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

481–490 of 561 posts

Re: 996

#481

Post by paulcole »

pixelatedindex wrote: post #473
paulcole wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Is the entire mission of the business “finished” after 8 hours? No, but as a rank and file employee you only have access to so much information. The ones who want to work 996 will try to get this but even then that doesn’t mean you’ll get it. At least that’s how it was at a couple of the top companies in China and SEA, and I speak from first hand experience of half a decade. They just want you to jump when they tel…

> It’s a toxic, mostly unrewarding effort

I’m impressed that you’ve surveyed everyone to confirm this because surely you wouldn’t cast a value judgment based on your own beliefs?

> No, but as a rank and file employee you only have access to so much information

But surely if I enjoy spending time at work and thinking about work then I do have that opportunity to continue contributing ideas and effort after 8 hours?

I get that you don’t like the 996 idea. But that doesn’t make it objectively bad which is what you seem to believe.

Re: 996

#482

Post by paulcole »

footy wrote: post #472
paulcole wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome! Then you should avoid someplace that works 996 like the plague. Do you think there are 0 people in the world who are excited about long hours at work?

No, there's a sucker born every minute after all.

If you were a football fan would you think that a baseball fan is a sucker?

Or do you just like making insulting judgements when it comes to work?

Re: 996

#483

Post by bigbadfeline »

_0ffh wrote: post #305
scubbo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's the fun part: If you find investors, then they're taking the actual risk while you pay yourself a nice salary.

> If you find investors

It's a big if. Few can get funding especially without connections. In that case, the odds are heavily against you.

I'm not sure what is being argued here - if you have connections, can get the money and the opportunity is clear, go for it. However, you should be clear with the above before you put your assets at risk - a job, property, savings or whatever.

It doesn't make sense to follow hype into adventures with odds of success lower than gambling. That seems obvious, but what do I know.

Re: 996

#484

Post by GP-fault »

Think of all of those young women in China that do those hours looking through a magnifier or microscope to build iPhones and the other export stuff. Don't work it, don't buy it.

Re: 996

#485

Post by roncesvalles »

grantdong wrote: post #18

In China, its birthplace, '996' always seen as practice of failed management. Because for at least half of the 72-hour workweek, most employee will mentally checkout (in Chinese we call this 摸鱼). Although middle managers know their subordinates are inefficient, they still impose working hour KPI on their team, so they can demonstrate their own value to upper management.

Chinese work culture is very different from American culture that makes 996 not as bad as what Americans imagine. For example, it's common for people in China to take long naps in the afternoon. It's common to take 1 hour long lunches and dinners where you socialize with your colleagues. These days most people hit the gym at the office as well. So that's an easy 4-5 hours just written off.

So, while it's 12 hours at the office, it's not 12 hours working at your desk. It's probably more like 8-9 hours by American standards where you have a quick lunch, don't take an afternoon siesta etc.

The mythology of the ultra-hard-working Chinese is just that. Americans work pretty damn hard too but the optics are different. Americans also consider the hours at work as wasted time, with people who are irrelevant to their "real" life (the L in WLB), whereas the Chinese consider the socialization and the relationships of work to be pretty core to their life experience.

Also, the Chinese don't raise their own kids. The grandparents raise the kids while the parents focus on earning money for the family. The parents in turn are expected to raise their grandkids. Some kids don't even live with their parents until they get a bit older (around 10-12).

The West is still mostly oblivious to the Chinese way of life.

Re: 996

#486

Post by moregrist »

jeremyjh wrote: post #62
petermcneeley wrote: post #52

If I spend my Saturday in the summer sun planting trees all day in my yard I feel liberated. If I spend my Saturday toiling for wages digging with my hands, sweating for hours, just please some land owner I feel exploited. It is not the work or the hours that is the core problem.

You aren't going to spend 12 hours a day, 6 days a week working in your garden. When you get hot and tired, you'll stop. I think that is the more relevant difference in this particular topic.

Growing up on a small farm, I can assure you that people do work 12 hour days for multiple days on end in their fields. You can’t always stop even when you’re tired; farm animals break out, rain will destroy cut hay, etc.

It’s a hard job, and not one that tends to pay well.

Re: 996

#487

Post by abustamam »

rsynnott wrote: post #445
abustamam wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to a seminar a lot of years back. The grifter on stage was hawking a product on how to invest in venture capital or something. The pitch was "got no money? Use other people's money! Pay $300 to learn how" I don't know how true it is, as I am not about to take this grifters sales pitch at face value, but given that the grifter exhibited a lot of traits that I see in some of these rich investor people, I suspect…

That’s what VC firms generally do.

The funny/sad thing is that the house always wins. Even if an investment deal goes south, _someone_ still comes up ahead, somehow. Again, something my plebe brain can't grok.

Re: 996

#488

Post by RestlessMind »

martin-t wrote: post #462
vkou wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

> by providing a non-essential service like salesmen...

Sorry to break this to you but if you think Sales is non-essential, you don't know anything about startups.

Re: 996

#489

Post by m463 »

randomname4325 wrote: post #99

True story. I grinded hard at a startup for years. This was a decade ago so the concept of 996 wasn't part of the lore yet. But it was fun. We stayed late and I made life long friends. I worked closely with the founder (really awesome dude) as I was an early-ish employee. The company ended up not working, our equity went to zero and we got what you get when you don't get rich, experience. I ran into the founder rando…

> equity went to zero

silicon valley toilet paper.

Re: 996

#490

Post by petralithic »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #463
petralithic wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Depends what you want to define startups as, "lifestyle" businesses are often just a derogatory term that VCs use that don't mean anything in real life.
Post reply on HN