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

High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 300 posts

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#81

Post by kodah »

dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #63
kodah wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marc Benioff is a progressive and has been quoted many times saying the same thing about his own workers.

But statistical significance? I like anecdotes as much as the next person, but we’re talking “truth” and stuff here, right? This paper is out to critically inform me, right?

The article wasn't talking about right-leaning media, OP said that. Most of the business owners in tech aren't right leaning, and most of them are saying junk like this. Which is my point, right-leaning media runs around with a bullhorn saying this stuff, but the people firing everyone aren't right-leaning.

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#82

Post by lupire »

jacquesm wrote: post #19

In the 80's the place where I worked incentivized employees to start working fewer hours. In the IT department we looked at the request in bafflement: "How many hours would you like to work?". We put in '40' and somewhere between HR and our bosses it was straightened out.

What are you saying? IT department didn't like working fewer hours?

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#83

Post by aqme28 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #12

Key phrase: The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market. So nowhere near the top 10% of income earners. The real top earners don't do much traditional "work", instead earning money thorough investment and/or family income streams. I would also quibble with the definition of "work", as many activities of top earners would not be considered work by the majority of people. I've been to my fair share of "conferen…

I think the number of top earners that get their money from investments isn’t a very significant number compared to the top earners via labor. They might make a large percentage of the money in that top 10%, but there aren’t nearly as many of them.

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#84

Post by lupire »

synergy20 wrote: post #32

I don't know how to define 'high earning men' in real, but mathematically, earning up to 170K paying 24% tax is a fine spot, after that the tax becomes 32~35%, stretching yourself for decreasing return is not very exciting, why not taking a step back and enjoying life more instead.

That means nothing by itself. "Stretching yourself" might pay +10K, +50K, +300K, or even negative. I care about take home, not tax rate.

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#85

Post by TheArcane »

zozbot234 wrote: post #58
sandworm101 wrote: post #12

Key phrase: The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market. So nowhere near the top 10% of income earners. The real top earners don't do much traditional "work", instead earning money thorough investment and/or family income streams. I would also quibble with the definition of "work", as many activities of top earners would not be considered work by the majority of people. I've been to my fair share of "conferen…

I think the self-employed would not be considered as being part of the employment market. So you could in fact be earning plenty of money through your work without this article applying directly to you.

AFAIK they're considered as part of the employed market as soon as they draw money from their incorporations as income

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#86

Post by black_13 »

tsunamifury wrote: post #25

Many men discovered over the course of the pandemic how much they actually loved spending time with their family and how unrewarding office life is. Unfortunately the powers that be have decided that this realization is incompatible with how the economy is set up to work, commuting office space work lunches and dinners etc. and so back to the office we will be forced to go.

[dead]

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#87

Post by ludston »

nradov wrote: post #68
chiefalchemist wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see job postings with "must be able to multitask" and "high intensity environment" and I think the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back. It's common knowledge - or should be - multitasking is a productivity loss, not gain. And the last thing the world needs is another headless-chicken culture where working hard and frantic is confused with smart and efficient. Guard your calm...no one else will.

We all know that multitasking reduces productivity, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's better to optimize for low latency instead of high throughput.

True, but you've mixed up the wording. Throughput is the word for speed at which the team delivers complete things, so you could say, "Sometimes optimising for low latency will cause higher throughput than optimising for personal efficiency."

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#88

Post by aqme28 »

lupire wrote: post #79
aqme28 wrote: post #65

The math makes sense for top earners. If I can get my salary for time off that's usually worth it. Example: If I can get paid 80% as much money for a 4-day workweek, then I will take home 20% less money but I get 50% more days off. It's a good deal.

That argument makes no sense. The units don't match. Why not get paid 40% less for +100% days off? 60% less for +150%? -100% for +250%?

If you can get paid 40% off for 100% days off then take it. I chose 80% for a four day week because you’re working 80% as many days. Your hourly rate hasn’t changed in this hypothetical.

Re: High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours

#89

Post by sillysaurusx »

bradlys wrote: post #69
sillysaurusx wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't go! We have the power. I know it's easier said than done, but anyone who has the means to do it should try.

Individual actions won’t really lead to any societal change though. Your change won’t change your future jobs. You need worker solidarity at a large class level.

Maybe. But (at least in the short term) we can make them pay for our obedience. You want me to come into the office? Fine, but you'd better be willing to double my salary, or I'm going to one of the other dozens of opportunities that don't require a commute.

Out of all the different types of workers, devs have the most power. But we often don't exercise it. It's so tempting to just go along with whatever your work decides is best, because you've started to think of them as "your group." Once you identify as a part of a group, you're subjected to lots of peer pressure -- from yourself, no less.

Post reply on HN