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

151–160 of 300 posts

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

#151

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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.

I don't think you have actually done the math on taxes if you think that.

First off, the 32% bracket kicks in at 170k of taxable income, which is going to be at least 183k of actual income because of the standard deduction (probably higher because of itemized deductions).

Second, the 6.2% social security tax stops at 160k of income, so your income in the 32% bracket is really only taxed at 1.8% more than most of your income in the 24% bracket.

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

#152

Post by polio »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #139
xyzelement wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearsighted view that's probably not common among those raised with a long term values perspective. Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating. The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either. And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in yo…

I love how you cannot imagine a world where the women is the high earned, pretty insanely conservative to me.

You can imagine it, but it isn't typical.

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

#153

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #131
ren_engineer wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the last sentence of the article hints at the real reason it was written in the first place: >But as staff cut back their hours, it costs medical organizations money it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. I think the pandemic had a large effect on people in terms of 1. Having to face potential mortality much earlier than expected and thus…

It’s not their potential mortality. It is their mortality. Very real, and always imminent. Once it stops becoming a “potential” thing, and it’s accepted as reality, then you start making real choices. The outcome is telling but not surprising. It’s among the oldest human wisdom.

Doesn't everyone wonder if they're the first immortal to be born?

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

#154

Post by polio »

yterdy wrote: post #120
lupire wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are tall, smart, and funny, but can't pull in good money, you probably aren't so smart. Unless maybe you are ugly? But then does tall still help?

Intelligence is multi-faceted. Could be witty, could be street-smart, could be emotionally intelligent. Either way, you don't need it if you have the other two (with "funny" being a euphemism for "not dull"). Height especially. I don't have a dog in that race as a gay man, but the way that "preference" bleeds into the way people treat you in the office and in social settings (and even in the classroom) is pretty frus…

Yes, those are all colloquially accepted meanings of intelligence, but what people in this thread mean is g, fluid intelligence.

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

#155

Post by yeahwhatever10 »

dahart wrote: post #101
bodiekane wrote: post #5

> Since this group already put in longer hours than the typical U.S. worker—and women at the highest income levels—these high earners had longer work days to trim > Before the pandemic, Eli Albrecht, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area, says he worked between 80 to 90 hours a week. Now, he says he puts in 60 to 70 hours each week Key lines from the article, which give important context and invert what many people'…

TBH For me the line about Eli only begs for more context. Having done it for a while in the games industry, I know first hand that 80-90 hours/week is next to unliveable for long stretches, and the difference between 80 and 90 is enormous (working 80 leaves you with almost 50% more waking non-work-time than 90, assuming 8 hours of sleep). Some people really do work that much, and Eli might be, but 80 means you cut mo…

A lot of people also associate being at work with working even if they are sitting there reading HN.

I noticed this about myself so I started tracking my time. Has really helped my productivity and the mental drain of feeling like I’m always working. Now I recognize how many other activities I actually do.

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

#156

Post by Retric »

bradlys wrote: post #75
xyzelement wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearsighted view that's probably not common among those raised with a long term values perspective. Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating. The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either. And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in yo…

I’d also argue that for young men - unless you’re an absolute unit and breathtakingly handsome… you’re always going to need to make more than your partner for a long term relationship. Being a bartender or taking a lower wage job is a surefire way to only being able to sleep around. I’ve only met a few women who earn more than their spouse and can actually only think of one off the top of my head. Every other couple…

I can think of several. It’s becoming quite common as significantly more women have been getting degrees than men.

Guys with flexible jobs and domestic skills can be very appealing to high income earning women. At one end a friend was doing raft tours and became a cook. A higher pay and status example is a PHD taking care of high end lab equipment married to a high end lawyer. I also know of several cases of women inheriting large sums and windows.

I think it’s fairly common you just rarely know, my grandfather’s second wife was much better off and I had no idea until someone told me.

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

#157

Post by chiefalchemist »

starkd wrote: post #50
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.

There will always be a need for some multi-taskers. Some are better at it than others. Not everyone is the same. Office secretaries/assistants/receptionists are the heartbeat of any business.

It's still a productivity killer. Full stop.

And unless the work is literally a matter of life or death, then excessive multitasking - to point you list it as a desired skill - is simply a sign of poor planning, poor priority setting, and so on.

The job ad might as well say, "Must enjoy working at a shit show, or at least has had a life-long dream of working at a circus."

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

#158

Post by siftrics »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #144
bradlys wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d also argue that for young men - unless you’re an absolute unit and breathtakingly handsome… you’re always going to need to make more than your partner for a long term relationship. Being a bartender or taking a lower wage job is a surefire way to only being able to sleep around. I’ve only met a few women who earn more than their spouse and can actually only think of one off the top of my head. Every other couple…

Yup. When I met my girlfriend she was really clear that she didn't want to date someone who didn't have a similar level of accomplishment to her. It wasn't about money entirely, but money was a part of it. She has a master's degree and manages a department of people at a fairly big company. I only have a bachelor, and I don't manage people, but I earn more than her. So I guess it balances out? She would never date a…

Wow, I am sorry your girlfriend has such superficial values.

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

#159

Post by osigurdson »

bigcloud1299 wrote: post #9
throwaway5959 wrote: post #3

We’re exhausted and there’s little real upside. Makes sense to me to cut back.

Agree. I used to work 60+ hours to make a huge impact on my firm and our revenue. Now I am like fuck it. Down to 30.

You probably feel that way as there was little benefit to you for working 60 hours/week. It is really unfortunate that companies cannot seem to find ways to reward people that enjoy working hard. Sure there are OKRs, etc., but too hard to tie that to the bottom line.

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

#160

Post by bluefirebrand »

nixgeek wrote: post #135
xyzelement wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a huge problem?

Why is it normal or acceptable that men earn more than women? It’s been studied for a long time and there’s evidence [1] of some closure across recent censuses, but we’re far from done. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/what-is-the-g...

> Why is it normal

It was the norm for generations because women didn't work at all and men were expected to earn all of the money for themselves and their family.

We are not as far removed from those days as people would like to think, expecting the attitude to have completely gone away by now is very optimistic.

> Why is it acceptable

Why would it not be acceptable?

Even in a society with zero bias in favor of men in the workplace, it's still possible that men wind up earning more due to other factors than just bias.

If men are earning more than women doing the same job while all other factors are the same, then that's unfair.

If men are earning more because they are working more hours, or because they are taking more dangerous or undesirable jobs that women choose not to pursue, or if men are choosing higher paid industries more consistently, then that's not unfair. That's economics.

Post reply on HN