Comment by mellavora | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mellavora | Hacker News Reader

I don't know. The thing is, it is hard to define "work." All that is clear is that you spend 168 hrs/week engaged in something. Some of that is sleep. Some is eating. Some is writing code, or making plans, or talking with people.

For the last 9 months, I've spend 60-80 of those hours each week putting conscious attention to items directly related to founding my company. Let's call that "work."

But you can also call it "creation." Most of this time I am outside my self. What is being drained or used?

What is different in the time I am not "creating"? My mind is still doing things. What is the difference between "writing the marketing section of the business plan" and "reading a novel"? Does one use less mental energy than the other? I've read so many novels in my life, I'm tired of them. I don't like the way they lock my mind into their train of thought. Reading the novel becomes draining. TV is pure hell. Better to create, to engage in the intricate dance of love and passion with my Muse.

I do take a nice nap in the middle of most days. And it is nice to watch the birds flying in the valley, to lift big heavy things, and to eat good steak.

For the last 9 months, I've spend 60-80 of those hours each week putting conscious attention to items directly related to founding my company. Let's call that "work."

This is it exactly. Someone told me recently: "To make it huge in business, it needs to also be your hobby." That rung really true for me as a founder. My "work" now used to be the thing I did when I got off of work at the end of the day. Now I get to do it all the time and it's great, why would I want to do anything else?

Now, the question is, for non-founders or employees, should we expect them to be as engaged etc... to the same degree as the founder. I think the answer is "it depends."

I mentioned this elsewhere but I firmly think that Bezos/Jobs etc... all want to hire people who are as passionate about their work as a founder is. So that's who they structure the company around.

... and if you look around, those 2 names ring many bells from people who felt treated horribly working for those guys, vastly more compared to... any other big name. there is no one-template-fits-all, we are all vastly different beings inside.

you can try to aim same type of people like yourself for hiring, but after few headcounts this gets really hard. you either provide extra cash motivation, or promise (and delivery) to work on something amazing.

That only works when high-engagement employees' compensation matches the sacrifice they are making. Why would anyone bring founder-level engagement to a job with only employee-level compensation? In other words, if you want me to work the same hours as the crazy founder, offer me founder equity.

I think that depends on the person.

What you describe is the mercenary style approach - "Well, I've been fucked over before so pay me!" - and I think that is totally valid mindset, if cynical.

The reality is though that for some problem sets or types of work, the work transcends the tangible benefits. I have to fall back on my time in the military for this one because I have innumerable examples of people who have absolutely dedicated their lives to their military job and what they have to show for it from that perspective is a broken body and a relative pittance; but you couldn't pay them enough to leave because they love it so much.

So it's not always just about hard compensation.

Transcends tangible benefits? Are you kidding me? You're talking about cult members, not employees. They call it "compensation" because it _compensates_ you for doing what you otherwise would not want to be doing. There are two kinds of people who work 90+ hour weeks: Those who are compensated enormously for it, and idiots.

They call it "compensation" because it _compensates_ you for doing what you otherwise would not want to be doing.

Ah, there's the rub. The people I am talking about are those who join a company so that they can do for a salary what they would be doing anyway without one.

For example we just "hired" someone for only equity because we were working on a really hard hardware problem that he has been playing with in his part time. He approached us and suggested coming on board - in fact he did a TON of work before I even asked him to and before we had any compensation agreements in place - in fact I was the one who pushed him to let us compensate him in the best way we have available right now because he is stuck at another job.

Maybe you don't actually care about what you do, or believe in it or whatever, but there do exist those who do and want to work on it.

Woz is the best example of this.

When you say "they would be doing it anyway without a salary" are you really saying that you have employees who would otherwise work on your project anyway, without pay? I don't know anyone for whom this is true, but if you've found one, congratulations.

Don't get me wrong--I care about what I do. So much so that I put a price on it. If anything, someone who is willing to do 90 hour weeks while getting compensated at a level appropriate for 40 hours cares LESS about what he does, as he is cheapening his profession.

No, what I am saying is that there are people out there working on technology on their own because they are interested in it and love doing it and if given the chance some of those people would drop everything to work on that technology.

Not that they would or should work for free, but that there are, as I said, intangible reasons that people join projects and work 80 hour weeks that aren't just compensation.

Sure, and as soon as you need to do something they don't really want, they are out of the game.

They have nothing to lose by getting off the train, and thus the amount of leverage they have is enormous.

Most people need to put a roof on their heads, which is why those things rarely happen.

The difference between reading a novel and writing a business plan is that you have to write the business plan. That makes a huge difference.

This article is specifically about work performed for others in order to secure capital so you can pay rent and buy food. If you work for yourself, it's not really work. It's your life. Most people have to sell part of their life in order to have the rest of it. Your experience is one shared by only a privileged few and I'd appreciate it if you stayed out of this discussion. The life you've had has left you utterly incapable of comprehending the issue.

This article is specifically about work performed for others in order to secure capital so you can pay rent and buy food

How do you figure? Dustin was a FB Founder and is saying he would have been more effective with less hours. He, and the examples he cites in the article, are literally the best examples of "privileged few."

Dear friend,

I certain understand the pain and frustration you feel. In my 20s I spent some 6 months homeless. I've begged for money for food. It was a long and very painful road up from there. Many bullshit jobs. I would not have made it without some help.

When you live at the margins of society, you learn some things about societal constructs such as "work." The distinction between the "part you sell" and the part you do not sell is not so distinct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com