Hacker News Reader

The problem is that even with co-workers at the same bank, or one's "society for foo" it's extremely difficult and rare to hangout after a certain age.

There are so many (work and self-imposed) obligations and "obligations" and BS, that it's even difficult to have quality/fun time with one's spouse.

And this certainly cannot be explained away with "the spouse is a tiny part of your current experience/identity".

So I think this answer doesn't cover the actual issue.

And it's not just workload either. Someone else writes below:

>In order to have impromptu visits that fill up the empty spaces in your life, you first need to have empty spaces in your life. That is largely incompatible with filling every moment of your life with work or career advancement.

But the lack of "impromptu visits" is also apparent in people who don't fill every moment of their life with work or career advancement. The killing of community/communal spaces, the advent of 100 TV channels and 8 billion internet/"social" options etc, also kill a lot of such time.

Thank you for this comment. I think it's really hard to pin down.

I don't agree that it's about people 'drifting apart', or 'finding different interests'.

In some sense those are being taken as tautologies, when I don't think they are. Why can't people with different interests hang out?

There's loads to talk about. Our interests are a tiny microscopic portion of the human experience.

In the UK people go out and get stone drunk and then anything becomes a fun topic of discussion. We call it disinhibition. But why are we 'inhibited' to begin with?

This is why I call it 'ego'. I don't think I'm using the term accurately. It's just this idea of pleasing one's self, efficiently, rather than trying to be part of some whole, or just swimming, letting life happen.

> if they have something in common, and confine their friendship to that thing

What we all have in common is the human condition which is much, much bigger than hobbies, career paths, or political beliefs. We get sick, lose people, fall in love, have children, get better, meet people, and eventually die. Our surface area for meaningful, fulfilling interactions is enormous, but our culture is set up in a such a way that it's easy to forget.

The "human condition" is so common to everybody to make it meaningless as a criterion for hanging out.

Heck, it doesn't even stop people sharing it from killing each other in wars...

That only explains half of the picture, though.

The photograph in the linked article explains it quite well to me - regardless of how 'real' it is, there's a picture of a shiny gathering with the dresses and the shiny clothes and the fancy food, and so on.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I love me some good dress-up and the food there looks super yum. But the simple gatherings seem to have disappeared. Outside of family, do people visit just for the sake of visiting anymore?

I think it was the unified purpose, the school catchment area, maybe. That proximity. Everyone is everywhere now. My park is not your park, my pub is not your pub, etc.

I find it tiresome that it becomes hard to just have friends over. Have to negotiate a time, clean the house, get food, and if you're going to a friend's house you're expected to "bring something", etc. Sigh.

Back in college, the rule in the dorms was if your door was open, you were welcoming anyone who wanted to drop in and hang out.

40 years later, I still miss that.

The recapturing of some of this is one of the best things about my job, not because my job is anything really special in that regard, but because I'd spent so much time contracting (alone in a room by myself) or in grad school (same.)

Having an office, and a culture where people would 'drop by' sometimes, either for real work reasons, tenuous work reasons, or purely social, has been a godsend.

Now I'm thinking about how to consciously engineer this given our environmental constraints...

I miss this as well! Stanford still has this and calls it the open door policy

I really hope something like Campus Housing works out. They had a great idea but didnt execute. With the right group of people I'd be super down to live in something like a dorm again.

The 'cleaning the house' especially. At some point adulthood seems to inculcate this notion of formality to visits. It's been universally to my social detriment.

My wife and I use it as an excuse to clean up. We try to keep an active social life, as-is, so the place is generally clean-ish. But during especially busy weeks (or minor sickness, or random bouts of laziness and existential despair), the place can really fall apart.

So one of us will look around in disgust, invite someone over for dinner or drinks or something, and then politely pop in on the other, like "hey honey... I just invited [so-an-so], and they'll be here in an hour".

Suddenly, within 20-30 minutes, the place is spotless.

Hah... this is awful but so true. We go through the exact same thing. We just had overnight houseguests, the place hasn't been this spotless in years. I even had the carpets steamed!

Haha. My wife makes me cancel the invitation.

Do a weekly (or monthly) dinner. They key is consistency (OK an informality: byob, bring something you like, open invite instead of rsvps, etc).

This is spot on.

Jews do this - they have Shabbat every week, and festivals and other things where people live in a community and have to interact.

Christians also have traditional Church attendance and so do Muslims and many other faiths I'm sure. The point is, traditional life revolved around a community. Today, everyone is very individualistic in the USA. They move out and have their own place, not just the men but the women too. The grandparents live alone and then are shipped off to nursing homes while the kids are shipped off to daycares. But it wasn't always like this. In our modern society we are disconnected like never before.

So, the answer to that is very much "yes", but you have to make trade-offs in your life that show you value it. In order to have impromptu visits that fill up the empty spaces in your life, you first need to have empty spaces in your life. That is largely incompatible with filling every moment of your life with work or career advancement.

That group of my high-school friends who are now largely janitors, retail clerks, and dropouts? They get together pretty much every weekend, usually with spur-of-the-moment plans made on Thursday night or Friday morning. My wife often just invites a friend over for Saturday brunch; occasionally I'll wake up and they're chatting downstairs. I remember one time when I was still at Google, I'd gone over to a friend's to play Starcraft, but his roommate was trying out different cellos and he had played the cello in high school, so we ended up with an impromptu cello trio in the living room. Another friend dropped by unannounced, we got the fireplace going, and when the third roommate arrived home, he was like "This is like a scene out of the 19th century."

The thing is, this is largely incompatible with spending long hours at work or doing things in your off hours (applying for jobs, going back to school, learning new programming languages) for career advancement. I haven't had a moment like that (other than ones my wife initiates) since leaving Google for a startup - I suspect my friends (or some subset of them) still do, but I'm often too busy to be worth inviting.

I think that the number of comments here suggesting a technological solution - an app, societal change, whatever - is pretty amusing. Technology is not going to matter. What does matter is making a decision that friendships and relationships are important to you, and seeking out other people who have also made that decision. And accepting the trade-offs that go with that. There are plenty of people who do live like that, but they are largely not the folks on Hacker News.

I think you're absolutely spot on with this. I'm going through a period of change in my personal life at the moment, and I'm definitely going to keep this in mind, so thank you.

One thing I would take issue with is conflating an app with societal change, though. The latter is much much harder. I think that in developed countries we have lost our way a bit.

Work-life balance, to me, would mean that I work hard, and play hard, but that fundamentally work would fit around life. At the moment, life fits around work, for me, and for everyone I know, including those that are really quite well off. And I don't think we are individually choosing this state. Some higher power is, Moloch, I guess.

Oh, I think we absolutely are individually choosing this state. It's just that we're responding to incentives that are basically emergent behavior resulting from the choices of everyone else.

You always have the choice to ignore incentives; that's why they are incentives and not compulsion. But ignoring an incentive means that you accept not getting the benefits that are offered by that incentive. A lot of people forget that they can do this. You don't have to optimize your life to pick up every little goody that comes your way; you always have the option to say "Yes, that's nice, but I care about other stuff more."

There's a very steep reward curve, though. It's not like, a 10% incentive. It's hundreds of percentage points.

Very rough numbers here:

Generic person might be able to earn $50K working 40 hour weeks in their most optimal career (one that uses their skills).

Same person might also be able to earn $25K working 20 hour weeks doing a similar thing.

They could also earn minimum wage with a rota that isn't really under their control much.

But the real 'work-life balance' option, the one in which the tables are turned and someone decides to 'schedule' work for 8pm on a Saturday or whatever because it's free in the diary?

As far as I can tell this just sort of doesn't exist. I mean you could do piecemeal bits and bobs for neighbours, maybe. But a sustainable source of money sufficient to eat and heat, pay for a roof?

An example would be a 24 hour supermarket. The employees could bid to fill slots and the rate they'd charge to cover periods. But it's not set up that way because the capital owners hold all the cards and it'd be less optimal for them. What you get instead, is 'come to work 6pm thursday or you are fired, kthx'.

I agree. There is always a choice, although the shift may be difficult or unsettling, and some people will feel freer to make a change than others. I think one huge component of this is location.

A little while back, I moved with my family from the city to the countryside (the foothills of central Portugal), where there is a growing community of migrants from western cities, living around and alongside the local villagers, who are mostly small-scale subsistence farmers. People call us the Neo Rurals.

Land and living costs are way less than where we came from, which means I can afford to work three days a week, rather than the 5 out of 7 days I was working before. I am fortunate to be able to work remotely (I'm a freelance JavaScript programmer) and to have come from an existing network (the wonderful Brighton, UK). Somehow projects arrive when I just need them (get in touch if you're looking for someone). But people here to do all sorts of work, and often grow food and generate their electricity to lower the base costs.

The door is open. Neighbours' children come by because they want to play. Many people home-educate / unschool. And we do pretty well as a community amusing ourselves, learning from and helping each other.

Uprooting is difficult, but I have never looked back. And it does come with some "hardships", but most of those are really joys.

Doesn't basic income take care of that? The idea being that once companies have to compete with the entire world (as opposed to a few other companies) for your time and attention, flexible hours (and many other changes to the relationship between employees and companies) will become the default.

I hope so.

I try to live in that way, and I try to encourage those around me to live in that way (refusing imbalanced employment conditions). I think if enough people did, we could start to help each other, rather than relying on capital and private property so much.

Basic income is one sort of stepping stone towards that. Ultimately I think the ideal is people actually having real choices, not the huge bias we have towards salaried employment at the moment.

If life were an MMO, then salaried employment would be the cookie cutter build, hourly work would be the odd hybrid, and otherwise you've decided to not bother with your talent tree, and you're just gimping yourself. Can we tweak the rules of the game a bit, or are they just emergent?

We totally can change the rules. We made them up. Most modern modern value systems are rooted in the scarcity mindset - the idea that there isn't enough (of whatever) to go around. The people that created those systems weren't bad, their ideas are just outdated. Now that technology has changed the calculus, and there IS enough to go around, it's just a matter of overcoming the momentum of the old value systems. You're right, basic income is a bridge measure. It demonstrates abundance for the skeptics, and shows us what pretty much full autonomy for every member of a society could look like. I'm not sure what comes after that, but if you've read Manna, the Australia Project as described at the end seems to have a lot of desirable qualities. It's a short read, and well worth reading (and has been on HN a few times, I think). Obviously we're not quite there, but it's not hard to envision if enough smart people were free to work on the various elements of that future, unrestricted by manufactured pressure to pursue more immediately-profitable endeavors.

> What does matter is making a decision that friendships and relationships are important to you, and seeking out other people who have also made that decision.

That is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

I have plenty of time to make friends, but wouldn't be able to make any. Especially as you get older, it gets nearly impossible to approach people. At this point I'm down to a single nearby friend.

If I may make a suggestion, try exploring social hobbies and friends will come. I did meetups for a while and met some cool programmers. After a while, I didn't want to talk software as much in my free time, but one guy invited me out to go swing dancing.

I now work online remotely in Asia and visit different cities to swing dance. Within 2 two weeks trips, I made some good freshman friends in Shanghai and Hong Kong. We still talk online from time to time about the next time we'll meet up.

I am also looking to temper my expectations, as the article suggests. I tried out a couple other styles of dancing and met freshman friends in those scenes. I remember wanting to fit in so much with each new group, and I still feel it with swing dancing friends sometimes. Over time, opportunities to deepen friendships arise. There's a lot that's out of my control.

> If I may make a suggestion, try exploring social hobbies and friends will come. I did meetups for a while and met some cool programmers.

I've tried going to meetups, but it doesn't seem like anyone is interested in being social. Everyone seems to be looking to network or advance professionally somehow.

I never get the vibe that anyone would want to hang out with me. Maybe I'm just not friendly.

Yes, I've met many people who "just want to network." Based on past evidence, less than five percent of the people I met from meetups became longer lasting friends. (Those are probably great odds when compared to my friendship rates in school and college).

I remember going home from some meetups feeling the night was a bust. In retrospect, I would have been less disappointed if I thought of it like dating or job hunting. My goal isn't a 100% match rate. My goal is to find matches that leave me happy.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong then. I'm not aiming for a 100% match rate—I'd be happy with a 1% match rate.

For an entire year, I probably went to a meetup every other week. In that whole time I didn't make a single new friend.

Maybe they just weren't the right ones for you. I also tried many different meet ups before finding the one that stuck with me for over years.

There's no shame in trying that meet up out for a year. I think that's the crux of "don't expect too much too soon." Sounds like it's time to try out another tech meet up, another hobby meet up, or anything else that has potential.

Maybe you should choose meetups for those of your hobbies that are not directly related to your career.

I mean, it is likely that if you are a programmer you'll end up talking about work in a programming or startup meetup.

It will be much harder if it's about boardgames or ultimate frisbee.

> I think it was the unified purpose, the school catchment area, maybe. That proximity.

My high school was super-stratified. The cliques were out of control.

As an adult, I have much more control over my surroundings and have found a place that fits me (it took some time - I've lived in two countries and 7 different cities). At 46, I'm much more comfortable with who I am and liking what I like than when I was 16. Teenagers often try so desperately to fit in that it ends up taking a long time to discover who they really are. BTW, I love how the movie American Beauty addresses this.

These days I have the resources to do what I want to do. That includes eating out with friends, going to baseball games, or just to the park to play with my kids and dog. I think the only time I get the sense of stifling that you describe is when I go to a formal event but that too is an experience I want.

Younger we share some excitement, some common libido for things that brings us somewhere for the sake of it (games, places, shops, experience). As we age, we crystallize and what we shared isn't anymore and the need for enjoyment reverts to a smaller, stricter, more selfish need. No more experiment and discovery, more sustaining what our ego thinks is good and what works. With time feeling running faster we have less tolerance for subpar times.