Live data from Hacker News

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

hbr.org

251–260 of 275 posts

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

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> If you don't love what you're doing, why do it? I you love doing something, why not get paid for it?

What I love doing doesn't pay nearly as much as what I don't love doing.

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

#252
post #119
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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…

Your expenses will still include shelter, unless you've found a way around property tax.

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

#253
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have never had a time in my life where having less money would have produced a better outcome than having more.

Never gotten mugged, then?

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

#254
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 prof…

Here on HN, you might be surprised at the range of backgrounds people come from. There are people from all over the world. It's a startup forum, so it attracts "indie hacker" types, entrepreneurs and bootstrappers of all kinds vaguely tech related, and people whose IT interest is primarily open source, not just well-paid salarymen.

By "a lot of assets" I mostly mean "a house", but a decent size pension would count instead. Both are out of reach for many people now.

I agree that most old people in the developed world don't end up homeless.

On the other hand, there's a growing economic housing crisis affecting a lot of people in almost every developed country. Mostly affecting (current) younger people, and most (current) older people are almost oblivious to it. It's working its way up the age range. This is new.

You cannot assume what worked will always work, when there are factors that appear to be changing across generations.

Many people are paying >50% of their income in rent, and rents are still rising in most places faster than incomes. Most renters cannot find a way to get on the house buying ladder. If things carry on as they are, many people currently young will retire while renting. If you're paying 50% income on rent now, what are you going to do at pension time, as pensions are typically 1/3 or less of the income prior to retirement. You'll have to carry on working, but that gets harder with age, faster for some people than others.

I agree with you most will probably not end up homeless, but the point is, for that to work out, something will have to change.

I personally know an IT person who reached retirement age and is dependent on state benefits to pay their ongoing rent, and found those state benefits enough for almost zero properties in the area they lived for decades prior, making it hard to find a place from which to continue looking after their own older parents. They struggle, and have to work on the side.

And another, skilled and knowledgable software engineer, currently paid well, who for a period last year was unable to pay for rent or food due to running out of money and access to credit. They needed help from local volunteers just to eat. How can that happen, you may think? This is HN, where not everyone is working for a company. Like many HN readers who are entrepreneurial (it's notionally a startup forum), they were a business bootstrapper, and it's easy for that to become financially precarious when things don't go so well. Add a badly timed pandemic into the mix, government support for everyone except small business owners, and a time where jobs were not proving easy to get, and you have a recipe where homelessness really was realistic for a skilled IT person and, unfortunately, their family. I'm sure they're not the only one around here who's had to seriously face it last year.

My own pension is projected to be less than my current rent, which is already low for the area, so I think it's rational to be thinking about that.

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

#255
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never had a time in my life where having less money would have produced a better outcome than having more.

Never gotten mugged, then?

I've never met a mugger who got less violent when you didn't have money to give them.

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

#256
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What kind of work you could consider meaningful, but can't obtain? (honest question)

Just to be pendantic, I used the word fulfilling as opposed to meaningful as I believe they are different.

To the question though, with “can’t” being used loosely:

- Anything that I lack the correct aptitude/intelligence to work on. There are a number of options in this category. Things that while I could probably do in theory, I’d be unable to keep up with the competition in a professional market.

- Anything with limited options for employment. Sure I’d love to be a ~~Haskell~~ ~~Adga~~ Idris developer or researcher in some crazy field with absolutely zero immediate monetization strategy, but there just aren’t many jobs to apply to. Even if I did anything right I’d still be likely to fail.

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

#257
post #88
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Work is just a way to enrich your employer.

I wish my work could enrich my employer more.

They can only deploy the smallest fraction.

I'm getting better at a faster rate than they are.

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

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 prof…

Here on HN, you might be surprised at the range of backgrounds people come from. There are people from all over the world. It's a startup forum, so it attracts "indie hacker" types, entrepreneurs and bootstrappers of all kinds vaguely tech related, and people whose IT interest is primarily open source, not just well-paid salarymen. By "a lot of assets" I mostly mean "a house", but a decent size pension would count in…

If you do not own the place where you live, your rent-to-income ratio will likely go up when retiring and you will have to move somewhere cheaper. That is not outright homelessness, though. Many people, including people in developed welfare states such as Germany, cannot sustain their previous lifestyle when they retire.

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

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 week coding bootcamps would beg to differ with 'skills'.

just to reiterate here- I'd bet you most janitors could code if given the same classes. Or maybe they can't code maybe they'd be better as a manager or HR or PM, or fuck even CEO. I'm tired of this bullshit rhetoric that SEs are somehow smarter than everyone else. I know some absolutely fucktarded people working for some pretty big companies in some pretty big roles. One is a doctor I wouldn't trust with my cat. Your…

Nobody said anything about intelligence. The person you originally replied to said skills. Just because I could spend a year learning something if I so choose, doesn't mean that I currently have those skills. They're called low skill jobs, not low intelligence jobs.

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

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My product manager does everything I don't want to do for me, so I sure would notice.
Post reply on HN