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

461–470 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#461

Post by pixelatedindex »

paulcole wrote: post #459
pixelatedindex wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but should we normalize it and put it as a job requirement? Those who want to do it are free to do so at any company.

> Those who want to do it are free to do so at any company. This is the same argument about how when a company is remote anyone is still free to go into the office. The people who want to work 996 likely want to do it with other people who want to work 996. A company whose team values 996 should put it as a job requirement to filter applicants.

> This is the same argument about how when a company is remote anyone is still free to go into the office.

This seems like a straw man. Where you work from is different from how/how much you work. You’re hired to do the job, what if you do the job in 8 hours?

It also seems like a given that when you work at a startup that work life balance will be at a minimum. What more do you want?

Re: 996

#462

Post by martin-t »

vkou wrote: post #388
martin-t wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or nobody could take the upside. Imagine if ownership of a company was divided according to the amount and skill level of work.

A co-op or a partnership? But how will the non-productive class make money from it?

Funny that you say that because at some point I started dividing people in my head into what I call builders and redistributors:

- Builders produce food, mine resources, build houses/machines, do research, provide essential services, etc.

- Redistributors take a cut from builders, by providing a non-essential service like salesmen or assistants who call themselves managers, by getting themselves into a position of power where they have many builders work "under" them or simply by holding and "renting" limited resources like housing

I feel like this division is at the core of inequality (money per unit of work only as long as you work vs money for no work in perpetuity). Yet at the same time it's not talked about at all.

Re: 996

#463

Post by throwawaymaths »

petralithic wrote: post #318
throwawaymaths wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

most of those aren't startups, they're lifestyle businesses. (no shade to ppl who want to do that)

Re: 996

#464

Post by bigyabai »

rogerdickey wrote: post #446

My view on this is very different from most commenters. I love work, and early in my career really thrived in a "996" job. I wrote more about it here as a response to this post, "In defense of 996": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45152608 The first comment on my post was "fuck off". I'm not trying to push my working style on anyone else, I simply like to work hard. What's wrong with that?

You're welcome to work hard, and take the 996 positions if they please you. America largely adheres to at-will employment, the more overtime you clock is the less I have to deal with.

After a certain point though, you're laundering the idea of mistreatment through your own identity. For example, maybe 1 in a million Chinese textile workers really does feel like stitching together Disney branded tee shirts is their life's calling. That doesn't mean that everyone else should subsist below the poverty line because they won't step up to meet that person's 996 dedication. Many people will scorn your eagerness to work, especially if you're not producing anything revolutionary or novel with your effort.

It's all about what you have at the end of the day. If you put in 10 years at companies that underpaid you, mistreated you and never gave you significant equity, you were simply taken advantage-of and refuse to admit it. If you really are a 10x engineer then yeah, I'd argue you wasted your time and haphazardly threw away your talent for a zero-net lifestyle.

Re: 996

#466

Post by goalieca »

utrack wrote: post #391
unmole wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work for Huawei where 996 or worse wasn't uncommon. While middle management definitely pushed for extended working hours, I didn't get the impression that anyone viewed it as failed management. If anything, upper management knew exactly what was happening and was encouraging it. Hell, you have the likes of Jack Ma glorifying 996, calling it a blessing.

Not a lot of people know, but the 996 in Alibaba included 2 hour long lunch and sleep break, as well as 1 hour for a dinner at 6 pm.

No time for kids and loved ones or hobbies outside of work.

Re: 996

#467

Post by paulcole »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #461
paulcole wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those who want to do it are free to do so at any company. This is the same argument about how when a company is remote anyone is still free to go into the office. The people who want to work 996 likely want to do it with other people who want to work 996. A company whose team values 996 should put it as a job requirement to filter applicants.

> This is the same argument about how when a company is remote anyone is still free to go into the office. This seems like a straw man. Where you work from is different from how/how much you work. You’re hired to do the job, what if you do the job in 8 hours? It also seems like a given that when you work at a startup that work life balance will be at a minimum. What more do you want?

> This seems like a straw man

No.

You’re hired to do the job, what if you do the job in 8 hours?

Keep working if working is what you enjoy doing. Is the entire mission of the business “finished” after 8 hours?

> It also seems like a given that when you work at a startup that work life balance will be at a minimum. What more do you want?

To work somewhere where the other employees and the company leadership values the same thing.

Re: 996

#468

Post by paulcole »

moron4hire wrote: post #452
paulcole wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody ever said they were genuinely excited and cared about their startup, they said they cared about 996.

Plenty of people in this thread did say exactly that.

But you replied to me? Was that in error?

Re: 996

#469

Post by wdb »

Worse deal then what Chinese factory workers get! They have often strict workweek hour limits to meet Western certifications

Re: 996

#470

Post by randomname4325 »

thundergolfer wrote: post #418
randomname4325 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally. The point is, this guy who's mission I dedicated a good portion of life to clearly doesn't think about me at all after the fact. I'm sure he's gratefuland values me. But if I was part of his story he'd remember my name.

It sounds like you overall had a positive experience grinding though, and just because he didn't remember your name you'd say that you regret it? I think he should have remembered your name, but he hadn't forgotten you. Who knows why he forgot your name.

I don't personally have any regrets, because I'm that kinda person. But there are people who prioritized travel, dating, health and personal experiences who have better stories from that period than I do knocking out bugs or shipping a feature that no one ever used. I bought into the mission of the founder. Sure he remembered me when he saw me, but I doubt he thought of me once in the period in between. I remember feeling pretty disappointed after that encounter. Like I bought in, put in the work, it didn't work out and the guy that I followed didn't even remember my name. Prior to that encounter I shared that experience as a badge of honor. After reading this thread and posting here I can't help but think what a waste of time...
Post reply on HN