Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Maybe you should do less 'work'

johnwhiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 431 posts

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#191

Post by ironmagma »

deltaonefour wrote: post #46
alexashka wrote: post #38

100% this, but let me add the why : Most people don't want to do good work, they just want to get paid and fuck off. It is really hard to grok this because it is just so disappointing and demotivating. Most people lie constantly, to appear as if they want to do work, as if they give a fuck - they are lying to your face. Once you realize this much, once you come to terms with what most people are - the rest will fall…

From the other side of the coin. Your employer is free loading off of you. You are paid a fraction of the amount of money that your work actually generates. If your work generates 100 dollars... you're paid 10. So essentially your employer is fucking you and any other attitude other than to treat the situation for what it is, is delusional. Don't call us 'people'. You're the one that doesn't get it. Now I'm not sayin…

> You are paid a fraction of the amount of money that your work actually generates

There are organizations that don't do this. They are called nonprofits. Why don't people just work for nonprofits all the time? Because they are less stable and there is less upward mobility. So there's something that is actually bought by this extractive capitalism, and we sign up for it when we sign up to work at for-profit companies.

It's hard to call it freeloading off of me, when I benefit from this arrangement.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#192

Post by ravenstine »

danielvaughn wrote: post #188
Toine wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven…

I think you're severely misreading the original comment, and to be frank, your interpretation is pretty juvenile. Nowhere does the person say that we are robots.

Yeah, I took it as rather the opposite of saying that we are robots. Ultimately, being responsible for one's self is a choice, which is something robots can't do.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#193

Post by burntoutfire »

ascar wrote: post #30

This reads a bit like deliberately aiming for Parkinson's law. "Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion." However, I agree to some extent. I'm especially opposed to the concept that there should be 8 productive hours in a day. I sincerely believe that this is for most people not possible in creative knowledge work, which includes software engineering. So, if you have 5 productive hours of eng…

> rather spending your extra time on something else like job-related learning is a great way to prevent mental fatigue.

Learning be as draining (or more) as work! Figuring out and internalising new stuff takes a lot of mental power. I don't know why people propose it as some lightweight way to fill the time.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#195

Post by kritiko »

adenozine wrote: post #186
bobkazamakis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how changing the perspective of selling labor to ...selling labor really jumps the gap into psychosis.

Your children (they're human beings btw) are not extensions of your "inner company" is the point I was making. It's not rational to reduce children to that sort of algebra problem thinking. That's a huge red flag for someone's mental state. If you're not able to recognize that you can only solve human problems with human solutions that incorporate human needs and wants, then you start down the path of psychosis and a…

The etymology of economics is household management. Children are dependents of your household.

I'm not really sure what your objection to this analogy is.... Choosing to work more so you can send your kids to an elite private school is one action that somebody can take. Choosing to work less so that you can be more involved in your children's lives is another. All the analogy is asking is that you be intentional about how you are managing yourself and your household.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#196

Post by danielvaughn »

ravenstine wrote: post #192
danielvaughn wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're severely misreading the original comment, and to be frank, your interpretation is pretty juvenile. Nowhere does the person say that we are robots.

Yeah, I took it as rather the opposite of saying that we are robots. Ultimately, being responsible for one's self is a choice, which is something robots can't do.

Right. I didn't even take it as disagreeing with the piece - there's enough nuance there to see harmony between the post and the comment.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#197

Post by kkfx »

The point IMVHO should, must be: did you work to live or did you live to work? Work is needed, not just because of the actual society but because even with the most advanced automation we need countless of thing that demand manual/brain work, that's is. But we live to live, not to work.

So we should and must work to obtain what we need and want, a certain safety etc, more than that is illogical. Some might like their work so doing it is a pleasure and for them work hard means being satisfied and that's perfectly fine, however there is still a need to craft a life, because while we live in a society we need a family, friends, kids etc not just colleagues and services.

The above, at philosophical level for the whole society have issues, for instance since we have evolved enough to reduce natural selection by a big extent we need to learn to regulate our reproduction to satisfy both individual desire and social needs in resources terms, like avoiding being too much to been able to live or too little to make the species on the brink of extinction but that's an a bit loose thing for individuals, just well studied incentives or disincentives likely suffice leaving individuals with significant willingness free to decide. Family and friend however are still a need, arriving at 80 alone at home and then go to a old people's home is not that nice for most, for instance. Being able to organize a party with people we like is part of our life, we are social animals and reduce themselves to "make a neighbor party" it's not good either. The rest is life.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#198

Post by lliamander »

adenozine wrote: post #165
caffeine wrote: post #135

You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…

Do you have kids? This makes no sense from my perspective. I could literally put myself through anything that I needed to, if it meant the safety or well-being of my children. It's not a company, it's a primal force from thousands of years of primordial reinforcement. I'd manage with less capital, so that my kids have a chance at college. I'd manage with less chance of promotion, so that my kids can have my presence…

It's metaphor about how to manage your career, nothing more.

The point of the metaphor is to not depend upon your current employer to manage your career for you. If you do, they will inevitably manage your career to suit their own interests, not yours.

I follow the parent poster's advice in part because I have kids. I manage my career to serve my personal success so that I can care for those who depend upon me.

Not all of life is one big spreadsheet of assets and liabilities; just those things that are relevant to my career growth.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#199

Post by draw_down »

Toine wrote: post #185
caffeine wrote: post #135

You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal ha…

From a certain extreme perspective, there is some truth to what you're saying, but wow, this is so one-sided, extreme, partial and damaging. What decades of neo liberal brainwashing has done to people. This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies, we're not robots only driven by free will, we don't live in an economy. We are hardcore social animals with huge biological & affective needs, this is scientifically proven…

No post body was provided.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#200

Post by nanochad »

>If you can meet these expectations in fewer hours than you are supposed to work, then you shouldn't just find more to do. Instead you should do something different.

This one really struck home for me. I will often quickly finish a task like refactoring a class heirarchy, then I will spend another 3 hours looking at it and the surrounding code to check for any unoptimal usages. But it always turns out to be a waste of time, because we have much bigger things on the backlog. Thanks for reminding me.

Post reply on HN