High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by Moissanite » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #168

Moissanite wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious answer to this is not to allow the reduced hours - either do the full job, or do something else. Not exactly progressive, but then there aren't many jobs with these special conditions, so that's fine.

>> not to allow the reduced hours Lol. Try telling a pregnant judge that she cannot reduce her in-the-office hours. Or a judge suffering long covid. Or an older judge with medical issues. The dynamic is very different when dealing with very senior and qualified people, especially ones unafraid of courtrooms. And any elected judges are basically untouchable.

This sounds like a specific cultural peculiarity - there should be no reason why judges aren't replaceable with temporary cover from further afield, or "understudies". I appreciate that might not be realistic in the US where judges are quasi-political figures, but that is a problem with your legal system, not a jobs problem.

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

#172

Post by tristor » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

Great. I count myself amongst this group. I used to regularly do a bit of work across weekends, and stay late or start early to always be the one willing to adjust for the timezone differences of other people. I no longer do this, I work my set hours, with an hour buffer in the morning and afternoon (8AM-6PM local time) and I don't work weekends. My weekends are now sacrosanct and used for social hobbies, spending time with my family, and relaxing. I can very well see a 3-5% reduction in my work hours vs 2019, and probably a 30% reduction compared to 2016, when I had a burn out episode and changed career paths.

It turns out it's not sustainable to spend every waking hour working or thinking about work and that people need to have lives outside work. This is even more important for /men/ in particular, because we have now learned about the harm caused by absentee fathers, and it is no longer acceptable for conscientious men to neglect their families in favor of work, as was the way things were done for the last 60+ years.

Sounds like companies should suck up the "loss of money" from not being able to overwork people and hire more. There's plenty of people who would like these high-earning jobs, and our society cannot continue to chew up and spit out people, leaving broken homes and mental health crises in its wake so some investor can make an extra 20 cents in dividends a quarter.

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

#173

Post by patrick451 » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:27 PM UTC

Swizec wrote: post #11

The article talks about top 10% – $175k+/year https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom... That’s a fun grey area where you’re making a lot but not a lot . And the path to making more is paved with leverage, not with hours. You absolutely cannot get to the top 1% by just grinding away. I can’t find the study right now, but I remember reading that “work for money” tops out at about $400k. The highes…

I'm not sure this true. For example, [1] claims that for an individual earner, 400k puts you in the top 1%. That number is definitely achievable just on a salary. the article you cite is listing average numbers for top 1%, so isn't really useful here.

According to [2] a household needs to earn 570k. This is in line with [3] which claims a household needs to earn 590k. It's definitely feasible for a couple to earn that on salary alone.

[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ [2] https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/ [3] https://smartasset.com/data-studies/what-it-takes-to-be-in-t...

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

#174

Post by foobarian » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

Kids are a big consideration whether you know it or not. An ambitious professional has better odds of not making time for that, and unfortunately due to biology and the effects of parental leaves this is quite one-sided still. Getting better lately, but still imbalanced.

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

#175

Post by prewett » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:29 PM UTC

ed25519FUUU wrote: post #26

I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to move to a 4-day, or 80% (or even part time) position for a few years now. Most companies have no real support for it, or want to do it in a backwards or messy way (“we’ll negotiation more vacation time”). You’d figure I’d be able to capitalize on a FANG resume but so far no real luck. I don’t want to earn more in my career. I’m already rich. I want to work less and do my own thing m…

Try contracting / consulting. I feel like contracting has a different set of expectations, there's more of an expectation that contractors kind of do their own thing. There's also an expectation that contractors are a bit flaky, so a reliable contractor at 80% time is still a solid asset, whereas an employee at 80% time is communicating "I'm not 100% invested". I guess the difference is that with contractors the relationship is clearly understood by both sides to be "we're exchanging money for services" whereas employees are expected to be "resources that we rent". You don't expect your apartment to disappear 80% of the time, but in exchange there's a soft guarantee that the rent is sort of semi-permanent. (Hence why everyone is so upset about layoffs, it reveals that the deal is actually "I expect you to be there 100% of the time, and I'm going to pretend that this is permanent, but I may terminate the deal at any time". The contractor approach is just clearer for everyone.)

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

#176

Post by xyzelement » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

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...

I think you misunderstood the poster you replied to. He's not talking about any pay disparity, he's talking about women's preference for high earning men.

Obviously plenty of women earn more than plenty of men. They don't, as a rule, chose to marry those men.

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

#177

Post by rhino369 » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #100

bradlys wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Men are concluding that women don’t care about money as much as they used to, and having an amazing career to snag a great woman is no longer the best (or even a good) strategy I disagree. It’s not that women don’t care about money as much as they used to. They actually still care! It’s that other factors are more important now than they used to be. Your looks is very important because women aren’t gonna die withou…

NYC or SF is hardly your average dating market, though. You're playing on hard mode.

NYC is easy mode due to the gender imbalance. Harder to attract women by flaunting income since there is a ton of money there. But there are more single women than men.

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

#178

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:30 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #147

lumost wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But more than half of them have switched to reduced hours. Why are they switching to reduced hours? This sounds like the value/output equation is out of line. Why not pay more, or hire more judges to reduce the workload?

A judgeship is often a specific job. They are paid good money and, like tenured professors, cannot have their salary easily reduced. It's like being the mayor of a town. If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference. Their income is protected. There can be only one.

> If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference.

You can vote them out; judges can be imoeached for nonperformance. You can increase the number of positions for judges (mayors are obviously different) to account for trends in capacity, to the extent that the reduced hours are appropriate and nonabusive. Etc.

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

#179

Post by mstipetic » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #125

dqpb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, suit and ties aren't clothes, they're costumes. They were bound to phase out eventually.

There's something to be said for wearing suit and tie. It's a handy way to look "smartly/fashionably dressed" in a general context, that you have to put literally zero effort in thinking about. It's also, to some extent, an overt signal that you're committing to being professional and considerate of others - an often dismissed 'bourgeois' norm that's nevertheless a building block of society, if perhaps one that most…

A suit is a signal of being considerate of others? Since when?

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

#180

Post by clarge1120 » Sat, Jan 28, 2023, 4:31 PM UTC

RobinL wrote: post #119

mrandish wrote: post #8

> "High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back, often by choice" This seems like great news. I know several guys who've recently opted to earn less in exchange for more time off at home with their young kids. They are happier and the kids love it.

I had 9 months off and then went down to three days/week 3 years ago, after the birth of my first child. Definitely happier, the kids love it, and both parents are less tired so we have more quality time. Also it turned out having kids are way cheaper than I thought so long as you're happy to buy everything second hand and don't need to pay for much childcare. One reason for the decision was I figured in 20 years loo…

The impact of your decision will grow with time. Always getting better. The upside is immense. The downside is that very few people will understand or share your experience.