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

Why Work Marriages Make Sense

blog.joelx.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 37 posts

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#11

Post by the_af »

dnissley wrote: post #2

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability." It makes a certain amount of sense, but so do the other positions of the "Clueless" or "Sociopaths". If you are ambitious, then the "Loser" deal is clearly a bad one. [1] - http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-princip…

Wow, that's a much better article. The following quote in particular rings true (and is the opposite of the claim from the "marriage" article):

"The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm — the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left"

I've seen former coworkers build these delusions, even when the ship was sinking and what was left of management was clearly mistreating them.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#12

Post by patio11 »

This model of employment exists. In Japan we call them "salarymen", in America "tenured professors" or "civil servants" or (in much of the country) "tenured schoolteachers." The model heavily distorts expectations about work (for those in the model and out of it), life, culture, etc. It is not an accident that your workplace will frequently be involved in the decision of who you actually, not metaphorically, marry.

If your life experience does not include enough warning flags for the potential negative consequences of this model on the firm, on its non-"married" workers, on its "married" workers, on its workers' families, on its customers, and on the wider society, flag me down two weeks from now and I will go into them at substantial length.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#13

Post by Mz »

So why would they want to be exclusive? Mostly because they want their significant other to be committed and not leave them whenever the significant other has a better option.

Uh, no. Monogamy is rooted in, basically, the following issues:

1) Germ control. You can get deadly diseases by sleeping around casually.

2) Sex leads to babies and human babies do best with two parents. It is a big burden and our species is designed to do the two parent thing.

3) It takes 15-20 hours a week to build and maintain real intimacy. There simply isn't enough time in the week to have lots of different genuinely intimate lovers. The math suggests that most people can sustain no more than two genuinely intimate sexual relationships.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#14

Post by jasode »

This article is terrible.

>Some companies today and many companies of yesteryear had a different relationship with their team members: that of the husband / wife level of commitment.

The relationship was more like parent & child than that of husband & wife. That's what it was with the 1950s automotive companies and Japanese corporations decades ago. The common adjective when discussing those companies was "paternalistic" and not "spousal".

The author should research the rigid labor situation in France and see how it's handicapping their economic growth. They don't have the political will to push through labor reforms and their young workers face 25% unemployment rates.

A husband+wife employment model in America would weaken instead of strengthen its economic power.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#15

Post by humanrebar »

Mz wrote: post #13

So why would they want to be exclusive? Mostly because they want their significant other to be committed and not leave them whenever the significant other has a better option. Uh, no. Monogamy is rooted in, basically, the following issues: 1) Germ control. You can get deadly diseases by sleeping around casually. 2) Sex leads to babies and human babies do best with two parents. It is a big burden and our species is de…

2 is pretty key. The parent(s) are the anchor for the family unit. Examining marriage outside the context of family is a big conceptual mistake.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#16

Post by nostrademons »

dnissley wrote: post #2

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability." It makes a certain amount of sense, but so do the other positions of the "Clueless" or "Sociopaths". If you are ambitious, then the "Loser" deal is clearly a bad one. [1] - http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-princip…

I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along.

It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the firm, rise into middle management, diligently play the company line, and then get abruptly disillusioned when the firm institutes mass layoffs.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#17

Post by dnissley »

nostrademons wrote: post #16
dnissley wrote: post #2

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability." It makes a certain amount of sense, but so do the other positions of the "Clueless" or "Sociopaths". If you are ambitious, then the "Loser" deal is clearly a bad one. [1] - http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-princip…

I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along. It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the fi…

On second thought, yeah. Losers are strategic enough that they would be appalled to think that they had a "relationship" with their employer.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#18

Post by fleitz »

nostrademons wrote: post #16
dnissley wrote: post #2

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability." It makes a certain amount of sense, but so do the other positions of the "Clueless" or "Sociopaths". If you are ambitious, then the "Loser" deal is clearly a bad one. [1] - http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-princip…

I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along. It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the fi…

Yeah no shit, if you get fired and get to keep 50% of the stock, it might be a marriage.

Otherwise it's just delusional. My labour goes to the highest bidder.

Re: Why Work Marriages Make Sense

#19

Post by sebastianconcpt »

That's really a confusing thing in many ways.

"The company can be sure that that person will show up each day and do their best to do good work." Sorry I'm too tired to refute the rest of the confusion but to leave something of value to think about: the way our brains operate have optimised us to think about people. Disney make some objects like creatures because is easy for kids to pick up on anthropomorphised objects.

There might be something of value to research in the antropomorphisation of the company-employee relationship but my radar says it's easily going to end up hacking unaware or unpowered humans into company drones.

Watch this: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-corporation/

Post reply on HN