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

The Age of the Crisis of Work

harpers.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 115 posts

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#51

Post by Saigonautica »

papito wrote: post #45

Is quiet quitting a US thing, or is this happening elsewhere? US is unique in this sense because when we lose our job, we lose our health insurance, risking financial ruin. This forces us to go above and beyond so to not end up in that bottom 10% that gets regularly laid off. We overcompensate not to have a great life, but to not be completely broke. This makes us easy marks for work abuse, this is why we respond to…

I can't say I've seen any evidence for it here (Vietnam) or with my Chinese colleagues. The slack channels are still active very late at night sometimes (e.g. midnight), and I'd classify most people in the workforce as 'hungry for opportunity' rather than 'looking to coast by'.

That being said, there's a surprising segment of the population that is not really part of the workforce. They're not 'rich' in terms of the amount of liquid capital they have onhand, but their family owns the home they live in, and they'd rather do odd jobs from home than go and build a career. They seem happy with their lives and I don't consider them foolish for making this choice! I think as the cost of living in the city slowly rises, this lifestyle will become unsustainable with time, and maybe quiet quitting may become a thing then.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#52

Post by di456 »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #2

Explain to me why as an employee, I should care whether my employer greatly succeeds, just slides along, or slowly crumbles? As far as I can tell, except over the very long term, I end up in the same place. Or for a more specific example, I am aware of about a 50K a year in cloud waste. But in my org, I know I won't get anything for reporting it as I am not going for a promo (promos pay a lot less than job hopping wh…

> But in my org, I know I won't get anything for reporting it

Are you empowered to fix it instead of just reporting it? How much effort to fix it? Sometimes the effort to do the fix is smaller than the work of selling the problem and jockeying for priority in the issue reporting process. Especially if going through those processes won't lead to anything meaningful getting done besides extra bureaucratic work.

Or if you have skip-level meetings with your manager's manager, get their opinion. Or even finance's opinion. It may be unclear how to reallocate that savings to other projects or budgets. Or if people are penalized for unplanned savings by having to over-explain it, there may be misaligned incentives that someone higher up might want to improve. For example if 10, 100, or however many other employees each find 50k savings that turns into real money quickly.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#53

Post by Saigonautica »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #2

Explain to me why as an employee, I should care whether my employer greatly succeeds, just slides along, or slowly crumbles? As far as I can tell, except over the very long term, I end up in the same place. Or for a more specific example, I am aware of about a 50K a year in cloud waste. But in my org, I know I won't get anything for reporting it as I am not going for a promo (promos pay a lot less than job hopping wh…

Muscles aching to work, minds aching to create beyond the single need -- this is [hu]man.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#54

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

frje1400 wrote: post #39
denkmoon wrote: post #38

Why the fuck would I ever put in more effort than absolutely necessary when I will not be rewarded proportionately for the increased effort? It probably won't even be noticed. and even if I were, where does that get me? Still sucking eggs in a housing market that is now more than ever before for business rather than for fulfilling a human need, still suffering through the bureaucratic uncaring nightmare that is the s…

Because even if don't get more money you get to do more fun work with more autonomy if you are good at what you do.

This has some truth to it. I've seen colleagues do the bare minimum , and they may not get paid a lot less than me, but they also don't get the interesting projects.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#55

Post by piva00 »

MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #54
frje1400 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because even if don't get more money you get to do more fun work with more autonomy if you are good at what you do.

This has some truth to it. I've seen colleagues do the bare minimum , and they may not get paid a lot less than me, but they also don't get the interesting projects.

The other side of this is that interesting projects have a higher inherent risk, it needs to prove that the investment was worth it, if you picked the wrong "interesting project" you will be part of cost-cutting measures when that project doesn't pan out.

I used to be a lot more interested in working on "interesting projects", over time I realised it's not that worth it most of times. I might have some more fun and challenge for a while when it's a greenfield but after that it all devolves to the same-same: it's maintenance, it's an ever expanding scope to gobble more features, it's redesign, it's management deciding the project is not worth it. Rinse and repeat, after 20+ years you really get jaded, why bother if it all eventually devolves to the same state?

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#56

Post by steve1977 »

a_bonobo wrote: post #4
throwawaysleep wrote: post #2

Explain to me why as an employee, I should care whether my employer greatly succeeds, just slides along, or slowly crumbles? As far as I can tell, except over the very long term, I end up in the same place. Or for a more specific example, I am aware of about a 50K a year in cloud waste. But in my org, I know I won't get anything for reporting it as I am not going for a promo (promos pay a lot less than job hopping wh…

Before globalization, you company's funds would stay in your local community. Success of the company would mean more funds in your community, which would mean a safer or better living environment for you. Nowadays, of course, most of that money disappears overseas so you're right.

At least where I‘m living (Switzerland), the company‘s funds would stay with the very rich local company owners and make them even richer. Technically the funds stayed in the local community of course, but without benefit for the commoners.

I don‘t see a fundamental difference here.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#57

Post by MattPalmer1086 »

piva00 wrote: post #55
MattPalmer1086 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has some truth to it. I've seen colleagues do the bare minimum , and they may not get paid a lot less than me, but they also don't get the interesting projects.

The other side of this is that interesting projects have a higher inherent risk, it needs to prove that the investment was worth it, if you picked the wrong "interesting project" you will be part of cost-cutting measures when that project doesn't pan out. I used to be a lot more interested in working on "interesting projects", over time I realised it's not that worth it most of times. I might have some more fun and c…

I'm sure that may be true in some organisations, hasn't affected me like that though. I am easy with taking some risks though, keeps life interesting.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#58

Post by steve1977 »

over_bridge wrote: post #10
a_bonobo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before globalization, you company's funds would stay in your local community. Success of the company would mean more funds in your community, which would mean a safer or better living environment for you. Nowadays, of course, most of that money disappears overseas so you're right.

Plus that company would look after you if you committed to them and they might employ your kids and grandkids too if you could help keep them around. Now... Doesn't matter if your employer succeeds or fails. You just go somewhere else and do the same thing for a similar salary, and some numbers go up or down in wealthy people's portfolios. Not sure if that's freeing or depressing.

You mean the capitalists ensured that they exploited you enough so that they also had your offspring on the hook for further exploitation? You almost made that sound like a good thing.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#59

Post by over_bridge »

steve1977 wrote: post #58
over_bridge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus that company would look after you if you committed to them and they might employ your kids and grandkids too if you could help keep them around. Now... Doesn't matter if your employer succeeds or fails. You just go somewhere else and do the same thing for a similar salary, and some numbers go up or down in wealthy people's portfolios. Not sure if that's freeing or depressing.

You mean the capitalists ensured that they exploited you enough so that they also had your offspring on the hook for further exploitation? You almost made that sound like a good thing.

That's a pretty cynical take but there are some truly old businesses in the world where generations of families have worked and enjoyed a good life. Work can uplift people and be a centre of the community. Or it can be like most are today where you work away for some faceless shareholders who fire you when they need a stock price boost.

Re: The Age of the Crisis of Work

#60

Post by piva00 »

over_bridge wrote: post #10
a_bonobo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before globalization, you company's funds would stay in your local community. Success of the company would mean more funds in your community, which would mean a safer or better living environment for you. Nowadays, of course, most of that money disappears overseas so you're right.

Plus that company would look after you if you committed to them and they might employ your kids and grandkids too if you could help keep them around. Now... Doesn't matter if your employer succeeds or fails. You just go somewhere else and do the same thing for a similar salary, and some numbers go up or down in wealthy people's portfolios. Not sure if that's freeing or depressing.

I'm on the camp that it's depressing, devoid of meaning, I'm human, I want to care. It's definitely not freeing to me to feel this jaded, this "whatever" feeling... I'd love to actually care more deeply about my employer if I knew there was a counterpart to it, the feeling of being a cog is life-sucking, why does it matter I work except for the money I'm paid for it?

Typing this out made me realise that it's exactly the kind of metric that is hidden, all the bean-counting and MBAs cannot put a value into the engagement of an individual towards their employer when they feel safe and cared for. It does not have value on the next quarter or next year, it has value over 10-20 years, and given climate change and other issues that devolve over a long term it seems that late-stage capitalism simply does not care about 10-20 years spans, at all. There's no incentive and no punishment for caring or not caring, it's all in the now.

This immeadiatism will be the bane of the whole system, it's not sustainable.

Post reply on HN