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

996

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#191

Post by HPsquared »

NaomiLehman wrote: post #179
Aurornis wrote: post #23

When founders put 996 in their job descriptions or Tweet about their 996 culture it’s a helpful signal to avoid that company. The only time I’d actually consider crazy schedules was if I was the founder with a huge equity stake and a once in a lifetime opportunity that would benefit from a short period of 996. For average employees? Absolutely not. If someone wants extraordinary hours they need to be providing extrao…

I don't understand what kind of job, except for some very, very fringe cases like a NASA active mission or an atomic threat, would require a person to pull all-nighters. And how is that productive in the long-term? It's not exactly easy to hire talent.

College trains people for this. Basically anything with strict deadlines. Most of my coursework was done at the latest possible time, in the early hours of the morning. I think these workplaces just carry over that vibe.

Re: 996

#192

Post by NaomiLehman »

gyomu wrote: post #98
manoDev wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 996 for a business owner or top exec at a big company? It’s the norm. And the risk-reward makes sense to them. It's bad anyway. These people burnout and start making dumb moves to bail out sooner.

Heh, at that level the job is just meetings and emails. You can do 996 of meetings and emails for a few millions a year without burning out. Actual craft tasks like writing code tho? Definitely a recipe for burnout and shittier output, yep.

I burned out after a year and a half of doing that. Not worth it. And after a certain NW, what's the difference? How much money do you need?

Re: 996

#193

Post by whstl »

scubbo wrote: post #185
robterrell wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're smart enough to get hired for one of these roles, and you're willing to work 996, be just a little bit smarter and found your own startup and take all the upside.

> and take all the upside And all of the risk. Encouraging anyone to start their own company is deeply irresponsible. Most startups fail. If you're needing encouragement to do it - if you're not already fully deluded that you're the special snowflake unique genius who will succeed where all others have failed - you shouldn't be doing it.

First: regular employees are already taking the risk of being jobless some time in the future when joining startups.

Second: there is no CEO in tech taking a smaller salary than their employees.

Re: 996

#194

Post by analognoise »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #112
analognoise wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. We don’t need “the elite” - they don’t actually “create jobs”, and the “engine of the economy” is just a convenient vehicle for the rich (and private equity) to ruin the middle class further - it was never about “efficient markets”. If anything what we’ve seen over the last 40…

There is some benefit from having a pool of people with enough funds to take investment risks that the rank and file can't. They can outmaneuver any planned economy. The problem in the US is that those people have engineered themselves a disproportionate wealth disparity that doesn't generate a collective benefit.

That used to be “industrial policy” - it doesn’t need to be individuals at all. In fact it shouldn’t be - they’re concerned with returns, not jobs and certainly not with any technology that requires a longer timespan to complete.

The Biden administration had excellent industrial policy. Trump had the government steal a 10% share of Intel.

Watching people realize he’s just a criminal loser has been heartening.

Re: 996

#195

Post by gedy »

Aurornis wrote: post #23

When founders put 996 in their job descriptions or Tweet about their 996 culture it’s a helpful signal to avoid that company. The only time I’d actually consider crazy schedules was if I was the founder with a huge equity stake and a once in a lifetime opportunity that would benefit from a short period of 996. For average employees? Absolutely not. If someone wants extraordinary hours they need to be providing extrao…

These founders who tout this nonsense are convinced they got to their position by "hustling" (and not their background, privilege, etc) and think motivated employees should do the same (even if it makes no economic sense for them).

Besides, their 996 is the usual nonsense of posting faux thought leader crap on linkedin. Not being shoved Jira tickets and hurry up with it.

Re: 996

#196

Post by jaccola »

NaomiLehman wrote: post #179
Aurornis wrote: post #23

When founders put 996 in their job descriptions or Tweet about their 996 culture it’s a helpful signal to avoid that company. The only time I’d actually consider crazy schedules was if I was the founder with a huge equity stake and a once in a lifetime opportunity that would benefit from a short period of 996. For average employees? Absolutely not. If someone wants extraordinary hours they need to be providing extrao…

I don't understand what kind of job, except for some very, very fringe cases like a NASA active mission or an atomic threat, would require a person to pull all-nighters. And how is that productive in the long-term? It's not exactly easy to hire talent.

People who enforce 996 or whatever other schedule are treating the symptom and not the cause.

What they really want is for all of their employees to be so in love with the work, so bought into the mission and so compelled by the vision that they want to work until late.

Of course building a company that inspires that is actually very difficult (though is possible for sure) so it’s easier just to enforce a crazy and unproductive schedule.

Re: 996

#198

Post by analognoise »

didgetmaster wrote: post #189
andsoitis wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When America was strongest, we had a large and increasing middle class, and the top marginal tax rate was above 70% - it was in the 90s. I think you got this wrong. According to my sources the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6%. It was during the 50s, 60s, and 70s that it never dipped below 70%. Source: https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Inco... The other thing is that different dimensi…

The 'tax the rich' crowd loves to quote the top marginal rates from 50 years ago; but did anyone ever really pay those rates? Tax shelters were common in those days with the rich paying accountants and tax attorneys to find ways of avoiding those astronomical rates.

Some people tried to evade the system - that’s why we have helicopters. We can just grab them and bring them to court, no problem.

I don’t think “some people didn’t abide the rules” is reason not to make sensible laws.

Re: 996

#199

Post by komali2 »

scubbo wrote: post #185
robterrell wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're smart enough to get hired for one of these roles, and you're willing to work 996, be just a little bit smarter and found your own startup and take all the upside.

> and take all the upside And all of the risk. Encouraging anyone to start their own company is deeply irresponsible. Most startups fail. If you're needing encouragement to do it - if you're not already fully deluded that you're the special snowflake unique genius who will succeed where all others have failed - you shouldn't be doing it.

> Most startups fail.

So, where's the risk? You still just were working anyway, pulling a salary from someone else's bank account for a couple years. And now you have "Founder" or "Founding Engineer" or "CEO" or "CTO" on your resume. So you didn't have a good exit. So what?

Re: 996

#200

Post by criddell »

If you are working 9-9 x 6 to build a $10 billion company, why not double your head count and halve the hours? If you build that mega unicorn, there will be plenty of money to share and still have more than you will ever need.

Or do the 996 thing and try not to think too much about your Alzheimer’s and heart disease filled future. Maybe leave a big gift to the hospital that takes care of you before you die at way too young of an age.

Post reply on HN