996 • Hacker News Board

Re: 996

#351

Post by tempodox » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 5:59 PM UTC

hiatus wrote: post #292

graemep wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> here are (many) companies with revenues greater than most countries IS that true? What do you define as the revenue of a country? Tax revenues? That is just the government. GDP/GNP/GNI? That comparison for that should be profit, and only a handful of really big companies (Saudi Aramco, Apple, that sort of size) have a profit as large as the GDP of mid-size middle income countries (e.g. Sri Lanka) or small rich coun…

Why would GDP be the proxy for a country's profit? If I pay someone to build a house and another person to tear that house down, both activities contribute to GDP while producing nothing of tangible value.

If it were the same company, that company would have made profit twice. Or did your house change country before being torn down?

Re: 996

#352

Post by bko » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:00 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #314

bko wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah, you're right. I think every job should be available to every person regardless of the things required from the job, personal circumstance, skillset or anything else.

If some job requires more than strictly 9-5 and cannot be done by a paraplegic, visually impaired, neurodivergent individual, the job should just cease to exist, lest we be called some kind of 'ist'.

Re: 996

#353

Post by throw-qqqqq » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:01 PM UTC

“There is never enough time to do it right, but there is always enough time to do it over.”

Though poor management is pervasive, there are small pockets of sanity out there, in my experience.

Re: 996

#354

Post by santiagobasulto » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:02 PM UTC

davedx wrote: post #326

santiagobasulto wrote: post #303

You're all answering from a very privileged standpoint. I started my career in tech from a small town in Argentina. When broadband was prevalent around the world (2012) I was still working with a dial up connection on a $200 computer. I grew up seeing what poverty and lack of opportunities does to people, and I was determined to break away from that. I got a job at a startup by sheer luck, and it completely changed m…

I don’t know if I would classify “living in a country with labour laws” as “very privileged”

In some countries, access to drinking potable water is a privilege. Imagine "labour laws".

Re: 996

#355

Post by garciasn » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

ohdeargodno wrote: post #291

paulcole wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

996 done on your own time without expectations of it being done can be understood if you're excited about it. It's dumb, it ruins your health and your social experiences, but whatever, you're usually young and dumb. A good employer would actively tell you to slow down and manage your energy if it goes on for too long.. 996 mandated by the company is 1/ illegal 2/ straight up illegal 3/ a clear signal that they do not…

How is 996 illegal for legally exempt employees in the US who meet requirements to be marked as such?

Hint: it’s not.

Re: 996

#356

Post by hirvi74 » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:04 PM UTC

I am curious -- What the average allotted amount of paid time off is at places that implement the 996 system? I truly do not know, but I would wager it's probably not great either, relatively speaking.

I also question how much work is actually being completed in such an environment. I have never worked in nor been to Japan, but I do recall reading/hearing about how rough the work culture is over there.

However, I have read/heard that people aren't nose-down in work the entire time. It's not uncommon for people to be in the office for long periods while not actually working.

Rather, it's more about the image -- don't leave before your boss, the later you leave after your boss the better you look, etc..

So, I wonder if the Chinese 996 systems somewhat mirrors what I have read about Japan?

Re: 996

#357

Post by lr4444lr » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:07 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #170

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 think even if someone offered me couple million a year I still wouldn't do it. My kids will only be kids once - all of the money in the world is completely worthless if you miss out on your family. I appreciate some people here don't feel this way but to me that's not a trade off I would ever make. Especially since as software engineers we are privileged enough to usually command both high salaries and the ability…

Consider 2 million carefully, though. Collectively in a 9-5 job over decades you would probably lose more time with your kids than you would with how much earlier you could retire with even doing the 2 million grind for one year.

Depending on the specifics, for that level of comp. I would consider it even having 2 kids.

Re: 996

#358

Post by ponector » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:11 PM UTC

santiagobasulto wrote: post #303

You're all answering from a very privileged standpoint. I started my career in tech from a small town in Argentina. When broadband was prevalent around the world (2012) I was still working with a dial up connection on a $200 computer. I grew up seeing what poverty and lack of opportunities does to people, and I was determined to break away from that. I got a job at a startup by sheer luck, and it completely changed m…

>> people claiming this is "bad

There is no circumstances when it is good. Especially if it is pushed by employer/manager. If you want to work 996 or 7 days per week, or without annual vacations - it's your choice but no way anyone should be pushed to work that way.

Re: 996

#359

Post by martin-t » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:12 PM UTC

robterrell wrote: post #106

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 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.

Or nobody could take the upside.

Imagine if ownership of a company was divided according to the amount and skill level of work.

Re: 996

#360

Post by analognoise » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 6:14 PM UTC

crossbody wrote: post #257

analognoise wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, sure, helicopters is all you need to catch millions of sophisticated tax evaders using semi-legal loopholes developed and implemented by professional accountants and lawyers. Read about Laffer Curve for a start.

The Laffer Curve is frequently cited by the same people who refuse to see the failure of conservative-style economic policy over the last 40 years, for some reason.

It’s clear all that “don’t tax the rich, they create jobs!” Is just trash. Noise. We have 40 years of data, it doesn’t work.

But still, someone ignores all that to tell me the Laffer Curve, every time. What’s also amazing is that they don’t really understand it themselves. Wild.