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

281–290 of 300 posts

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

#281

Post by iancmceachern »

greatpostman wrote: post #21

Controversial opinion: 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. In some ways, being a dedicated corporate employee makes you unattractive as a person. I know a lot of guys in their late 20s that think this. And I know a lot of broke bar tenders dating great women. Unless you are mak…

Correction, - men are realizing that women never did (care about money) and just want to spend more time with their loved ones.

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

#282

Post by xyzelement »

LeanderK wrote: post #243
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 was nearly laughing out reading this comment. It's so materialistic and conservative. I bet if it was the other way around you wouldn't care since the women just needs to find itself the right man who can support her! > Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating. it's like you wouldn't believe women care about other aspects besides stable careers.…

I appreciate that my post tickled you this way :) I think there are two differences between where you and I come from.

First, you are talking about which things are possible. I agree all of the things you describe are possible - and happen sometimes. My assertion is that the kind of relationship you describe is exceedingly rare - and even more rarely happy - especially later in life.

Second - my post is preconditioned on a values statement about the long term, which includes the desire of raising up a family into the next generation. That's a values thing, you don't have to buy into that, but empirically as people grow up, they either tend to find their way into having a family, or regret failing to do so.

So yeah it's not the 50s and people can do whatever they want. But people still often chose to structure their life a certain way and attain what seems like better outcomes (I am talking about family formation)

For what it's worth I also came from a broke home and as consequence it took me until almost 40 to find a path to a happy family life, but I am glad I did.

I don't assert that I am a superior man, but I do feel great about having a family, and my ability to provide for my wife and kids is a part of that. My wife recently brought up cutting back on her work (she's an emergency room physician) and I am happy that that's an option I can help her materialize if she wants to.

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

#283

Post by tsunamifury »

shadowgovt wrote: post #52
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.

Possibly. The work attire for technical professionals shifted from suits and ties to jeans and t-shirts because the power shifted from Wall Streeters to Silicon Valley hippies as the value added to the economy by computers grew. This smells like another work-cultural element that could shift easily if several startup-types declare four-day work weeks and find themselves enough runway money to get to revenue-positive.…

I have one massive rebuttal to that. Suits were not wrapped in CMBS tranches threatening the collapse municipal and national economic sectors.

People are being forced back to the office because the banks and the fed fear an economic crisis. They are demanding mass layoffs to destabilize the worker leverage earned in the pandemic and force them back into spending habits that might bail all these cmbss out. Suits never needed to come back. Office space must.

The bailout in 2007 was paid for with our taxes. The bailout of 2023 is being paid with your time and happiness. Never forget it.

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

#284

Post by SideQuark »

enraged_camel wrote: post #234
nebula8804 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm you've inspired an idea. For stories like this, wish there was some browser extension that would link the study (maybe through user submitted content?) That way, users can avoid clicking the link altogether and just go read the study.

The problem is most people aren’t qualified to correctly interpret scientific studies. Even if the abstracts are written in laypeople terms, the studies often contain important nuances. In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…

Your issues are not really resolvable. The nuances are complex, so you either need to cover enough depth to convey the accuracy, which will lose or bore too many readers, or you dumb it down enough to make it consumable by less sophisticated readers, and lose the nuance.

And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.

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

#285

Post by kerkeslager »

welshwelsh wrote: post #185
kerkeslager wrote: post #134

Good. It has become clear that the rich aren't going to give the rest of us any of the profits gained as automation makes things more efficient. The only way normal people gain from improvements is if we collectively refuse to work more than we're paid for. This also smooths the transition to a future in which all work is automated and no one needs to work. That future it far away but it is coming. As less and less h…

Automation isn't going to take anyone's job. People using automation will push out people who lack the skills to use automation. The people who fall behind won't benefit because they don't contribute. The future where people can work very little to survive is already here, but it's only for those who can produce great value with very little effort.

> People using automation will push out people who lack the skills to use automation.

This is an understandable sentiment because it's been true for all of the history of automation, but I really don't think you're grokking the implications of truly pervasive automation. The using of automation can and will be automated, so the skills to use automation will eventually not be useful skills.

> The people who fall behind won't benefit because they don't contribute.

People don't accumulate resources by "contributing" them. The people who benefit the most from automation are those who use automation to accumulate more resources (including more automation).

The people who accumulate the most resources generally have some projects which create the impression of being prosocial, but the mental illness which causes one to amass huge amounts of wealth, makes one unsuitable to be in charge of prosocial projects. For example, I fully support space exploration, but I really don't think the guy who thinks we should put slaves on Mars is the guy who is best suited to be in charge of that.

The future I fear is one in which the same sociopaths who have been sucking all the resources out of society for themselves no longer need to even pretend to care about the rest of us, because they no longer need workers, since workers are automated.

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

#286

Post by sgerenser »

polskibus wrote: post #270
lumost wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies have had numerous ways of tweaking engagement for office workers which are no longer effective. These tweaks ranged from mildly positive too awful. I suspect that people who were at firms using these tweaks are starting to simply find their own balance based on what they can/want to deliver relative to peers. - Have team events/other activities which encourage the team to stay late at the office for social…

It is tried, my friends who do insurance sales have software on their laptops that monitors mouse and keyboard activity. Which leads people to buying usb sticks that send out fake mouse movements :)

They’re called “mouse jigglers.” I imagine sales have skyrocketed since the start of the pandemic.

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

#287

Post by Gud »

antisthenes wrote: post #255
starkd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't multitask deep work.

So what? Must work is not deep work.

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

#288

Post by Gud »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #198
siftrics wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think that "I want a partner who works as hard as I do to succeed" is superficial. I think "I want a partner who is at least 6 feet tall" is superficial.

Why is that superficial? Being tall has clear value

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

#290

Post by starkd »

zdw wrote: post #141
starkd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any doctors actually in private practice now? I've found most have already sold their practices to hospitals or some kind of provider network, and they are told the patient load they must provide. It's just not economical to stay independent and reduce your workload.

Assuming that this is US-based, but I would wager this is more related to the incredible byzantine health insurance system created to leech profit off the overall system without delivering useful services. Most doctors don't want to engage with a crazy actuarial accounting, hence they outsource it, which can be a reasonable tradeoff. Nuking that system from orbit with universal single payer would solve this, and also…

> Nuking that system from orbit with universal single payer would solve this

Just when has a government administration led to a less byzantine system? From experience, it can very well make it much worse. For one, there would be no competition for dollars from providers. (Not that there is much of that now.) Plus you would have a cap on doctor's salaries. Early retirements and a severe doctor shortage has become a real problem.

Post reply on HN