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

Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–269 of 269 posts

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#261

Post by hueving »

whybroke wrote: post #251
hueving wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thought of people dying in the streets from preventable disease and injury sounds pretty horrendous. Doesn't happen in the US unless the person intends to do so. But that's pretty good fear mongering on your behalf.

So you're saying there has always been universal healthcare in the US even before Obama was elected? That everyone has always gotten all the medical care they need? Or are you saying uninsured people don't get sick? In fact roughly 45,000 die a year due to lack of medical care.[1] Why not embrace the society you're creating? Because I'm sure Miss Rand would not be happy with that level of self delusion. [1] http://ne…

Wow, a Rand reference. You must be of such superior intellect that thinking of an original argument is beneath you.

Reread my message. A person will not be kicked out of the hospital to die on the street. Preventative Healthcare is a problem, but immediate is not.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#262

Post by ghshephard »

ilyanep wrote: post #127
ghshephard wrote: post #20

Even worse is the new trend in technology companies to eliminate "Set Vacation". It used to be the case that you felt "obliged" somehow to take your 10 days of vacation a year, because you saw it piling up. Even better, if you were laid off, you could get the vacation in cash, and that helped when you were cut off without a job. But now, a lot of technology companies are saying, "No Set Vacation - you need to negotia…

I dislike seeing this sentiment all over HN just because it isn't as absolutely true as everyone wants to believe. I work for a company with unlimited vacation, and in my first 10 months working there will have taken ~3-3.5 weeks of vacation days cumulatively that I probably wouldn't have if I had to conserve a limited set of days. Nobody has given me crap over it, nor have I felt pressured to not take those days. It…

I'm talking about the average/majority case. I also have a colleague who managed to talk his way (after completing a major re-architecture of our product) into a 3 month paid vacation. He gave his notice 2 weeks after coming back from that.

So - if you are a high performing individual, you can make it work for you, but for a lot of people, unlimited days morphs into no days.

But - I think your kicker really captures the impact of this policy "t's just a matter of having a company that actually wants reasonable work-life balance for their employees."

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#263

Post by whybroke »

hueving wrote: post #261
whybroke wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying there has always been universal healthcare in the US even before Obama was elected? That everyone has always gotten all the medical care they need? Or are you saying uninsured people don't get sick? In fact roughly 45,000 die a year due to lack of medical care.[1] Why not embrace the society you're creating? Because I'm sure Miss Rand would not be happy with that level of self delusion. [1] http://ne…

Wow, a Rand reference. You must be of such superior intellect that thinking of an original argument is beneath you. Reread my message. A person will not be kicked out of the hospital to die on the street. Preventative Healthcare is a problem, but immediate is not.

No, not the street: you will be kicked out of the hospital to die at home.

But true, if you're shot in the street, an emergency room will accept you.

But no, there's no chemotherapy in the emergency room.

> You must be of such superior intellect that thinking of an original argument is beneath you.

Wow, an ad hominem attack, what a surprise.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#264

Post by kamaal »

ghshephard wrote: post #20

Even worse is the new trend in technology companies to eliminate "Set Vacation". It used to be the case that you felt "obliged" somehow to take your 10 days of vacation a year, because you saw it piling up. Even better, if you were laid off, you could get the vacation in cash, and that helped when you were cut off without a job. But now, a lot of technology companies are saying, "No Set Vacation - you need to negotia…

>>Even better, if you were laid off, you could get the vacation in cash

Even better, in a few places you don't have to be let go encash leaves.

My last company had a leave encashment policy. I remember, I hadn't taken a single leave in 5 years. I knew many of my senior colleagues hadn't taken one in 7+ years. When the mandatory leave encashment period arrived, we ended up with a quite a good chunk of cash.

After that the leave encashment policy was amended by the then CFO, realizing what had just happened. The new policy was designed to have a concept of 'leave expiry'(If you don't rest, may be you don't deserve rest in the future).

I guess the new CFO's now realize, 'leave expiry' policies force the other kind of culture- where every one wants to take leaves which now forces the people who other wise don't take leave to take it, because no one wants to 'waste' leaves.

So the most obvious solution is to put in a 'unlimited vacation'. So that the onus of leave is on you and your manager, if you there is ever a free time in your project you can have that vacation(Which will never come to pass anyway). This way you neither have to pay leave encashment nor have employees who enjoy full benefit of leaves. Instead the company as a whole now has lesser employees taking fewer leaves.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#265

Post by rmc »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #213
gtremper wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same here. I wish they would give a target number of days to shoot for. I've even asked and I always get wishy-washy answers.

My guess is that its to preserve cash. My current employer gave me 5 weeks/year, little of which I've used, and they're going to have to pay out almost 8 weeks of vacation on my last day next week. At my current rate, its a significant amount of cash. If you're a startup, that can be painful to cough up.

This is why employers should force their employees to take those holidays.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#266

Post by bmm6o »

mncolinlee wrote: post #253
bmm6o wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's not so depressing when you realize that Cadillac is selling to generally older people who have already made these decisions. It's a 60 y.o. thinking "I did work hard, and I deserve a Cadillac", not a 25 y.o. thinking "I'm going to bust ass working for the Man so I can drive a Cadillac". Interestingly, the car is a hybrid, which is barely mentioned in the ad.

> Interestingly, the car is a hybrid, which is barely mentioned in the ad. Technically speaking, both the Ford C-Max Energi and the Cadillac ELR in these ads are extended range electrics. They have smaller batteries than battery electric vehicles, but the gas engine exists only as a generator of electricity. As I've always said, humans care about narratives. Most people and market segments value the story a car says…

Right, it's just that the technology is forward-looking while the sales pitch is so regressive. I suspect the target market would actually like it less if they knew more about the technology.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#267

Post by hueving »

whybroke wrote: post #263
hueving wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, a Rand reference. You must be of such superior intellect that thinking of an original argument is beneath you. Reread my message. A person will not be kicked out of the hospital to die on the street. Preventative Healthcare is a problem, but immediate is not.

No, not the street: you will be kicked out of the hospital to die at home. But true, if you're shot in the street, an emergency room will accept you. But no, there's no chemotherapy in the emergency room. > You must be of such superior intellect that thinking of an original argument is beneath you. Wow, an ad hominem attack, what a surprise.

Keep shifting those goalposts. It's interesting that you would point out an ad hominem after you felt it was perfectly acceptable to make an idiot reference to Rand with no connection.

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#268

Post by inklesspen »

patio11 wrote: post #78
ghshephard wrote: post #20

Even worse is the new trend in technology companies to eliminate "Set Vacation". It used to be the case that you felt "obliged" somehow to take your 10 days of vacation a year, because you saw it piling up. Even better, if you were laid off, you could get the vacation in cash, and that helped when you were cut off without a job. But now, a lot of technology companies are saying, "No Set Vacation - you need to negotia…

This is sometimes called -- in one of the most Orwellian coinages in the industry -- "unlimited vacation days."

I recently joined a NYC company with "unlimited vacation days", and they do actually mean it. I mentioned this very trend when I was interviewing. They responded by saying they expect me to take AT LEAST three weeks of vacation a year.

Now, some of my coworkers are workaholics and won't take that much. But I have had success in just saying "I want to take these weeks off."

Re: Workaholism in America Is Hurting the Economy

#269

Post by tptacek »

whybroke wrote: post #258
tptacek wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "you get care if you have a fashionable cancer" bit does not ring true at all. The source you cited doesn't seem to back it up. Can you cite evidence that indigent care for cancer varies based on the "fashionability" of the specific kind of cancer?

The link above does not speak about different cancer funds. It simply shows that cancer patients without insurance just die. That is obviously how it works without universal medical care; sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die. But there are large funds for breast and cervical cancer and that is obviously very good. Unfortunately there are not for rectal or colon cancer.…

This reply is sophomoric. Its thesis is "sick people don't just magically get better with magic money like a sitcom. They die." But that's self-evidently not true; when an indigent patient has a heart attack and arrives in the emergency room, they are treated. It's not "magic money" that saves them; there is an actual pool of resources that they draw from.
Post reply on HN