity is fine as long as it's above zero.
|
| For many jobs being available to do work has value, but a
| doctor on call that's sleeping in the hospital isn't
| actually working. As such it's a perfectly reasonable to
| separate working from bing available to do work.
| xkqd wrote:
| I think you're saying it but...
|
| You mean working for your employer 70 hours a week, right?
|
| As for me, I make it a point to give my employers what
| they're paying for, but nothing extra. I spend a lot of extra
| time each week performing "work" for myself. Whether it be
| home improvement or side projects.
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes, work means employment in this discussion (including
| self-employment).
| brtkdotse wrote:
| Did he ever have time to be with his family?
| bobthechef wrote:
| Right. The family is your moral priority, not your career.
| But people are selfish. They will sacrifice their families
| for their careers when the two are in conflict. Divorces
| ensue, estranged children that are poorly adjusted. Actually,
| all this mostly started with the industrial revolution.
| Before then, work usually took place in and around the home
| for most people. Both men and women worked. But with the
| industrial revolution, fathers were torn from the home and
| forced to go off and labor in the factories. I hope that
| COVID finally destroys this stupid modern tradition for
| occupations where it is possible to do so.
|
| Besides, if all you know and do is your career, then you're a
| pretty boring fellow. Human beings don't just eat and shit.
| They do other things as well. Culture needs leisure[0]. The
| world of "total work" is not a good one. And generally, it is
| a sign of latent nihilism. If you cannot put work to the side
| and take care of the other important stuff you're neglecting,
| then you are probably using work as something to avoid
| uncomfortable realizations. Work becomes an opiate. You're no
| longer thinking in terms of what is objectively good, but
| what you find subjectively pleasing. The two need not be at
| odds, but they can be when you subordinate the truth to your
| desires instead of subordinating your desires to the truth.
|
| [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/767958.Leisure
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Great book, we read this at our Catholic men's group :)
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| Familiar with that book.
|
| It's not so black-and-white, however.
|
| First it's based on a much older book that is essentially
| talking about "master-slave/master-serf" luxury and leisure
| of elites - 100% bullshit elitism.
|
| Second, the reality is that civilization can not operate
| without a fair if not majority of jobs being shit jobs. As
| long as they are well-paying enough and voluntary, there's
| nothing wrong with that. And that cost could be being away
| from your family. As long as family is being provided for,
| I see no problems with that.
|
| And the main reason being that simply having parents being
| "present" does NOT assure happy or good childhoods to your
| children or good relations with your spouse. There are
| plenty of counter examples.
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| It's true that some have an enormous capacity for work. I felt
| my capacity grew year on year for ten years straight -- simply
| by working with enormously ambitious people. But it can also
| happen by other means. While at a megacorp, for example, I was
| collaborating and competing with colleagues medicated with
| Adderal, who had astounding focus and output. The bar is always
| being raised, and sometimes in ways that are barely visible. My
| takeaway was that it's important to identify personal limits
| and boundaries, and be careful how hard you compete.
| RIMR wrote:
| If you want to enjoy working 70 hours a week, you have to enjoy
| doing what you consider "work".
|
| If "working" to an executive means attending parties, trade
| shows, and numerous business events, that 70 hours could be a
| lot of fun, and totally worth it. I can think of a few roles
| I'd like in the future that would have me working that much and
| I'd be all-in for it. There are hard parts, certainly, but as
| you described, you have control over it.
|
| However, if you are sitting at a desk laboring in front of a
| screen for 70 hours every week because your boss (who works as
| described in the previous paragraph) thinks that's what defines
| work ethic, then you're going to get burned out and alienated
| from your friends and family because all of your emotional
| energy is being sapped out of you by your employer. You don't
| have control. Your job isn't exciting and dynamic. There is a
| limited amount of it that you can tolerate before it starts to
| harm you.
|
| If the ultra-high-earning executive types enjoy their life-
| encompassing careers, let them have it. If I have the
| opportunity at a career like that I might take it myself.
|
| But if you're laboring to meet an end (and yes, most software
| engineers should be thought of as laborers), you need work/life
| balance otherwise you're just being exploited by people who
| don't care if they bring you misery in the process of
| delivering a product.
| justinator wrote:
| How was your time with your Father? Or do you regret that his
| career got in the way of your relationship?
| mpfundstein wrote:
| THAT is the question that deserves an answer
| sharadov wrote:
| It was great, he is a very loving dad. He taught me a lot
| along the way. We spend a lot more time talking now that he's
| retired and we live on opposite sides of the globe. He does
| regret it that he did not spend enough time with me. But, he
| made a lot of other people's lives better and I made peace
| with that.
| adventured wrote:
| I think it's a fair premise that the majority will never / can
| never enjoy working 70 hours per week. It's essentially
| impossible to match so many people ideally up to financially
| rewarding tasks they'd enjoy doing for that amount of time each
| week on a persistent basis. I'm skeptical there is much of
| anything people enjoy doing 70 hours per week; I've only known
| a few people that even liked to get that much sleep. In the
| past I've known a few gaming addicts that played ten hours per
| day, but, that's an addict, they have a serious problem.
|
| If you have a family, 70 hours per week becomes threatening to
| the well-being of that family unit. Are there exceptions? I'm
| sure. That's all they are though, rare exceptions. A bunch of
| that time should rationally be spent exploring life with the
| kids and spouse, partaking in new shared experiences together,
| which is what bonds people together for the long-term.
|
| I don't mind working eight hours per day, seven days per week.
| Up to ten hours if I really need to get something done. I won't
| do that for anybody else other than myself though, for my own
| projects/businesses; I won't do it under any circumstances for
| some middle management moron clown boss or company I don't own.
| My bills are around a thousand dollars per month right now, I
| can meet that working part-time for $15 / hr at a convenience
| store if I feel like it, or doing low volume contract tech work
| on the side. I've been working six or seven days per week for
| 20+ years straight at this point and I have rarely suffered
| burnout, because I've spent that time working on what I wanted
| to, doing what I wanted to, when I wanted to, with no boss. If
| I want to sleep all day, I sleep all day; if I want to work all
| day, I work all day; if I want to sleep during the day and work
| all night, I do that. That's not normal, and it can't be
| replicated by the majority of people. I also don't have a
| family; if I did, I'd have a different schedule because my
| priorities would be different, working 7*10 would be a serious
| disservice to that family, it would be unfair.
| solitus wrote:
| Out of curiosity what do you do?
| root_axis wrote:
| Well, it's 70 hours sitting in front of a PC. All things
| considered, it's about as easy as it gets in life besides being
| born rich.
| GnarfGnarf wrote:
| This post incorrectly assumes that working is not fun and should
| be minimized.
|
| Maybe the work is the point.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| What do you mean, incorrectly? For the vast majority of folks,
| work _isn 't_ fun - not when compared to not working, anyway. I
| mean, do you really think that most retail or foodservice
| workers think their job is fun?
|
| And even when folks like their jobs, there are practical
| limits. Some jobs are stressful and lower work hours minimize
| mistakes. Would you rather have emergency room employees in
| their 35th or 65th hour on the clock that week?
|
| Maybe work isn't the point, especially considering the unpaid
| work most of us do (and someone working 70 hours a week is
| surely expecting others to do, paid or not).
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Wait until you have kids. 70 hours at work is not fun unless
| you own the company.
| dougmwne wrote:
| The point of what? Life?
|
| If it is the point for you, that's great, but it's certainly
| not the point for me. Don't incorrectly assume most people
| share your purpose or values.
| zamadatix wrote:
| It sounds like you're both saying the same thing "Don't
| incorrectly assume most people share your purpose or values".
| They never prescribed everyone must have these values rather
| they pointed out the article does not consider some may.
| pessimizer wrote:
| If the work was the point, you'd have to pay to do it, they
| wouldn't pay you.
| Florin_Andrei wrote:
| Because nothing else fulfills you.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Thats sad. Americans need meaning beyond career.
| solitus wrote:
| "J'fais dla poudre, pour travailler plus, pour faire plus
| d'argent, pour faire plus de poudre, pour travailler plus, pour
| faire plus d'argent..."
|
| Classic Punk song from Vulgaires Machins (Quebec band),
| translates to: "I do coke, to work more, to make more money, to
| do more coke, to work more, to make more money..."
| hintymad wrote:
| It's as if work is just toiling, but in reality it is not. Some
| people may just love meeting people and calling the shot. Some
| people may just love reading papers and tweaking and building
| systems. Some people may just love deriving equations and writing
| papers and giving talks. They call such activities work, but they
| enjoy doing them.
|
| What matters is not hours but choice: can one choose to use her
| time at her own will? If she can, then I don't see any issue at
| all.
| justwalt wrote:
| This is completely tangential to your point, but why did you
| choose to use "she" as the pronoun in your last sentence? I see
| this more and more frequently, and I assume it has something to
| do with being more inclusive (so as not to imply only a man
| could be the subject), but I don't want to assume. Why not use
| "they" instead?
| mahogany wrote:
| I doubt you would have noticed -- at least not enough to stop
| and make a comment -- if "he" was chosen instead. Why not
| throw in some extra flavor (and sure, inclusivity too) to
| your writing and make a woman the subject from time to time?
| gunfighthacksaw wrote:
| I forget if it was Tanenbaum's OS book or Spivak's calculus
| book, but they made a point to switch up the pronouns often
| which was pretty fun to read.
|
| The singular they is probably preferable, but can start to
| feel 'clinical' if it's the only pronoun you ever see for an
| entire textbook.
| Clubber wrote:
| >If she can, then I don't see any issue at all.
|
| >Why not use "they" instead?
|
| It's been 30 years since I've studied formal writing in
| earnest, but "they," is, or at least was, grammatically
| incorrect in that sentence, unless you are referring to more
| than one person. English doesn't have a proper gender neutral
| singular pronoun. People have bastardized "they" to fit that
| role though because they don't know the gender, or because
| changing social and cultural pressures.
|
| https://style.mla.org/using-singular-they/
| zabzonk wrote:
| I think it is grammatical, though it may change the
| semantics. OTOH:
|
| > can one choose to use her time at her own will?
|
| changing to:
|
| can one choose to use they time at they own will?
|
| is nothing like English. You could of course use "their",
| but that has a kind of distancing effect.
| drdeca wrote:
| My understanding is that while there are certainly changing
| social and cultural pressures which influence how often
| people use they in the singular, or at the least,
| increasing how likely some are to use it (possibly
| decreasing how likely others are to?),
|
| that using "they" as singular was not at all unheard of. It
| is quite plausible that the sources I am remembering were
| somewhat over-representing how common it was (they
| certainly would have motivation to do so, in relation to
| the changing social pressures that you mentioned), but my
| impression is still that for a long while, it was not
| especially unusual for people to use it without meaning to
| make (and without being perceived to be making) any kind of
| statement about gender/sex, though it may have been (idk)
| the clear consensus that it was "technically incorrect
| usage".
|
| Furthermore, my impression (I could be wrong) is that while
| using a singular "they" to refer to a person whose
| sex/gender was unknown, was not that strange, it _would_
| have been fairly odd for someone to use singular "they" in
| the case where the speaker does know the sex /gender of the
| person in question, and that this is something which has
| changed substantially more of late due to changing social
| pressures etc. (compared to the use when the gender/sex is
| unknown).
|
| I should note that I have not looked into this closely, and
| any parts which I have I could have forgotten, and
| therefore these are only the impressions I have, which
| could be wrong, and should be taken with a grain of salt.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's been 30 years since I've studied formal writing in
| earnest, but "they," is, or at least was, grammatically
| incorrect in that sentence, unless you are referring to
| more than one person.
|
| It is incorrect, as is "her" both times used in the
| preceding sentence, but not because of number of the
| referent (a sibling comment addresses "they" and its long-
| established singular use, but that's not actually relevant
| here.) Rather, "her" is incorrect because the possessive
| pronoun that corresponds to the "one" used in the earlier
| clause of the same sentence and with which "her" shares a
| referent is "one's", not "her". And "she" is incorrect
| because it has, again, the same referent as the subject
| pronoun "one" in the preceding sentence, and therefore
| should use the same subject pronoun.
|
| > English doesn't have a proper gender neutral singular
| pronoun.
|
| Leaving aside whether it does for a _known, specific_
| referent, it absolutely does for an _generic_ referent, and
| it was even properly used in one of four places the same
| generic referent was referred to using a pronoun in the
| last two sentences of the post: "one (subject) /one
| (object)/one's (possessive)".
| pessimizer wrote:
| If you're talking about a class of people, it's not really
| a forced application.
|
| e.g. "If _people_ can, then I don 't see any issue at all"
| as opposed to "If _a person_ can, than I don 't see any
| issue at all." There's nothing wrong with either.
| pwinnski wrote:
| They as a singular gender-neutral pronoun is far, far older
| than 30 years[0], so while I believe that you were taught
| that, you were taught incorrectly. So was I!
|
| It is neither a bastardization, nor grammatically
| incorrect, to use they as a singular gender-neutral
| pronoun.
|
| 0. https://www.academicwritingsuccess.com/the-astonishing-
| histo...
| Clubber wrote:
| Interesting history. According to that article, using
| "they," as a singular pronoun was improper from 1745
| until 2015. It depends on who you ask of course but had I
| used singular "they," in a paper, I would have lost a
| letter grade for each occurrence. My Literature teachers
| didn't mess around.
|
| PS: I enjoyed the use of the old style footnote. We were
| just getting out of that notation into inline references
| when I was taught.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Working 70hrs a week is terrible, crushing it 70hrs a week is
| never enough. (shlinkedin has ruined me), but sincerely, work is
| inversely proportional to leverage, which implies someone working
| that hard doesn't have a lot of leverage. If you don't have
| leverage, you aren't managing well, and if you aren't managing
| well, that's a problem worth solving.
|
| This seems abstract and businessy, but understanding what people
| mean when they use the term "leverage," in its myriad forms is a
| very useful concept to master.
| RIMR wrote:
| I have, since the beginning of my career, refuses to work for
| anyone that expects more than 40 hours per week of me. I ask it
| as part of my interview. I'm not against the occasional crunch,
| or traveling for work on occasion. Those are fine. But if an
| employer expects more than 40 hours per week consistently, I will
| simply not work for that company.
|
| And so far, I have remained upwardly mobile, and more
| importantly, happy with the work that I do and satisfied with the
| amount of time I am afforded for friends, family, and hobbies.
|
| Everyone searching for a job should be asking their employers
| hard questions. Job offers aren't worth it if you're being
| exploited.
| cerradokids wrote:
| Because I love what I do.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> If You're So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a
| Week?_
|
| Because I like it.
|
| But, then, you probably wouldn't think of me as "successful." I'm
| not on anyone's payroll, and I won't be zipping around in any
| private jets, in the foreseeable future.
|
| I would not agree with that assessment (I feel _very_
| successful), but it 's not worth arguing about.
|
| Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It's off to work I go...
| drdeadringer wrote:
| What will happen to you when you retire? Will you ever retire
| or will you work until you're dead? Are you someone for whom
| retirement, or not working, quite literally means death?
|
| Honest questions.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I am retired. Didn't actually have much choice in the matter.
| No one wants to work with us "olds."
| paulpauper wrote:
| Wages for professionals, such as law, medicine, tech, finance,
| consulting, etc., have really ballooned over the past decade,
| since 2008 especially, even after accounting for student loan
| debt and inflation. This makes working long hours more
| attractive, as the financial payoff is so great both in terms of
| wages but also by investing one's income in rapidly appreciating
| assets such as stocks and real estate (the post-2009 bull market
| is the biggest and longest ever). Consequently, there are many
| people on Reddit and Hacker News on popular subs such as
| /r/personalfinance , r/investing, /r/financialindependence,
| /r/wallstreetbets (a lot of gambling, yes, but also many rich
| people who have 6-figures to play with) and /r/fatfire who have
| amassed considerable wealth by late 20 or 30s. Putting in long
| hours in your 20s and 30s to have a massive nest egg that will
| last you the rest of your life by your 40s seems like a good
| trade-off.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| As an impoverished 30 year old I wish I was more focused in
| building and cultivating a career path. What I did instead was
| "a 9-5 on something I'm good at" (not coding as I'm career
| switching).
|
| Guess what followed after that: Odd jobs. Yes, they pay the
| bills but they don't build career progression. You cannot sell
| yourself to someone to hire you for your 1 year experience in 8
| different things. This is why considering the money alone isn't
| enough. And yes, you also need to be educated on personal
| finance because if you were born in a poor family chances are
| you'll be spending the money as soon as you touch them.
| adventured wrote:
| > You cannot sell yourself to someone to hire you for your 1
| year experience in 8 different things.
|
| It heavily depends on what those things are. If you have one
| year of legitimate experience in cyber security right now,
| you've got a job almost anytime you want it. The same goes
| for many in-demand programming languages at present. That
| level of experience will not initially net you a very high
| paying tech job, however compared to the median it'll be a
| good paying job and you can work your way up from there.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| Yeah, but you can somewhat connect those. I mentioned "odd
| jobs" and I wouldn't call any of those you mentioned as
| such.
| dvt wrote:
| > Putting in long hours in your 20s and 30s to have a massive
| nest egg that will last you the rest of your life by your 40s
| seems like a good trade-off.
|
| Even amassing 7 figures by your late 20s/30s (very difficult to
| do reliably, also implies no debt, no adverse life events,
| etc.), is not remotely enough to make a "comfortable" living
| for the next ~5 decades of your life.
| cgh wrote:
| It is if you own a house mortgage-free. Dividend income on
| let's say $1.5 million would be around $60,000/year. That's
| pretty comfortable if your expenses don't include shelter.
|
| That's why my advice to young people is always to do what you
| have to in order to establish working credentials, then move
| somewhere cheap, buy a house and work remotely as much as you
| can. You'll get it paid off in no time and that level of
| freedom cannot be overstated. Then you can start really
| saving.
|
| On the downside, you'll probably be living somewhere small
| and uncool and that may not be enough incentive to leave the
| bright lights of the city.
| dvt wrote:
| > On the downside, you'll probably be living somewhere
| small and uncool and that may not be enough incentive to
| leave the bright lights of the city.
|
| This seems like social life suicide. I'm in my 30s, single,
| and omitted dating much in my 20s (because -- surprise
| surprise -- I was working way too much). I can't really
| move to the middle of nowhere where the dating pool is non-
| existent.
| rteuionwiv wrote:
| Take the red pill.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Realistically though, 1.5MM brings in much more than $60k
| a year most of the time (an aggressive portfolio could
| return that much in a month, on occasion). So one could
| buy a place in a cool area with a cheap 30 year loan
| immediately before quitting. Live there for as long as
| you want, then sell it if you get the urge for a cheaper,
| less exciting lifestyle.
|
| Even if one overspends a little extra in those initial
| years paying a mortgage on a nicer place, much of that
| will be recouped upon sale, since places in cool areas
| tend to appreciate quit quickly and mortgages are highly
| leveraged.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| > Realistically though, 1.5MM brings in much more than
| $60k a year most of the time.
|
| How are you employing it?
|
| [personal details removed]
| mywittyname wrote:
| A handful of Vanguard funds (VIGAX, VITAX, VFIAX, VWNDX)
| and the like.
|
| The GP was talking solely about dividends, but most funds
| will re-balance and distribute long-term capital gains to
| you if you wish. If, in 2020, you held $1.5MM in a mix of
| those funds and instead of reinvesting dividends, long-
| term, & short-term capital gains, and instead redirected
| them to your bank account. You'd have something like $80k
| distributed and your market value would have increased to
| like 1.7-1.8MM.
|
| Not that 2020 was a typical year or anything. But the
| past 8 or so years have told a similar story.
| felistoria wrote:
| You need to get in contact with a high net worth
| investment advisory. I use Fisher Investments.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| If you have $6M, you can live the next 60 years on
| $100k/yr by simply storing it under your mattress. You
| should talk to a financial advisor, you almost certainly
| can retire now if you want to, even if you're 18 years
| old.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| I saw some of your personal details before removed. You
| have.. $xM available, and still working to death?
|
| "Where to get private health insurance?" Google it? I
| think pretty much every state has a BlueCross insurance
| company you can call up to ask. You'll probably spend
| between $500 and $1000/month, per person in your family,
| depending on state and age.
|
| I despise employer-provided insurance - we have an entire
| culture of people who feel extra-dependent on 'employers'
| and who don't seem to know how to find out basic
| information.
|
| You have a more than comfortable nest egg. Go pursue your
| passion before it's too late.
| collaborative wrote:
| Online dating has changed this and you now can find
| decent sized dating pools anywhere you go. Unless you're
| very picky of course. You can also increase your matches
| to say 100 miles. Chances are your match will move in
| with you because you're already on top of your finances
|
| Or you can date where you are, and then move somewhere
| cheap together
| dvt wrote:
| > Online dating has changed this and you now can find
| decent sized dating pools anywhere you go
|
| This is a dubious claim, but I don't want to get into it,
| because I've debated this on HN _ad nauseum._
|
| > Or you can date where you are, and then move somewhere
| cheap together
|
| What attractive, educated, socially-active woman in her
| 20s will want to move to the middle of nowhere once you
| get together or marry? I want to be around friends,
| family, alumni, and I'd wager so would she.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| If you move there, then there will be at least one. Also,
| farmersonly.com (never thought I would see that Super
| Bowl commercial...)
| walletburst wrote:
| If by "affordable" you mean $200 - $300k for a decent
| house, there are A LOT of places in the USA that are NOT
| small and uncool where you can buy an affordable house.
| cgh wrote:
| Yeah true. I'm Canadian and the situation here is
| different, ie worse.
| [deleted]
| pb7 wrote:
| $1M at 30 without any further contributions will be worth
| (after inflation) nearly $4M at 50, and nearly $8M at 60.
|
| If you're not "comfortable" spending every single penny you
| make while your nest egg grows, you have a spending problem.
| [deleted]
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| > that will last you the rest of your life by your 40s
| seems like a good trade-off.
|
| I read that to mean "retire at 40". If you retire at 40,
| your $1M isn't going to grow to $4M at 50.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| sure but if you keep spending moderate, it may grow to
| $2.5M-$3M, as it would probably already be around $2M in
| those 10 years. Instead of $8M at 60, perhaps you've
| spent along the way and only end up with $3M at 60?
| xyzzy21 wrote:
| It depends on what other choices you make in terms of costs.
|
| If you are STUPID, you insist on living in hell-holes like
| California (LA or SF areas) and you lock yourself into
| foolish costs you can easily avoid. FOMO is an excellent and
| primary way to make you last statement a 100% certainty.
| bserge wrote:
| Define comfortable
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-08 23:02 UTC)