Hacker News Reader

Comment by camillomiller | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, there’s so many variables you can’t assess about a new job, that unless you are 100% sure about it (or driven mad by your current job) you shouldn’t make the jump for less money. You wanna be happier? Then make the jump for a job that pays less because it requires you to WORK less. Try working 4 days instead of five or 6 hours instead of 8. Now that’s a change.

View on HN

You make a very good point. I think the biggest factors that can determine happiness at work are the immediate boss and the immediate teammates, two things that are very hard to assess until you have already joined the new place. But the money is easy to assess and guaranteed because it is written on paper and it is legally binding. A boss with a good attitude, however, isn't guaranteed, no matter how rosy things look during the interviews. So it makes sense to never take a pay cut unless there are other compensating factors that are also guaranteed. Working 4 days instead of 5, or 6 instead of 8, seem like those things that can be guaranteed by the contract and would be worth taking a pay cut for.

This reminds me of a personal story when I interviewed for a very popular startup in the valley. They boasted of working 12 hours every day. I had a competing offer from a non-startup which required me to work about 7 hours every day. The CTO of the startup agreed to pay me 20% more than the non-startup. I politely explained the CTO that I could work for 12 hours every day, however, I would need a 70% more pay than the non-startup's offer, so that I feel I am being compensated commensurate to the time and effort I spend on the company. The CTO, now visibly upset, said, "If you like working 7 hours every day, please do join that other company!" while completing missing the point that I am okay to work for 7 hours or 12 hours as long as the pay is commensurate. Needless to say, I joined the other company for lesser pay and lesser working hours, and I am quite happy about the decision because it leaves with me a lot of time in the evenings to pursue my hobbies and also pick up new fun technologies to learn.

I think it was pretty nice of you to use a linear scale. If a company wanted that much more of my time I would have quoted them a premium (just as an hourly employee might make overtime in such a situation).

Exactly. The utility of income is not linear. The first 10,000 dollars are much more useful than going from 190,000 to 200,000 a year. That's why the tax system has a progressive structure. If you want me to work 10% more then you need to pay me more than 10% more.

And that does not even consider that my free time is very limited. If I have say 2h of completely free time everyday (24 hours minus work, commute, chores, gym, household crap, etc) and I need to work just 1 hour per day longer, then that cuts my free time per day in half. That is HUGE. You better pay me a lot for that.

There utility of disposable income is perhaps not linear. But I can tell you I enjoyed my second raise a lot more than my first. My first raise gave me just enough to start saving money over time, no room for quality of life improvements. My second raise is what allowed me to start spending money to enjoy myself.

What the tax system doesn't respect is that my life might be better and more productive if I spent a year earning 200,000 and then took a year off, then if I worked a 100,000/year job the entire time.

You can get around this by taking the year off from July through June (I've done September through March it worked well for me and my taxes) :)

I thought someone would say that :), that's a combinatorial optimization that happens to work in the exact scenario I described, and assuming no further constraints.

But you lose out if you instead want to do 2 years on 2 years off, or if your one-year employer doesn't want you to work July to June, or if your year-off plans don't work July to June, or any number of more complicated scenarios. My point stands that the system isn't designed to support this kind of irregular high-income work.

> because it leaves with me a lot of time in the evenings to pursue my hobbies and also pick up new fun technologies to learn.

As someone who has hired developers in the past. This "12 hours CTO" missed a good opportunity. It's much better to work 7/8 than 12. As frequently, developers when they get home. The itch will get too much and then start tinkering and learning new things in their personal time.

Of which, the time spent will benefit the company and they can put those new skills to use in a professional environment. Win-win for everyone.

Being visible at a keyboard for 12 hours is not.

if the company routinely requires 12hrs working days, i would stay away from them anyway

that just ensures low quality code,high pressure environment and people always on the edge ,not to mention high turnover and constant burnout and low morale

unless this is for a specific period,this is not a sustainable policy

I joined a startup back in 2009 and negotiated a 4 day work week for a 20% reduction in pay. Spent my day off doing community ministry work in a poor neighbourhood. It was great. The day off provided fulfilment that the job never would have.

It helped that we were in the middle of the GFC and the idea of 9 day fortnights were in the news as a way for employers to cut costs.

Later I managed to keep that job and work remotely, living in a smaller town with low living costs. Even better! The small town also had fibre in our street so for a while I had faster internet than head office :-)

That sounds like a great arrangement. What were your for workdays like, did you work 8ish hours or did you have to work longer days?

Ha! In my interview they asked that. 8 hour days.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com