Live data from Hacker News

Maybe you should do less 'work'

johnwhiles.com

371–380 of 431 posts

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wealth inequality is universally a very bad thing. This is a moral absolutist take. We clearly don't agree on "bad" vs. "good" because some of the best (from my perspective) things were/are done in capitalist countries, such as the creation of NASA, rollercoasters, the Internet, innovative surgeries, and life-saving medical treatments for chronic conditions. > Wealth is distributed unfairly with people who contribu…

>This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Meas…

You should really relax your moral rigidity. You believe your intuition is correct, but there's nothing saying it is. Our intuition comes from culture, which is the result of centuries of Judeo-Christian influence, which I hazard to guess most of HN is not OK with taking as a source of knowledge, even an implicit, squishy kind of knowledge.

Instead we should be foundational about this. "Every economist" doesn't believe anything, as there is widespread disagreement about almost every topic in science, and furthermore every economist believing something doesn't make it true, as economists are subject to groupthink same as the rest of us.

To the extent that employees are being taken advantage of by for-profit corporations, employees are accepting of this situation, because alternatives are available. There is nothing that says you must work for a for-profit corporation. There is also nothing that says you can't join a co-op. There are distinct benefits to working for a for-profit corporation; those are what I am choosing when I choose to allow myself to be "fucked over" as you say. In reality, what is happening is I am allowing some of my value to be captured by the organization and invested into its long-term stability, productivity, and desirability. If I wished for none of this, there is nothing stopping me from starting my own company of one person, correct?

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 persp…

Making the fundamental assumptions that everyone shares the same perspective on success in a career.

Other world-views may take other positions. That doesn't make them wrong, or acting in bad faith.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#373
post #7

Personal experience has taught me that there is a MAXIMUM amount of COMP that you will receive as an employee, no matter how much hard work you put into your company. So basically what is happening, is that you are working hard for some achievements, that someone else is going to benefit off.

The % of value that you create which you keep as COMP decreases as your value creation increases.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 is…

My bad since that wasn't you. These threads tend to get long in both content and time between messages, and it gets easy to mix up statements.

I do think people should always try to operate rationally in the market as, even though it isn't perfect, it will generally produce the highest likelihood of success.

In any case, I appreciate the engagement!

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#375
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Working less than 40 is nice but once you get down to 20 you have whole DAYS where you can do whatever you want I spent around 10 years working about 20 hours a week doing freelance work. It's good until it's not. Basically, yes you do have a lot of time and often times you can decide to be done at noon if you'd like. Taking entire days off is also possible unless it's expected to do something in a timely fashion s…

> Taking entire days off is also possible unless it's expected to do something in a timely fashion such as meet with someone or produce results by XYZ day. I found in practice it wasn't possible to really drop off the grid for continuous 4 day weekends. I've tried to hire part-time employees or 4-day workweek employees in the past. You described essentially the #1 roadblock. It actually works okay as long as you have…

Totally understood that someone not being available is an inconvenience, especially if that someone is the only one.

I'm curious though how that's really so different from other situations than "4 day work week guy". I'd say that it could shape up as much of the same, depending on how you define "4 day work week". If that means someone is always unavailable for an entire Friday or Monday or Wednesday for example and everyone else works nine-to-five in the same office, that can seriously change some things, sure. Not a fun situation. Heck, being the "remote only guy" during the exact same 5 day work week when everyone else is in the exact same team room in the office together is not great.

How about having teams made up only of people on 4 day work weeks? Suddenly it's not an issue any longer I would say and that is something I think the pandemic has taught us can be done. Not without some rules and not without some adjustments. I do think that those adjustments made permanent are well worth it for both sides. You gotta align when people work their 4 days at least a bit so that there is a chance to have some synchronous communication.

I can think of a few examples of this actually. One would be a team that is not co-located but instead spread over multiple timezones. Say some people in London (GMT), some in New York (EST) and some in Los Angeles (PDT). There's a short period of overlap in a "normal workday". If we limit the 4 day work week such that everyone has to work during each weekday's overlap period but is free to choose when to work (during Mon-Fri "normal workdays", I would argue this is totally workable. Another example would be (mostly freelancers) that travel from their home town to work on Monday morning and leave for home on Friday afternoon. They will arrive at work around mid-day Monday and leave for home when everyone else goes for lunch on Friday and work a little longer than everyone else in the evenings Mon-Thu. Works perfectly well from my experience tbh.

So what about "4 day" guy being that last example? He starts work Monday after lunch and is gone at lunch on Friday. Just no commute? Instead of working late the rest of the week he just doesn't. Should work just fine if you ask me without most of the effects that being off for an entire whole day (whichever it is) would have. Add in a few timezones across the team and you won't really notice the difference with a bit of planning of when someone will be available.

Now one thing that is left are "urgent matters". I think that is not really an issue either. You gotta plan properly anyway. The fact that many C-levels (and some lower levels) can't plan and just "need to get this done by EOD" is completely irrelevant to me. They just gotta learn to plan instead of just making people bend to their will because they're utterly bad at even the tiniest bit of planning ahead. For everything else there's "on-call" or "tomorrow", because it's either really important and you pay for it or it's not that important.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#376
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smaller companies are more culturally homogeneous. With smaller companies, managers are usually a reflection of the company's cultural values. If you accept the above as true, then you can start to reach out to team members at the company and ask them what the work environment is like. If the work environment lines up with your values, then you'll probably be fine, even when the hiring manager moves on to greener pas…

> ask them what the work environment is like. I've been asked this when i interviewed ppl but i never gave them the truth and I've never gotten any honest truth when i was on the other side also.

Reach out to people who aren't interviewing you

People in the interview are under scrutiny and don't want to be responsible for driving away candidates

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#377
post #358
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?". Manag…

I appreciate that you acknowledge the negotiating power required to make that kind of a move. That sounds like a great move for you, and I'm really curious about your experience. Do you find that you're more "out of the loop"? Naively, I would expect you to become a lot more of a satellite employee, less involved in any decisionmaking. How has that gone?

> Do you find that you're more "out of the loop"? Naively, I would expect you to become a lot more of a satellite employee, less involved in any decisionmaking

yes. more decisions will be made without your ability to influence them. if everyone else is full time then projects won't wait for you!

there are some ways to mitigate this, that perhaps also overlap with ways to organise decision making more effectively. if your company or team has a culture of drafting and circulating written docs (e.g. engineering design docs) before making a decision, then you can somewhat influence decisions by submitting written feedback and recommendations in advance, even if you cannot attend the meeting on the day when the decision will be made. also, if there is some written record of the decision -- written up in the company wiki, or emailed, or broadcast into the project slack channel -- then you can catch up over morning coffee and review how the entire strategy has changed since last week.

similarly, avoid becoming a bottleneck for your full-time colleagues. if i leave a code review on a colleague's pull request that we're not able to close off before my week ends, i tell them they don't need to wait for me to "approve" the pull request & ask them to merge it when they feel they've sufficiently addressed review feedback, or get a colleague to review it instead.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#378

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…

Well, it definitely feels hotter. And those massive wildfires don't help.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Meas…

You should really relax your moral rigidity. You believe your intuition is correct, but there's nothing saying it is. Our intuition comes from culture, which is the result of centuries of Judeo-Christian influence, which I hazard to guess most of HN is not OK with taking as a source of knowledge, even an implicit, squishy kind of knowledge. Instead we should be foundational about this. "Every economist" doesn't belie…

You are bartering your value to the organization and getting less in return. That's the definition of getting fucked.

If you want to start your own company then you are fucking other people. In either situation, somebody is getting fucked.

Re: Maybe you should do less 'work'

#380
post #66

I agree with the content of the article, but I don’t agree with the premise that these things aren’t also “work”. Engineers tend to obsess over, “focused work” like it’s the only way to be productive, and anything that’s not “focused work” is wasted time. That is a surefire way to burn out. Instead, finding ways to “riff” on your job by doing work with longer time horizons of payoff keeps your job fun. It’s all “work…

Well, the bosses usually only care about work the helps produce value. They might like the fact that you know some new tech that they can use in their latest assignment, but they weren't giving you credit while you were learning it the year before just for fun.

There are a lot of things you can learn that do both?
Post reply on HN