Hacker News Reader

Comment by ben_jones | Hacker News Reader

People are joking in this thread but I think the REALLY BIG problem is that a lot of American workers are increasingly internalizing their compensation needs above other needs like health, happiness, or social well being. When we should be concentrating on a lot of our personal issues, we kick the ball down the road saying "oh when I have more money" or "oh when my career progresses" when we would be much better served by acting on them immediately and with highest priority.

View on HN

Perhaps because so many Americans are financially insecure, and long-term health, happiness, and social concerns take a backseat to simply surviving the next month?

Getting out of the hole of "surviving to the next month" requires a few years of developing and investing in yourself to build a valued skillset. It's very hard to do when you don't have a clue about what that path can be. I took a lot longer to get to my current spot because I didn't know this path existed when I was younger because no one around me even knew this industry existed.

Come on, it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest that all folks living paycheck-to-paycheck don't have a valuable skill set. It's also incredibly offensive and elitist, too.

I didn't mean it that way. I meant to say that if you are asking yourself "what can I do to improve my situation" sometimes the answer is to invest in yourself! It isn't meant to be judgemental or to suggest there aren't other factors that influence what financial position you find yourself in. How about offering other suggestions as to what people can do to move away from 'paycheck to paycheck' situatins instead of calling other people names?

If it's so valuable, why are they living paycheck-to-paycheck?

I'd say that their skillset is defacto not valuable enough for their wellbeing.

Financial positions are not exclusively a function of your skillset. Your accreditations also matter (e.g. degrees or certifications). Wealth also begets wealth so if you have connections you can actually get a job without any skillset (not saying its right, but it is a reality). The real question is "what can people do to improve their current financial situation". I'd love to see a discussion on that.

Because workers, including creative and knowledge workers, have very little leverage until they are essentially one-of-a-kind holders of a high-level skill set. Which isn't to say that their skills aren't valuable, just not unique. The remedies are government intervention or collective bargaining, not everyone clamoring for one of the limited seats at the "subject matter expert" table.

Not even all STEM jobs pay 6 figure salaries.

Idk why are some HVAC techs are working paycheck to paycheck in Las Vegas.

It's not just workers. I've repeatedly asked for reduced hours, or more vacation, in lieu of a raise. Every time, my employer's response has been some form of "we can't do that for unspecified technical reasons" or "if you get that, everybody would want it." Honestly I don't get it. The big irony is that several people in the upper strata who are ostensibly making these decisions only work part-time and have at least 2 C-suite jobs

I think their answers are pretty representative. Your requests wouldn't hurt the business per se but if they would bend over to accommodate everyone's small requests, the company would loose the illusion of control they have over their slav... err ...workforce and they can't have that.

Who has two C-Suite jobs? The people at that level are frequently the ones working the longest hours.

Elon Musk has 3 (SpaceX, Tesla, the Boring Company).

Jack Dorsey has 2 (Square, Twitter).

Steve Jobs was CEO of both Apple and Pixar.

So the three celebrity status CEOs out of a C-Suite population in what... the high five figures?

At least 2, at my unnamed company. Three mentioned celebrities who are easily verified. And you're still incredulous. I don't know what to tell you, this isn't that uncommon.

It's not that they don't work too much for their own good, and pay themselves as much as they can get away with. It's that they don't see the need to show up at my company every day, but somehow think that highly creative employees perform better at a grindstone.

I'd sure hope so, since they're getting paid hundreds of times more.

It is a LONG standing dominant philosophy in US business that "morale" is pretty much the last thing to be concerned with. Someone not working well? Get rid of them and replace them with someone better. This has been going on for generations, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's taught all day long, every day, in every business school in the nation.

"Put that coffee down!! Coffee's for closers only."

For all the ways Office Space is dated, I think its meditation on morale won't be for a long time.

It's not.

Conventional wisdom? Or "common sense?" It's too common to be sauna talk.

It is not something taught at any reputable business school.

Then it's one of the many things you "learn on the job". Just because there isn't a course in "Crushing your Employee's Souls 101" doesn't mean sacrificing morale for short-term profits isn't an insanely common practice.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you claiming my assertion is entirely fictional? Harvard and Wharton aren't reputable?

Compensation is easily measurable and comparable than something like 'happiness' and wellness. I'm definitely not on the company's side for neglecting company happiness, but it so so subjective and it's probably easier for them to set this standard and have people find happiness and balance in their lives.

You can start with true working hours per week. Simple honest rules - checking email at home counts, being paged counts double (because I can happen anytime, so you need to be alert), eating lunch does not. Transit time counts. Divide by 5 - that's your average daily load due to work. You get more than 9 - that's too much, I hope your compensation is superb (i.e. well above average).

> You get more than 9 - that's too much, I hope your compensation is superb (i.e. well above average).

At FAANG, the number is most definitely less than 9. Combine this with the freakishly high compensation, and this looks like the best deal one could predicably get on Earth.

I kind of think it is a great deal. Perhaps not the greatest, but a great one.

Amen to that. It's easy to trade away free time and benefits when you're 25. Once that means not seeing your kids as much, money doesn't seem so important. As my ex's dad used to say: "Not a lot of people lie on their deathbed wishing they had spent more time in the office."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com