Maybe you should do less 'work' • Hacker News Board

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#271

Post by BobbyJo » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #242

BobbyJo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing I don't see how an argument that agrees with the parent is counter argument. They literally said we all need to look out for our own well being, and a part of that is managing our participation in voluntary exchange. > We aren't all totally independent actors competing i…

The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you…

> The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market.

Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not.

They also never said optimizing our participation should be a primary goal, but that our participation needs to be managed with our actual goals in mind. It's like he told everyone they should exercise and the counter argument is "Not everyone should quit their jobs to be a fitness model". It's nonsense.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#272

Post by lliamander » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:40 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #225

lliamander wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of bad faith interpretation and just missing the point in response to this solid bit of career advice is just astounding.

There'd probably be a lot less bad faith interpretation if it didn't end with a double-zinger of 'And once you reduce your life to a neo-liberal economic model, is when you will finally grow up and become an adult'. That last part in particular poisons the rest. Sure, it could be interpreted in good faith, but as it's so damn condescending - why put the work in?

> 'And once you reduce your life to a neo-liberal economic model, is when you will finally grow up and become an adult'

Case in point. You use quotes, and some of the words are the same, but what the author actually said and what you think the author said are just different things.

It's not even about giving the benefit of the doubt for something that was poorly worded. I just don't think you understand what was actually written.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#273

Post by willcipriano » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #227

beaconstudios wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the parent is critiquing the argument that we are all homo economicus - an agent whose primary function is to operate within the market at maximum efficiency to optimise for profit. The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing. The GP is encouraging us to act like robots by living our lives in accordance with market…

I'm not sure if this is a new trend, or if I've only just begun noticing it over the last decade. People seem to have completely lost the ability to infer the meaning of words if it lies beyond face value. What a trite, shallow interpretation.

Watch older movies to see this in action. A older movie might say "The terrorists will get their hands on uranium!" and leave it at that, the audience understanding the implications. A movie from the early 2000's goes as far as "The terrorists will get uranium and make a bomb!", expecting less than the audiences from before. Now it's "The terrorists will get uranium, make a bomb, and blow up San Francisco, killing millions of people, including women and children!" and repeat that statement 4 - 5 times so that the lowest common denominator in the focus group gets it.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#274

Post by beaconstudios » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #271

beaconstudios wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you…

> The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not. They also never said optimizing…

I think it's a matter of differing interpretations. When I hear "you are a company of one, and it's your job to manage your labour in the market and your investments to get the returns you want", it sounds to me like the commenter is saying that you should view yourself as a company operating in the marketplace and act accordingly. How do companies act in the market? They optimise for profit, they interact transactionally as opposed to through social and communal relations, and they hire specialised labour (or in the analogy, develop specialised skills) to fulfill their fiduciary and legal requirements. Your interpretation may differ, but that's the nature of perspectives.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#275

Post by libraryatnight » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

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…

Having kids enhances his analogy, as it increases the need for your "company" to make good decisions. Ultimately the GP's message is an empowering one. You have value, you have agency, you can leverage these things to improve your situation (and by extension your family's situation). People are getting stuck on taking the post literally.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#276

Post by ironmagma » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

deltaonefour wrote: post #247

ironmagma wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Nobody is promoting communism here. But capitalism is imperfect in the sense that it's unfair. The unfairness motivates productivity. It's the best system but it is still highly flawed. Wealth inequality is one of the major consequences of capitalism that we haven't quite figured out how to tame. It is freeloading in every sense of the word. You pay a slave a dime for work that generates you hundreds of dollars the s…

You have a very different definition of freeloading. The slave situation is totally incomparable on account of how the slave cannot quit aside from by dying.

> It is freeloading in every sense of the word.

Every sense, except the dictionary definition, is what you meant, I take it? "Freeload - take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return." Giving ten cents is not the same thing as not giving anything. And if an employer gave me ten cents for a day of work, I would quit and go elsewhere as would every other free person in America.

As for capitalism being unfair, that's basically the point of capitalism, in the essence that "unfair" means "not everyone is compensated the same."

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#277

Post by vlovich123 » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #26

vlovich123 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who establishes that sizing? I’ve yet to see anyone who can accurately estimate their own tasks let alone someone who can estimate that for others. In agile, I think a great time for reflection is between sprints. Also, I’m super fast but I’ll instead take frequent small breaks in the middle of work (read hacker news, write up documentation etc). There are other times to reflect than between tasks.

You decide as a team. Concepts like story points and processes like agile sprints are intended to create a more realistic estimate of the work a team can deliver. The process comes with tradeoffs; it won’t work for everyone. So then it’s up to them to bring it up during retrospectives and decide to either change the process or… not. It’s important to understand that working on a team means that you just don’t get to…

Outsourcing task estimation to the team still doesn't solve the estimates are broken issue. I've not seen estimates get meaningfully better in an environment where the team collaborates on establishing the expected time for a task.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#278

Post by beaconstudios » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:53 PM UTC

willcipriano wrote: post #273

danielvaughn wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is a new trend, or if I've only just begun noticing it over the last decade. People seem to have completely lost the ability to infer the meaning of words if it lies beyond face value. What a trite, shallow interpretation.

Watch older movies to see this in action. A older movie might say "The terrorists will get their hands on uranium!" and leave it at that, the audience understanding the implications. A movie from the early 2000's goes as far as "The terrorists will get uranium and make a bomb!", expecting less than the audiences from before. Now it's "The terrorists will get uranium, make a bomb, and blow up San Francisco, killing mi…

Yeah but that's not what my comment was, was it? If anything, I might have been reading inferences that weren't intended by the author.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? Someone disagrees with your perspective and its because they are the least intelligent person in the room?

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#279

Post by jka » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:54 PM UTC

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…

> This is so sad, really. We are NOT companies

That's true, although, in a way, I think it's reasonable for the parent commentor to want to identify as a corporation if that's what they feel like.

Are there preferred pronouns for corporate identities? Perhaps people would display a personal stock ticker symbol instead?

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#280

Post by KptMarchewa » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #226

KptMarchewa wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP did not say that you have to optimize for profit. However, they said that we have to optimize for something. In other words, there's opportunity cost to everything we do.

> 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 lega…

"Good returns" are what you'll make of your time that's worthwhile to you. The interpretation that this means only money is entirely your interpretation.