Live data from Hacker News

If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

hbr.org

81–90 of 275 posts

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#81

> 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...

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.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#82
post #79
post #32

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.

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.

Well, aren't you blessed.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's debatable then whether you're really successful, no?

No it’s not debatable. They’re living a satisfying life.

>I'm spending more time feeling good about work than finding and investing in a hobby that'll make me truly happy.

Are they?

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#84
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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,…

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.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#85

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-…

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 consideri…

> 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.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#86
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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,…

> 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)”.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#87
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then stop training workers in valueless things like agile PM or Product mgmt

Valueless PM? You must work for a bad company who is not product focused.

If all the Agile people and all the Project managers got stuck in an endless status meeting, no one would ever notice.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#88
post #82
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, aren't you blessed.

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.

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#89

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 ultim…

Did he ever have time to be with his family?

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

Re: If You’re So Successful, Why Are You Still Working 70 Hours a Week?

#90
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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,…

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.

Post reply on HN