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

The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

mstdn.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 511 posts

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#261

Post by javcasas »

projektfu wrote: post #70

From a small business perspective, turnover is a lot higher, and a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go. I think this is the tight labor market at work, actually. Good workers are being retained because there is enough demand for them. If they move, they are not on the market, they're recruited and cherry picked. The available ones responding to ads have usuall…

> a lot more of it is because the employees are simply not doing their jobs and have to be let go

You are trying to find a cheap and good employee at the same time. Those tend to be scarce. Yet you keep scrapping the bottom of the barrel, and finding low quality.

Have you considered a change of other parameters of your search? For example, the budget or the availability required.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#262

Post by WalterBright »

cypherpunks01 wrote: post #22

I found 2011 to be the most enlightening quote: > Man, what a weird week. Unless it's on their own terms, it seems nobody wants to work anymore. It's the only one with any acknowledgement that agreeable terms may actually be needed in order to attract people to work. It doesn't take a PhD to figure this out! Utah Phillips, one of my favorite storytellers and all-around anarchist and hobo has a line I was reminded of:…

> agreeable terms may actually be needed in order to attract people to work

aka the Law of Supply & Demand.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#263

Post by kaashif »

usrbinbash wrote: post #199
bbarn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard the argument that a negative effect of the post WW2 "feminist" movement (by that I mean women in the work force) has had the long term effect of causing prices to simply adjust to the dual income household, to the point that now it is a necessity. It is a privileged family today that can afford to live comfortably on only one salary.

That argument, like all arguments that somehow equate wages with inflation, would hold water if the productivity of the workforce was constant. We know that it isn't. Productivity of the workforce is ever increasing. The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce.

> The generated wealth simply doesn't make it to the workforce.

Some of it does - real wages in the US are higher than in the past: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#264

Post by WalterBright »

usrbinbash wrote: post #53

It's pretty simple really. If the reward from working is barely enough to cover the necessities, then there is technically no difference between working as a free citizen, and being forced to work as an indentured servant, other than a vague notion of freedom, which in that case is the freedom to decide between working and living on the streets. And people don't like being indentured servants. History should have mad…

Consider the share of the GDP sucked up and dissipated by the government. That inevitably results in a general lower standard of living.

The government has grown enormously in my lifetime, sucking up much (most?) of the productivity increases.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#265

Post by coldtea »

alisonatwork wrote: post #205
usrbinbash wrote: post #53

It's pretty simple really. If the reward from working is barely enough to cover the necessities, then there is technically no difference between working as a free citizen, and being forced to work as an indentured servant, other than a vague notion of freedom, which in that case is the freedom to decide between working and living on the streets. And people don't like being indentured servants. History should have mad…

I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family. While some lament the loss of this golden age their g…

>I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family.

Keyword "luxurious".

People first and foremost want to be able to have a roof, food, some leisure time, and so on, not luxury.

And people could have a lot of that for more than "a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries". Between common wrong tropes, movies, and ignorance of history, the past is hugely downplayed as to these aspects.

The "industrial revolution" era of Marx and Dickens time, actually worsened (for the first 2 centuries or so) the working conditions and increased the working hours for huge swaths of the population. People had to be forced (via law, violence, and destruction of their prior livelihood) to go work in factories (and many fought hard for keeping their rural way of life).

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#266

Post by [deleted] »

arp242 wrote: post #42
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #7

Similarly … The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers. 400BC

This is of course the famous quote from Socrates, and I absolutely hate this "argument". "Socrates was wrong in 400BC and it's wrong today" is one possible scenario, but it's also entirely possible that: - Socrates was right in 400BC. - at multiple points in 2,400 years there was a problem with "kids these days". - Socrates was wrong in 400BC, but it's fair today or at other points in history. It's just a complete no…

[deleted]

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#267

Post by coldtea »

kaashif wrote: post #254
alisonatwork wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's important to note that the good old days of a working man being able to support a family of five was only true for a brief period of history in a handful of elite countries. In most of the world, and for most of human history, it hasn't been the case that any single person working 40 hours a week could provide a luxurious lifestyle for a large family. While some lament the loss of this golden age their g…

It is funny, people somehow think that a momentary episode of utter economic dominance after all other economic powers had been bombed into dust should be the norm. And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

>And the 50s and 60s weren't that great for e.g. black people or women in the US either.

This argument is repeated a lot anytime someone mentions the working conditions in the 50s/60s, but how is it any relevant? Is there some natural law that says that mistreatment of blacks for example have to always go hand in hand with livable wages? And that anybody that likes the latter from the 50s/60s must also want the former?

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#268

Post by itsboring »

SoftTalker wrote: post #216
add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen the same thing in others and in myself, but I'd put it as pre- and post-Agile/Jira. The industry used to be full of enthusiasm but now it's like Office Space.

Interesting observation, it hadn't occurred to me but I think you're right. My dissatisfaction with software work started right around the time that agile practices became popular. The work changed, and started feeling like less of a craft and more like flipping burgers.

At least flipping burgers you don’t have to have a morning call where you say, “Yesterday I flipped burgers, today I’m going to flip more burgers. No blockers.”

Or a Jira user story titled “As a burger eater, I want to eat a burger that’s been flipped so it’s cooked on both sides.”

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#269

Post by sneed-oil »

jwells89 wrote: post #163
rightbyte wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like, people realized how nice their life's were if they spent less time at work. I did not understand how much my 45min x 2 commute was draining my stamina before I stopped commuting, e.g.

The mental and financial toll of long commutes was (and still is, to a reduced extent) consistently underestimated. Doubly so if that commute is driven, where one must remain focused on driving and deal with associated frustrations the whole time.

I don't mind my 75 minutes x 2 commute, but 55 minutes are spent on a half empty train and the rest on bikes (mostly on bike lanes or empty roads), so I get to eat a snack, use my laptop and do some mild cardio. I've done the same commute a couple of times by car and it was much more stressful.

Re: The Long History of Nobody Wants to Work Anymore

#270

Post by bluGill »

alisonatwork wrote: post #242
muro wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First it was "support a family of five", then "luxurious lifestyle" then "humble lifestyle". Except for the "luxurious" one, it was possible pretty much at any time in human history, including now.

The post I am responding to mentioned providing a family of five with a self-owned house, a car, a couple of vacations per year and a comfortable retirement. To many people around the world - still today - that would be considered a luxurious lifestyle. You are right that it's possible for one person to support a family. For most people working in the tech industry here on HN they could probably figure out a way to d…

The post you are responding to didn't have Starbucks coffee every day, did have internet, cable tv, subscriptions to streaming services, a computer with a monthly subscription in every pocket. They didn't even have that option.

The above is just a short list. Live like 1955 and you can support a family of 5 with, a car, vacations every year and a nice retirement. You won't have many of the other luxuries people enjoy today. If you don't want to that us fine, but don't say it can't be done.

Post reply on HN