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

311–320 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#311

Post by moron4hire »

jvanderbot wrote: post #298
skeeter2020 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Most startups fail. so how is it different being a salaried employee at one of these companies? You say they're likely to fail; shouldn't you get the bigger lottery ticket then?

It is different because you collect a salary the whole time and build your resume. Its not like you file an LLC and then receive a check in the mail for two years of whatever you want. For a CEO founder, 996 is necessary to even have a shot at building and fundraising, and even then you're likely to quickly fail. Instead an IC banks on joining a founder who has funding and can get more while you build and collect a r…

If you're a founder and not paying yourself a salary, you're one of the class of dumb canon fodder founders that VCs have indoctrinated to create a steady supply of cheap assets they can acquire and cheap engineers trained and vetted for their real investments.

Re: 996

#312

Post by philipallstar »

ohdeargodno wrote: post #288
graemep wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 996 is just theater for investors. Investors who have not heard of the research into productivity that says long hours have no significant benefit for skilled work? Who have not heard of diminishing returns? Who have no experience of the reality of working long hours themselves?

>Who have no experience of the reality of working long hours themselves? The vast, vast majority of investors are nepo babies that inherited dad's company and his trust fund. The rest of them that may have worked have deluded themselves into thinking it was because of their "hard work" they got there So uh, yeah, they're dumbasses. But even then: they don't care that long hours have no significant benefit: the people…

> The vast, vast majority of investors are nepo babies that inherited dad's company and his trust fund.

Citation needed.

Re: 996

#314

Post by zarzavat »

bko wrote: post #307
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…

>If someone wants extraordinary hours they need to be providing extraordinary compensation. That's a naive approach. If you're in a place where people are fanatically devoted to the mission, it's a benefit in it of itself. First you'll learn a lot. Residency is often grueling in terms of hours. The payout is much later as you learn more. Also you're surrounded by very smart hard working people. Every high achiever I…

tl;dr: it's just ageism in disguise. Anyone in their 30s need not apply.

Re: 996

#315

Post by moron4hire »

paulcole wrote: post #271
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…

> When founders put 996 in their job descriptions or Tweet about their 996 culture it’s a helpful signal to avoid that company. Or a helpful signal to join that company if it’s something you’re excited about. It’s crazy to me that people are so arrogant to say that somebody else is “wrong” for being excited about something.

If you were genuinely excited and cared about your startup, you'd do the right thing for it and get some sleep.

Re: 996

#316

Post by roughly »

kriops wrote: post #279
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We probably need to rethink how companies are structured - there are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries but are (in theory) dictatorships with no official ability to change course if the one guy who owns the shares does not want to. Who is the ‘demos’ in a company? Who gets a vote ? Will voting really slow things down?

As long as the companies in question aren't monopolies on violence, it's a complete non-issue. So with that in mind, why would any sane person want to impose such an inefficient mechanism to allocate resources and make decisions within a company or corporation? The only good thing about democracy in the context of a state, after all, is that every other alternative is worse. But that is strictly because of the fundam…

The guy who whispers in the king’s ear also has an effective monopoly on violence.

What we’ve learned over the last half century is that extreme wealth disparities lead to extreme power disparities. Coercion doesn’t just emanate from the state.

Re: 996

#317

Post by epolanski »

imajoredinecon wrote: post #116
drob518 wrote: post #95

Having worked at several startups, I’ll say that 996 is a lie. The best startups were ones that worked HARD for 8 to 10 hours, 5 days per week. What I always found at companies “working” 996 (or something close) was that mostly everyone was hanging out in the break room playing foosball or video games (or watching someone else do it). Sure, they were “in the office,” but the productivity of those hours beyond 8 was r…

Agreed. I work at a highly successful small company with a reputation for being grindy, and what that looks like in reality is probably 55 hours a week of largely focused productive work: typical core hours are 9-6:45ish, and you work longer a day or two a week and put in the odd evening or weekend hour. It’s hard to imagine working 9-9 every day

55 hours is still insane. I could only do it in a highly growing startup as an early engineer, with the expectation I'm out in few years.

Re: 996

#318

Post by petralithic »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #284
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.

> just a little bit smarter and found your own startup does that work? how do you convince investors to give you money if you don't have a network/didn't go to stanford?

Not all startups are venture-backed.

Re: 996

#319

Post by iandanforth »

996 or worse is what got us the labour movement in the first place. In a well regulated industry the practice is illegal or carries explicit expectations of overtime, time off, or both.

For evil-aligned founders it's important to realize that exploiting workers is one of the best trod paths to success. If you can get away with it without causing a revolt you're almost certainly getting more for your money. So being up front with 996 is absolutely in your interests. Being hard-core, 10x, cracked (pick your generation's euphemism) is just good marketing. Be prepared to cut anyone who burns out, try to get people without any ties or those who can't afford to quit. Maybe even create a cult of personality around yourself.

Re: 996

#320

Post by taminka »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #128
HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the point in having a house if you only spend one day in it, which realistically you will spend doing chores and sleeping?

China has this figured out. You pay a mortgage on a house that will never be built.

china has the second highest home ownership rate and fifth highest owner occupancy (where the owner actually lives in the house) in the world, i don't think this is a very good example...
Post reply on HN