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

321–330 of 431 posts

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#321

Post by bavell »

lliamander wrote: post #214
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…

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

It's pretty incredible that such a benign statement caused so much ruckus! The misunderstanding is palpable.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#322

Post by beaconstudios »

jka wrote: post #302
beaconstudios wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my point is that we should oppose the system that forces everybody to be in market competition with each other. I understand the position being forwarded, but I think it's describing a system that's antithetical to human values and thus should not be just accepted as a fact like gravity. Perhaps it is you who is being shallow and trite, not understanding the actual objection I have. I know that what the OP is saying…

Markets can behave in ways that are either competitive (my tomatoes are better than your tomatoes) or co-operative (my tomatoes are a perfect complement to your cheese). And sometimes they morph from one mode into the other.

Maybe this is a definitional argument, but I'd say the latter would be complementary, not cooperative. A cooperative model is one where people work together to achieve an outcome, like two kids working together on a school assignment.

Outside an individual company, competition is favoured over cooperation, except when companies work together on e.g. supply chains.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#323

Post by beaconstudios »

BobbyJo wrote: post #305
beaconstudios wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just went back and reread it to see if I missed something, but aside from the profit-centered angle (which I've already conceded was a misreading on my part), nope, it still appears to be entirely market focused. I couldn't say if that was intended or if the author just over-extended the analogy (obviously I inferred the former), but the whole comment was framed around operating effectively within the market econom…

> but the whole comment was framed around operating effectively within the market economy. That's explicitly what it says. Exactly. So where does all of this other stuff about being a robot and only optimizing for profit come in? The topic is work, and he's telling you how to think about work, not how to think about relationships with colleagues, hobbies, life goals, etc.

Well I didn't make the robot comment, but I think it's valid to say that promoting people trying to operate rationally in the market can be pretty robotic if that's your primary motivation. However, given I withdrew that contention, having realised the OP was not talking about making market optimisation and profiteering your primary goal but just talking about how the labour market works, of course the robot thing isn't relevant anymore either.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#324

Post by jlengrand »

100% hard agree.

One thing that I'd like to add as well. If you're an employee, getting 120% of the same job done will 99% of the time NOT get you promoted faster.

The folks who get promoted typically do because they're visible in several places.

Do 100% of your job, and then do 20% of something else. Blog, Mentor, do POCs, network, .... Find your own way.

It's maybe unfair, I know, but I've seen so many frustrated folks seeing other get promoted while "they were the ones going the extra mile for their project".

Plus, if you do things visible outside, you can sell that much easier to whoever employer comes next than "I've pushed out more features than my colleagues".

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#325

Post by jka »

beaconstudios wrote: post #322
jka wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets can behave in ways that are either competitive (my tomatoes are better than your tomatoes) or co-operative (my tomatoes are a perfect complement to your cheese). And sometimes they morph from one mode into the other.

Maybe this is a definitional argument, but I'd say the latter would be complementary, not cooperative. A cooperative model is one where people work together to achieve an outcome, like two kids working together on a school assignment. Outside an individual company, competition is favoured over cooperation, except when companies work together on e.g. supply chains.

Yep, you're correct about that terminology, thanks. I'll leave my comment as-is because it'll be less confusing for anyone reading yours.

It's possible that companies (knowingly or unwittingly) co-operate under some circumstances, though - even if competition is generally the {expected/favoured} model.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#326

Post by 52-6F-62 »

lliamander wrote: post #317
52-6F-62 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm equally wary of the hubris in declaring one has defined all of the required variables for living well. A review of ages of history would tell that nobody ever nails it down that fully. Everything has its price, including a bank account that never goes red.

That has nothing to do with what caffeine actually said.

What I said had to do with what you said. OP set out a prescription (quite literally defined adulthood for everyone), it was questioned and you criticized the questioners. I'm questioning the criticizing of the questioners.

Why assume bad faith in the other comments? Try a different perspective while reading OP's comment.

That is to say, the industrial-entrepreneurial worldview is a valid one. But there are many other valid ones besides.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#327

Post by lr4444lr »

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…

It's harsh, but the conclusion of what he's saying is also very liberating, namely, that in your interactions with your employer, there is no "social animal" on the other side of the table caring about your needs, so learn its language to protect yourself and take responsibility over preserving your own humanity.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#328

Post by lliamander »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #326
lliamander wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with what caffeine actually said.

What I said had to do with what you said. OP set out a prescription (quite literally defined adulthood for everyone), it was questioned and you criticized the questioners. I'm questioning the criticizing of the questioners. Why assume bad faith in the other comments? Try a different perspective while reading OP's comment. That is to say, the industrial-entrepreneurial worldview is a valid one. But there are many othe…

> What I said had to do with what you said. OP set out a prescription (quite literally defined adulthood for everyone), it was questioned and you criticized the questioners. I'm questioning the criticizing of the questioners.

I'm correctly critiquing yourself and others for not actually understanding what caffeine said. It seems that you still don't.

> Why assume bad faith in the other comments? Try a different perspective while reading OP's comment.

I'm inferring bad faith on the basis that people seem to use caffeine's comment as a spring-board to engage in anti-capitalist rants, rather than actually engage with the quite reasonable career advice it was.

> That is to say, the industrial-entrepreneurial worldview is a valid one. But there are many other valid ones besides.

No one said it was the only one. Only that it is an important perspective to have on managing one's career.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#329

Post by bspear »

Extra credit at school means something tangible. Extra credit at work rarely does.

I think this message applies especially to people working in big tech and/or people working primarily on salary, not equity.

When you have equity in a startup though, each person doing more of their best work can actually make a massive difference to the trajectory of the business. And if you're working on a promising business, working better and faster is the highest ROI thing that can be done.

So it all depends.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#330

Post by zemvpferreira »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #190
noahtallen wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one avoid the inequality, though? One could be working 60 hours a week at fast food joints and not make anywhere close to a part time software developer. As a result, the “lazy” developer is generating more tax revenue. There are too many possibilities to make it “fair”, unless we get rid of the income tax. Even if everyone paid the same amount, it wouldn’t be fair, unless everyone made the same amount of mo…

It's not a complete avoidance. Rather, i'm just advocating that we don't build the idea of less work on the shoulders of people who work more. That seems to me to almost codify the need for some people working more, and that seems a slippery slope for _some_ people getting good work-life balances and others not. My argument is that we _all_ should qualify for a work-life balance. Not depend on some people not getting…

I agree that the original commenter's last paragraph was a bit unnecessary, but let's not kid ourselves either: if everyone put in a solid 2 hours a day doing good, essential work all good, essential work would be done in 6 months. Most of our time at work is spent doing things which are either pointless or downright damaging.
Post reply on HN