Hacker News Reader

Comment by patio11 | Hacker News Reader

There is a lot to unpack in the idea that people get utility out of risk itself. Personally I think many of them get utility out of things which can be sensibly extricated from risk. A lot of folks relish the social aspect of working in a startup (us versus the world, shared triumph over aversely, counterculture as the norm, etc): I think you can replicate that without 90% of them failing. (I hold other heresies such as that you can replicate it without 90 hour work weeks, too - the ninety hour workweek is the talking parrot, which doesn't really do anything for us but we know that it isn't a proper pirate ship without a parrot, and we cling to this even when it bites our fingers and defecates on our pirate boots.)

View on HN

I remember my college economics professor always made the point that "risk-averse consumers" are the rational decision makers in our economy. I almost totally believed him, and thought hack who'd be that dumb kid taking the extra risk without being benefited from it.

Well, now I realise, that dumb kid is me!

"the ninety hour workweek is the talking parrot"

Sweet metaphor. Thanks.

I would love to see some counter-examples where 90 hour weeks actually do power superior performance: investment banking; Mahalo.com; etc.

I don't think either of those are examples of superior performance.

90 hour workweeks come with an undocumented feature, the < 50 years old heart attack.

For a little while, say a couple of weeks it's ok to push yourself like that it if it is actual work, and something you do not enjoy.

If your work is play to you you might get away with it. But anybody that pushes themselves like that is going to find out a few things:

  - there is a price

  - the price includes an interest 

  - your 90 hour workweek is on a per-hour basis not as
    productive as a 50 hour workweek would be

Also, just like in computers, works smarter, not harder.

And ask yourself if you can effciently code, write, whatever for 90 hours per week?

Then measure your effciency and act accordingly.

A lot of traders work long hours to feel better about themselves. Usually the ones who consistently stay late are either using inappropriate technology or are compensating for some other inadequacy. They also tend to have the worst performance in the end and ultimately leave (not always voluntarily).

I would love to see some counter-examples where 90 hour weeks actually do power superior performance: investment banking

I work at the second largest investment bank in the world and have not seen anyone work 90 hour weeks. The traders may work 7am-6pm, but that's only 55 hours. Everyone else works somewhere around 40 hours.

All the people I know who work in M&A say that 90-hour work weeks are common.

It probably depends on where you work. Big companies can hire a lot of people. Small companies can't. But they're both competing in the same market.

Agreed they work a lot of crazy weeks, but it is not variable. When deals are getting close and it is crunch time, hours get crazy.

My friend says that when he hires, his first thought to himself is "Can we work with this guy at 2am with a deadline tomorrow?".

Of course you CAN do it without logging lots of hours... And working smarter is better than working harder. There's truth to the statement: "If I do the right work efficiently, I can get done in 40 what most people get done in 90."

But surely hours worked correlates with output, doesn't it? There might be a point of diminishing returns and there might be burnout risk (though the latter can-- and often is-- solved with fresh bodies to throw onto the pyre).

You only have one body. When it is gone you don't get another one to throw on the pyre. Instead, we will throw the one you have now on the pyre, and we'll remember you as the guy that worked really hard.

I'm talking about startups (groups of individuals), not individuals.

I agree that it's objectively pretty daft for a person to bleed out of their eyes for 90 hours/week for a startup (other than short bursts that are sometimes necessary). But is it daft for a startup, in its first 3ish years, to encourage that behavior? And, does that that behavior meaningfully improve the startup's chances?

Personal health aside, it seems pretty clear that excessive work hours correlates with startup success. I've never met a founder who has hit a financial homerun that did it working healthy hours.

see points 2&3 here: http://www.paulgraham.com/really.html

Funnily enough, in the Finnish culture 'working really hard' was pretty much the only acceptable compliment for men. You were not supposed to be happy, cultured, successful, handsome, or anything like that. Just work really hard.

"He doesn't produce much, and all of it's crap, but at least he's sweating."?

+1 People need to separate what they like about the work experience from a startup founder/employee experience.

You can build the experience you want out of a job by 1) finding the right place 2) building the role that rewards you.

For some people, that requires running your own company, for most I don't think it does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com