Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#131

Post by sgt101 » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:51 AM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #126

sgt101 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used. On the other hand are you sure that you are reasoning correctly? Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little? What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?

> Well - the example I used was set to 60 hours not 40 - which was a number that you used. So what is your conclusion from this? That 60 hours are too much? Or is it OK to work 60 hours (i.e. more than 40)? Why bring it up if your example basically confirms that my expectations aren't unreasonable? > Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little? Yes. And I kno…

>15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.

Oh crumbs - sounds like a disaster! Why were you invested? Didn't the managing board raise some red flags and seek liquidation early?

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#132

Post by thetechlead » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:53 AM UTC

human20190310 wrote: post #25

I'm beginning to suspect that the 996 schedule (and its equivalents in other cultures) aren't actually about productivity; they're about devotion. Devotion isn't something a CEO can explicitly ask for, but a 996 schedule is, so that becomes the expectation even if it actually has a neutral-to-negative impact on productivity. Richard Liu almost made this explicit when he stated that people who didn't adhere to it were…

> The mystery to me is that if my suspicion is correct, then the CEOs and upper management must think that devotion is ultimately (long-term) more important than productivity is to the bottom line.

That's actually what Jack Ma asked for in his original WeChat posts. You simply can't ask a passionate employee to work in a fixed schedule, because they prefer working MUCH LONGER than 996.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#133

Post by reachtarunhere » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:54 AM UTC

thetechlead wrote: post #12

996 sounds like a paradise. We startup founders work 24/7. We are either working or thinking about work related stuff when not sleeping. Not that we don't know work-life balance is good for health, but you just can't stop dwelling on it if you have a devotion.

Because you are going to make the money and reward. Only the most desperate idiots would work that hard for someone else's dream.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#134

Post by yvdriess » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

theprotocol wrote: post #127

koonsolo wrote: post #101

Can someone explain to me how you can be productive for 12 hours on a single day? When I do concentrated programming work, I can maybe do 4 hours, at best 6 hours. It seems I can stretch it when doing more mundane work when I know what needs to be done. But this time is seriously reduced when I have to think about architecture or more complex stuff. The literature also point into this direction, where writers and ser…

I've had trouble finding a workplace that understood this. Even on the days where I put in 5-6 hours of high quality work I'd attract the suspicion of managers. After that they typically begin to "check on me" regularly to make sure I'm not "slacking." This would go on long-term. I have never worked anywhere where this didn't happen.

What I think is fundamental is that employees are not payed for their work, but for their time. The implicit thought pattern is that they feel they own your time.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#135

Post by Traster » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 9:57 AM UTC

achow wrote: post #42

cjw3 wrote: post #18

It’s interesting to compare the Bloomberg article with this one from the South China Morning Post, titled “Alibaba founder Jack Ma says companies forcing staff to work overtime are ‘foolish’”. Two articles reporting on the same statements and drawing completely different conclusions. It’s getting harder to find the truth. [1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3006127/alib...

Bloomberg did it again - false reporting?* It is very weird. Others reports this: “No one likes working at a company that forces you to do ‘996’. Not only is it inhumane, it’s unhealthy and even more unsustainable for long periods – plus workers, relatives and the law do not approve of it,” he said. “In the long term, even if you pay a higher salary, employees will all leave.” https://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-found…

You're still not covering the core of his argument. He also says:

>“If you find a job you like, the 996 problem does not exist; if you’re not passionate about it, every minute of going to work is a torment,” Ma said in a post on his Weibo account on Sunday.

The point he's making is not that 996 is bad, he's saying it's bad for people who aren't passionate about what they do. It only works for people who are passionate about their jobs.

Now let's take that into consideration shall we, do you think he's saying that it's fine for you to turn up to BABA and do a 9-5 and tell your boss that you're not passionate enough to do 996? Hell No! In fact he says:

> if you’re not passionate about it, every minute of going to work is a torment

So here's the choice he's laying out - either you're passionate and you're happy to work 996 (and by corollary you need to work 996 to demonstrate your passion or commitment) or every moment is a torment and clearly you shouldn't be employed there.

So no, he's not endorsing forcing people to work 996. He's endorsing forcing people to pretend they want to work 996. Which by the way, isn't sustainable for most people no matter how passionate they are.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#136

Post by theprotocol » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:11 AM UTC

yvdriess wrote: post #134

theprotocol wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had trouble finding a workplace that understood this. Even on the days where I put in 5-6 hours of high quality work I'd attract the suspicion of managers. After that they typically begin to "check on me" regularly to make sure I'm not "slacking." This would go on long-term. I have never worked anywhere where this didn't happen.

What I think is fundamental is that employees are not payed for their work, but for their time. The implicit thought pattern is that they feel they own your time.

You're right. However, being there and doing low-impact work like planning the next day in my head yields the same suspicion.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#137

Post by greatpatton » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:12 AM UTC

raducu wrote: post #122

thetechlead wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked at Alibaba. Not trying to defend the company, just offering my observation. They do work much longer hour as compared to most American companies (like Google, I worked at too), even longer than the average Chinese ones. However, 9-to-9 doesn't mean people work 12 hour straight and nobody forcing anyone to stay at work until 9. Chinese work schedule includes 30 minutes to 1 hour extra napping time at noon, and…

But does it matter if you work continuously 9-9? If I stay on premise 9-9 I still regard that as work -- that still is my time that I'm selling to the company. Can you raise a child if you are away 9-9? You wake up at 7AM, return home at 10PM, how is that even considered a life worth living? That's just insane if you ask me.

I think that Jack Ma his trying his best to reduce the Chinese population. Today Chinese population is already almost shrinking, and policies like that will make sure that having a child will be left out of the equation. Can you imagine having a child with such a work schedule? Even if one the partners stays at home, it will mean that you will barely now your child (a few hours on Sunday). What is strange is that the communist party realized that this will be a big problem in the future, but don't link that to company policies like that...

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#138

Post by rqs » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:13 AM UTC

cjw3 wrote: post #18

It’s interesting to compare the Bloomberg article with this one from the South China Morning Post, titled “Alibaba founder Jack Ma says companies forcing staff to work overtime are ‘foolish’”. Two articles reporting on the same statements and drawing completely different conclusions. It’s getting harder to find the truth. [1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3006127/alib...

It will be easier to understand if you've followed the movement.

Most of those companies are not forcing their employees to work 996 on paper. But if you don't, then first, your team leader will give you some hint to ask you to stay longer. If you still don't, you will be fired for any number of reasons (KPI is too low for example).

Because of that, the company actually don't need to force it's employees. It just keep giving them tasks which cannot be finished without work 996, plus some peer pressures (One of it is "Boss's still here, you can't leave").

Jack Ma's "forcing staff to work overtime are ‘foolish’" statement is basically the same thing: You need to fight for your own future. On the surface, it's correct, but underneath it, he's trying to make you believe Personal strive === Overwork.

It worth notice that Jack Ma also said "If you love your job, 12 hours is not very long" (“如果你热爱（工作），其实12个小时不算太长”[0]) just days ago. Hit: If you don't work 12 hours a day, you don't love your job.

Some background: Jack Ma is a lair who also likes to pretend to be a Life Advisor, he will sometime throw out some bullshit to convince others to sacrifice for him. You need to read between lines.

> “Those who can stick to a 996 schedule are those who have found their passion beyond monetary gains,” Ma wrote.

You see what's going on here :)

[0] https://finance.sina.com.cn/china/gncj/2019-04-12/doc-ihvhie...

Edited to fix some grammar problem. Hope that will make it easier to read. Thanks for pointing out :)

Yes, I fixed it again.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#139

Post by Aeolun » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:15 AM UTC

Traster wrote: post #135

achow wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bloomberg did it again - false reporting?* It is very weird. Others reports this: “No one likes working at a company that forces you to do ‘996’. Not only is it inhumane, it’s unhealthy and even more unsustainable for long periods – plus workers, relatives and the law do not approve of it,” he said. “In the long term, even if you pay a higher salary, employees will all leave.” https://www.techinasia.com/alibaba-found…

You're still not covering the core of his argument. He also says: >“If you find a job you like, the 996 problem does not exist; if you’re not passionate about it, every minute of going to work is a torment,” Ma said in a post on his Weibo account on Sunday. The point he's making is not that 996 is bad, he's saying it's bad for people who aren't passionate about what they do. It only works for people who are passionat…

Hah, I’m passionate enough, but if I had to work 996 I would be destroyed in a week.

Re: Jack Ma Again Endorses Extreme Overtime as Furor Rages On

#140

Post by CogitoCogito » Mon, Apr 15, 2019, 10:19 AM UTC

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #82

skrebbel wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a badly paid Bloomberg reporter have to gain by making me feel like Jack Ma is a mean person?

Bloomberg reporters get bonuses for writing stories that affect the market. Seriously.

I've heard this so many times and it just seems so ludicrous. How does one even prove that a specific article "affected the market". What degree need an article "affect the market" in order to qualify? How does one measure this? To whom does a reporter submit a "reimbursement for market effect" form?

I mean I guess if I saw some proof of these claims I might change my mind, but at the moment it seems totally naive.

edit: Here's an article that discusses it (for the moment I'll just assume their anonymous sources are correct which is a bit ridiculous to assume coming from a rival news source):

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...

> There's nothing wrong with a news story moving the market: It means a story is important.

I think this is really the key. Bloomberg's news is financial in nature. Basically any big story will have a market effect. So basically in this instance "moving the market" might just be equivalent to "being a big story". So if it's bad to give bonuses based upon market-moving stories, it's bad to give bonuses on big stories.

Regardless the whole thing side-steps the important question anyway. Are the articles they post actually true? That's the only thing people should concern themselves with.