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

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#341

Post by Melatonic » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

There was a time during the first shut down when my company decided to reduce peoples hours and also reduce their salaries instead of laying off more employees. I end up working 20 hours a week (instead of my normal 35) with a reduced salary (and I was even able to collect partial California unemployment benefits for the remainder of the reduced hours under a special program called Workshare).

Honestly it was amazing - made me really want to find a job that was less pay but also that low in hours. Working less than 40 is nice but once you get down to 20 you have whole DAYS where you can do whatever you want. You sometimes start work at noon or end at noon and then have the remainder of your weekday to yourself or in the company of others. It was an odd experience seeing my neighbours and friends going through so much stress and pandemic related BS while I was (temporarily at least) having revelations about how much I wanted to work in life. Fortunately and unfortunately it was very short lived.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#342

Post by bigbluedots » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #211

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.

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…

The parent is critiquing an argument that the OP did not make.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#343

Post by goodpoint » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #126

adamsmith143 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These concerns, in many forms, have been present for years, however we were once instilled with the instinct to overcome, but now frailty is more valued because even in failure you can not criticize those who are less able. Actually I think you are totally off base here. I know in my cohort of age 30+ millennials there is a strong sense of doom. Many people have the attitude of "why should I have kids when they'll…

My 10 year old feels this way. His depiction of the future is far more pessimistic than mine was at his age, and the conditions under which I grew up were objectively worse compared to his present circumstances (he has his own room, multiple electronic devices, gaming consoles, etc. etc., typical middle-class). There seems to be a persistent message saying “buckle your belts, things are going to get worse” across all…

> There seems to be concerted effort to prepare these kids to expect less than previous generations.

There is no concerned effort. It is reality.

> Parents can only do so much to block these influences.

Maybe parents should not be in denial and block reality.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#344

Post by ozim » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 9:53 PM UTC

svnt wrote: post #335

ozim wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your idea of how people were living for most of that history? You think being human stock ticker is worse than: living on average 25 years, starving most of your life, having high chance of being literal slave not figurative, being ostracized and killed for any silly reason by local community, being dumped into trash or simply killed if local community found you were not useful or weak So if you take it into…

> living on average 25 years, starving most of your life, having high chance of being literal slave not figurative, being ostracized and killed for any silly reason by local community, being dumped into trash or simply killed if local community found you were not useful or weak This is all outdated colonial myth. You should turn on your educational updates.

I agree average lifespan of 25 is a bit unfair as that was mostly because of infant death rates.

But I still think hunter-gatherer that broke his leg had maybe couple of months to live.

Peasants in middle ages in Europe that were not able to "simply" change jobs or move out to live wherever they want. That would have to put up with abuse from land owners and other "nobles".

The same hell if one would be a woman in past times - not just no ability to vote - just daily abuse as in rape and violence.

I would like to see some real arguments for "life was better back then, now we are mindless drones".

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#345

Post by schimmy_changa » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:19 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #298

glitchc wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 10 year old feels this way. His depiction of the future is far more pessimistic than mine was at his age, and the conditions under which I grew up were objectively worse compared to his present circumstances (he has his own room, multiple electronic devices, gaming consoles, etc. etc., typical middle-class). There seems to be a persistent message saying “buckle your belts, things are going to get worse” across all…

I mean, we've been hearing crisis warnings for decades. When I was a kid, it was acid rain, then styrofoam cups, smog, leaded gasoline, ozone holes. Each, it was promised, would surely destroy the environment for good. And when one didn't cause Armageddon, the next one would definitely destroy the environment any day now. Today, it's climate change, next decade maybe something else. It's the same song, just a differe…

Ha - those examples are all environmental nightmares that were dealt with because of “songs” that accurately explained the danger we were in as a society. See: Y2K as a non-environmental example.

Agree that it’s the same song and somehow the generations feel it differently … maybe because they really are the first generation to have lower life expectancy compared to their parents. Or maybe because climate change is so much harder than acid rain due to the full-civilizational scale of it…

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#346

Post by npsimons » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

Melatonic wrote: post #341

There was a time during the first shut down when my company decided to reduce peoples hours and also reduce their salaries instead of laying off more employees. I end up working 20 hours a week (instead of my normal 35) with a reduced salary (and I was even able to collect partial California unemployment benefits for the remainder of the reduced hours under a special program called Workshare). Honestly it was amazing…

> made me really want to find a job that was less pay but also that low in hours

This was a very large factor in why I quit - old job wouldn't let me cut back hours, even at reduced pay, even framing it as "leave without pay", so I had no choice but to quit to get my time back, and I had enough money.

As it is, I'm content staying in that "learning and broadening" mode, even though I'm 20-ish years in on my career.

I don't think I'll go back, unless I absolutely have to, or a project catches my interest, but even then, no amount of money is going to convince me to work so many hours or ever in an office again (another reason I quit was they wanted us back in the office, despite my being much more effective working from home).

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#347

Post by couchand » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #213

Consultant32452 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have different advice. Focus less on what your bosses want and more on what you want. Doing what your boss wants is a cost you pay, do as little of that as possible so that you can do the things that you want. This is an exchange in a market. If Best Buy wants $500 for that new TV, would you go in and offer them $750 for it? If Wal-Mart will sell you the same TV for $400, consider going there isntead.

I agree. A fun side story is when I got a new manager a while back. In our first one-on-one, he told me that he has connections through the company and can use them to get me promoted to another team if I make him happy. I get that making the boss happy is part of a job, but that should be accomplished by doing good work. This direct proposition just felt too quid pro quo and had a stink to it, in my opinion.

Was your new manager new to being a manager? I could see that kind of offer coming from an operator, but I could just as much see it coming from someone lacking confidence trying to project a miscalculated sense of authority.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#348

Post by lliamander » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

caffeine wrote: post #319

vkou wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 I apologise. It’s not what I meant, in two different ways: 1. You’re not JUST a company. 2. The adult realisation isn’t that you’re a company - it’s that you’re responsible, and your decisions have Real Consequences. I wish I could write more clearly. I made an edit to try to address this. Thanks.

> 2. The adult realisation isn’t that you’re a company - it’s that you’re responsible, and your decisions have Real Consequences.

More specifically, would it be fair to say that you shouldn't depend upon or expect other people (such as your employer) to manage your career for you?

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#349

Post by shoo » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

Melatonic wrote: post #341

There was a time during the first shut down when my company decided to reduce peoples hours and also reduce their salaries instead of laying off more employees. I end up working 20 hours a week (instead of my normal 35) with a reduced salary (and I was even able to collect partial California unemployment benefits for the remainder of the reduced hours under a special program called Workshare). Honestly it was amazing…

Some companies have flexible work policies that give employees the option of switching to part time. My current employer (megacorp, not tech) has such a policy documented internally, not really widely advertised. I read about it, discussed it with manager, I framed it as "it doesn't make sense for me to work full time any more. I'm still open to doing part time. Can we switch to part time, per company policy?". Manager agreed, I negotiated with managers of project I was allocated to, to let them lock in the 3 days a week they wanted me at work, provided it left me with a contiguous 4 day weekend.

I've been part time for over a year now, 4 day weekends every week. It is pretty great. I don't do anything much productive with my days off, but that's okay. I worked full time for about a decade prior to this point.

Perhaps part of this is having negotiating power to frame the switch to part time not as a request, but instead implicitly framing it as "we need to figure out a part time arrangement or I'll need to find another employer that does", rather than requesting a switch to part time. Part of the negotiating power is being good enough at what you do for your skills to be in demand, and having resources or alternatives to fall back on if company is not willing to agree to a part time arrangement.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#350

Post by thn-gap » Mon, Mar 28, 2022, 10:35 PM UTC

adamsmith143 wrote: post #312

pydry wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that uncommon for one software engineer to outearn another by 10x, assuming a little job hopping.

I agree but I think it's more relevant to compare the same levels at the same org. I would be pretty shocked to hear that there is any 10x delta in total comp across L5s at Google lets say.

The 10x delta exists. You just have to compare the L5 engineer from the lowest paying region with the L5 from the highest paying one. And for the same effort and output.