Stop the “Hard Work” Obsession
erik-engheim.medium.com
erik-engheim.medium.com
Hard work works, especially in 1st world countries. I know that hard work alone would not make anyone successful. Luck plays a lot of factor as well, but the harder you work in general you increase the chance of you encountering turning point(s) that lead you to living a comfortable middle class life in 1st world country. Be rich (i.e, billionaire)? Maybe not, but not everyone can and should be rich.
Of course no system is perfect, and you can't save everyone. There will be some people who fall through the cracks. But to setup a system such that no one will ever fall through the cracks is giving diminishing returns while taxing to the whole system.
Rich people will always be with us, so does poor people. So does ignorant people who thinks pandemic is a hoax, so does lazy people.
I grew up in a 3rd world country. Competition and social mobility in the USA is relatively way easier compared to my home country. Or I should say, a piece of cake, really. I'm not obsessed with hard work, but I'm not lazy either. I'm willing to Leetcode for 3 years, failed many interviews to finally got into a high paying tech company. Leetcode for 3 years non stop is way way way way easier than hauling bricks all day.
I know what a hard work is, and I also know what useless futile hard work looks like. I worked through low paying jobs such as cleaning service, deli worker, laundry worker.
My most back breaking work was cleaning an entire restaurant who got shutdown by a health department by myself. I only lasted 5 days. I had to scrub rat poop of walls and floors kneeling down with bleach everywhere by myself (yes that was minimum wage). The next back breaking work was an 18 hour shift non stop working at a deli during Christmas/New Year in a really busy touristy location.
And like the author. My single mother was the one that pushes me through many educations. She said "I can't give you anything other than education, the rest is up to you".
I think it's hard for people living in countries that allow for social mobility like the USA to appreciate how good they have it. In the country I was born, if you start working by yourself you'll have to pay 50-60% in various taxes, making it really hard to become rich. People who care more about career than friends and family just leave.
I also think it's amazing how access to information was democratised by internet.
Your last phrase in the last year can be summed up to "I can just give you a computer, the rest is up to you" which is pretty much what my parents did before I started working online.
Software Engineering changed my life, and the life of my family. Me and my mom only had savings about $12k back then in 2015 and I lived in NYC, didn't know that it would change my life when I started studying programming using that money.
Hate all you want about SWE and Leetcode and JavaScript (lol), but they paid my bills, and my family's bills, and my old single mom's bills.
I could move to Dubai or locations which don't charge taxes, but it's not a tradeoff I'm happy to do.
Incidentally, I'm about to buy a property in a country with lower taxes than my current one and invest in their economy instead.
The reason I want more money is so I can stop selling my time in order to put food on the table and a roof over my family's heads and start building things I want to build which I doubt they will be profitable.
However, that very society/system has made a tradeoff that they will maintain a certain level of taxation which would allow them to maintain a certain level of services.
This does not seem realistic.
I think I expressed myself unclearly, the tradeoff I'm unwilling to make is not because I miss services paid with taxes but because there are many dimensions to evaluate a country.
From my point of view, I already pay a private health insurance on top of my public one because the public one is just unreliable - and that's the main benefit my taxes afford me. Someone who can't afford it, will probably grade countries differently.
And there are so many factors to consider: culture, english speaking schools availability, weather, detached houses availability, real estate prices, if your spouse likes the country, anything that could be important for you.
I lived in Dubai and I'm not a fan of how they deal with personal freedom (eg. LGBT rights, alcohol / drug consumption, sex outside of marriage) even if I like how they deal with economic freedom. Also racism towards American / European expats from natives is pretty vicious (albeit not as bad as towards expats from poorer countries).
Some people are indeed happy to live in Dubai - personally I found that there are several countries which offer a better tradeoff for me, low taxes and a good quality of life (whatever your definition is).
Talking about luck is often instinctively interpreted as a method to avoid responsibility and cultivate laziness, but try as I might, ignoring this aspect of the world feels like a type of wishful religious thinking that is torn apart after even the most cursory investigation and thought. Generally, people will tend to attribute the bad things to luck and the good things to their own efforts, but in reality both seem to fall under the same purview.
When you say it comes down to luck, it pretty much does. I'm fairly certain, if not 100% sure I was chosen simply because I was the only one in my area that applied. All the other positions in the location 120 miles away were filled and nobody wanted to move to my city. So to make things simple, they just chose me, a fresh OOP learned programmer with little to no skills except for writing a basic linked list in java.
There was a snow storm during the day of the spring career fair. Classes were cancelled but the career fair still happened. I was one of the only ones that showed up and passed along my resume to all of the tech companies that attended the career fair. Had it not been for the snow storm I would not have received an internship which led to my first time job. I was a college freshman, B student due to having to work and I had zero practical coding skills outside of one semester of C++. The snow storm was certainly luck but showing up at the career fair was not.
However, much of my classmates in the dorm chose to play in the snow and I chose to go to the career fair. Luck does play a role but luck is really putting yourself in a position to take advantage of opportunity. If everyone that lived on campus showed up at that career fair I don't know if I would be in the position I am today (25 years later).
A bit like a rock becoming sentient right after being thrown and believing that it is flying
Besides, is the first idea even true? Most people who have ever lived were hunter gatherers. The majority of people alive today live in shitty conditions that they are unlikely to fundamentally ameliorate. And if they manage to change their attitude about it, it will tend to be a factor of their innate personality and influences
What I like about the Nordic countries, is that workers there are productive. When they're at work, they work - but at the same time, they have a healthy relationship to their workplace, due to strong workers rights / laws.
Another thing to keep in mind, is that social conformity there, is on par with countries like Japan.
In some countries, you're almost applauded if you manage to screw over your boss / company, by simply getting paid without doing much at all. For many, it's the dream situation - to just clock in at work, do nothing, get paid, and go home.
That's not at all the case in the Nordic countries, where you're expected to work hard and produce.
Strong sense of work ethic, labor laws, balanced with expectations of healthy work/life balance.
(But with that said, there are some serious drawbacks. If your only goal is to accumulate as much wealth as possible, at all costs, and as quickly as possible - Nordic countries is not the right place, IMO).
After working in both Germany and The Netherlands I found this to be false as it depends more by company size rather than the country.
In SMEs or family owned businesses people were busting their asses, often longer than 40h/week. In giant megacorps I saw plenty of incompetent clockwatchers, mostly in management positions, where the business could function the same without them but they were inexplicably kept around, at least as long as the business was booming. Often times they would just have their teams switch offices so they would have something to put in their annual performance review ("I optimized personell location, fostering a culture of synergy and creativity leading to future improvements in productivity and innovation").
Germany and Netherlands may be in Western or Central Europe depending on definition, but I've never heard of them being grouped to "Nordic".
Germany and the Netherlands are in northern europe but are not part of the nordics.
Nordic countries are (in no particular order); Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland.
And since I am at it, only Sweden, Norway and Denmark are in Scandinavia.
If that was the only drawback then that would be great. But there are many other problems. One is that it’s very hard to save up money and start a business or retire early. Another is that you see very little “high risk / high reward” economic activity, like really innovative companies. It’s a system that definitely has strong benefits if you live in “the mainstream of society”, but at the same time can feel like “halfway on the road to serfdom”, especially if live a bit differently and don’t really value the benefits.
Source: I’m a Swede living in Sweden since forty+ years.
This doesn't seem to be true. Nordic countries rank very high in terms of startup ecosystems and startups per capita.
Sweden is a country of 10M while USA has 330M and constant influx of brain power. Its more likely related to that than anything else.
Not to mention the couner argument that in a nordic society you are more able to live through life worry free, which according to some people is the key for innovation.
Kahoot is the only one I'm aware of. Most startups in Norway are sold off before they cross the $20 million mark.
Hell, a lot of would-be entrepreneurs and business owners don't see the benefits / rewards of starting something for themselves, because you put in all those hours, with the possibility to come off worse than if you had just chosen a mediocre state job.
Salaries are quite compressed, which is great for equality - but not so much for motivation, if you're very ambitious.
With that said, we do live comfy lives, compared to most people around the world.
Source: Norwegian
It stands to reason that taxes have to be high.
This is, of course, thanks to the incredible lucky foresight that let us capture most of the profits from the oil industry as a public good. One could of course question the priorities in how this money is spent.
I'm of the opinion that our public sector is too big, for instance. I'm fairly sure that a considerable part of it works more as a jobs program than a necessary public utility.
Another interpretation would be that we in effect already have a massive basic income program going, a priority with which I'd actually agree. We're just not being honest about it, partly due to still being unable to run it unconditionally. The unspoken and un-debated consensus seems to be that there needs to be a bit of a taboo in utilizing such services, or the system would be overloaded.
I think that this is direct result of exploitation of workers - devaluated work and very low wages regarding to the amount of work you are expected to do. People are normally trying to improve their life situation and if there is no perspective, they try to make the improvement by minimizing the work done.
If they are miserably paid they will "raise the wage" by doing less for that money and I think that this correlates with all the places where I have observed this behavior.
Which is what I'm doing right now. If the company wants us to be motivated they should incentivize us by sharing equity or let us leave early if we complete our work faster but since my pay will stay the same if I work harder and I'm mandated to stay the full 40h/week at my desk even though I can finish my work sooner, why would I bother working harder?
Last year I saw a chart posted on imgur with habits and traits of lower, middle, and upper class people. I’m sure many saw that and thought “oh I need to act like X so I can stop being Y.” What I saw was contentment that I am in the social tier that feels right to me. I don’t need “more,” I would struggle with “less.”
You could go live in the woods in which case you might not suffer from the same fates. Until civilization starts to encroach on your cabin (I think that’s what happened to the Unabomber).
Hard work isn't path to riches, but it is a path to respectability.
Now there are to ways for the weak/poor to combat this. The first is to join forces and act as one. The problem with this is that to do so one must give away some of their freedom (because they need to act as one). The other option is to climb the ladder and become richer and therefore stronger. And that is why social mobility matters.
Wealth and power are intrinsically linked. You could try to just mind your own business and live your simple life, but it is not up to you. It is up to those stronger than you to let you live your simple life. Maybe you get lucky and maybe not.
That's the point. And the only way out is anarchy. Not the anarchy which lets ring your alarm bells of democratic turmoil, riots and revolution. But in the sense of a system where no one reigns over another.
It seems the current situation naturally forms from a system where no one reigns over one another as a result of people having personal ambitions. I don't think ambition is something humanity has the means for to abolish, even if we wanted to (which is in itself an interesting debate).
This band would probably also need some form of leadership, where a consensus-defined alpha role comes naturally to us, much like for chimpanzees.
In fact, I'd argue that it doesn't even take a human to be the initial perpetrator. Humans (again, like chimpanzees) have an ever-present initial perpetrator: the environment.
We're not built to stand strong against the forces of nature as individuals.
even in anarchy, there will be those who reign over others.
Even if you (or some other person) enjoy living a simple life, there are probably others out there that want to enjoy a different life. Would suck if that's next to impossible, because those in the superior classes are bent on keeping status quo, and suppressing those below.
And I hate to think of any “class” being superior. “Wish I was of the superior race/gender/orientation/class/etc”. To me, people see class as something you can change (true to some extent) but why even make one class seem worse than the other? It’s only because it’s sometimes possible for people to change socioeconomic classes that we critique them for being in one and accept that being in a poorer class can have hardships that we don’t like but find acceptable because “you can change it”. But... not everyone can be rich. And a lot of our system is setup to profit off of the hard work of the working poor... so without fundamental change to the entire system, there will always have to be poor people and there is no way for everyone to be lifted out and live a less worrisome life where we aren’t concerned with class.
We live in some weird ass feudalistic society now and think the peasants deserve what they get. I don’t agree.
When looking at an individual, you of course can't conclude that because someone didn't move up the socioeconomic ladder, that there's some kind of problem to be remedied. This could have many reasons, many of which entirely reasonable.
But looking at it from a societal perspective, on aggregate, it is a useful proxy. You'd expect that among different population groups in different countries, humans would be roughly similar in their tendency to be ambitious, safe for some cultural differences. If one in country you see that there's very little social mobility compared to another (taking into account cultural differences), that's a good proxy to determine that the earlier mentioned problems exist, (1) the power imbalance and (2) not using human resources effectively.
So if you find that in the US, social mobility is lower than in Nordic countries, despite a stronger culture of 'you can be anything you want' and the 'american dream', that can be a useful indicator that there's a power imbalance and a system not conducive to letting people be the best version of themselves.
How any one individual chooses to live their life is a completely separate manner. We would have to assume that roughly, there will be about as many people with a disposition to life as you, in countries around the world. That's why ceteris paribus it's interesting to look at social mobility on a national level.
It's a bit like BMI not being useful for individuals, but being useful for larger studies.
That's certainly an idealistic or romantic idea but it's not in any way realistic.
Being poor, depending on where you live, also means having no social safety net. It means you can't educate your children, it means you and your family are vulnerable to all the social ills that afflict those who are in poverty. Being poor gives you the short end of the stick in almost every way that matters.
It's not like everyone (or anyone, really) can live like the family in the film "Captain Fantastic", isolated in the woods, yet somehow thriving, more fit, and better educated. There's a documentary about people that lived for generations in the woods in Siberia for religious reasons. It was fanatic Christian sect called "True Believers" (can't find the documentary, but here's the Vice News story, https://youtu.be/tt2AYafET68). Definitely not an attractive lifestyle!
So deep that in the recent "i was fired from X" articles, the subject points out that their colleagues were lazy and they worked hard. Whereas a southern (or culturally Catholic) European would see that this shows their colleagues also hated the place, and that there's no shame in being lazy.
It's not an obsession and not something that can be stopped. It's utterly integral in all of American society even the left wing radical side.
Progressivism is basically the belief that doing hard good work brings Good things.
(A non protestant culture would emphasise belief and being a better person more than doing good works)
This sounds kind of odd, given protestants generally believe in salvation by faith (Jesus saves those who believe), and catholics believe in salvation by works.
I’m not a psychologist or a theologian, but it sounds related to that concept in child psychology: when a child misbehaves, it’s better to say “you did a bad thing” than “you are bad”. The latter leads to the child labeling themselves as bad, suggesting that’s the natural way they should act.
Faith and works.
Protestants tend to be about sola scriptura, but nowhere in the Bible does it say faith alone is all that you need. Rather, going to James 2:
> 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
> 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
> Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
> 20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic
It should be noted that there was 'work ethic' thinking around before Martin Luther showed up, but it's just that Protestantism turned the dial to 11:
> Andersen et al found that the location monasteries of the Catholic Order of Cistercians, and specifically their density, highly correlated to this work ethic in later centuries;[18] ninety percent of these monasteries were founded before the year 1300 AD. Joseph Henrich found that this correlation extends right up to the twenty-first century.[19]
Even if Luther hadn't shown up, no doubt there would have been something else that would probably have achieved similar things:
Instead of "working hard is Good" it appears that it's more like "Because I have worked hard and been successful it means that I probably have Gods favour compared to this beggar over there".
So working hard is the result from predestination (its already been decided who will get into heaven so we better do our best to look like we are blessed already and working hard and being successful looks like that ), and also a result from a kind of protestantism that advocates spending time intently working as a kind of devotion, and the kind of protestantism that pushes asceticism; saving money, not spending much, not giving cash to the poor but instead donating time and work to charities..
To say Catholics don't believe in hard work being good and only believe in belief isn't correct therefore. I suppose I would clarify by saying that they believe in doing good work but don't view being rich and successful (the end results of working hard) as a way to get into God's good books.
I remember studying for multiple 16 hour days over the years while others partied hoping for a C+. I have to remind myself of this sometimes when it feels like my job is ‘too easy’ compared to my past jobs of washing dishes or moving inventory by hand.
Norway is probably the least good example example, due to the relative dominance of the oil & gas sector, but if you look at the stock market index of Denmark or Finland, for example, you'll find that the top companies are in different industries, exporting globally and world leaders in their respective niche. I've included a Nordics fund in my global stock market portfolio, since this small part of the world economy is disproportionately diversified in high tech.
I'm sure this can be duplicated elsewhere, through education and increasing the reliability of institutions. It's the kind of non-zero-sum development that would leave the world better off as a whole.
In fact, I'm a bit frustrated that Norway lags behind the other Nordics in this respect. There's something about our country that slows us down when it comes to building profitable export industries.
Collapse of Nokia was very traumatic for Finland, it was a classical case of having your eggs in one basket. I think you never came close to such an earthquake in Norway.
Of course I'm comparing a sector vs a company but, in a way, Nokia was a sector of itself, and the Oil industry in Norway is dominated by a few companies like Equinor.
So, not sure if its that much more heterogenous than Finland, but yes no such earthquake has happened yet.
There are some interesting tech companies around (for instance one involed in the pfizer's covid supplychain, genetics, mmorpgs, ai, bionics and food processing machinery) but the lack of funding is making it real difficult for new startups to take flight.
I once found an article I haven't been able to find ever since, but it's on a basic economic theory that high profitability in sector X makes sector Y uncompetitive. (read X as Oil and Y as anything else in this example).
This is because the profits not only X push up wages in sector X. But also in Y, because the entire market must also compete with X in a bid to attract labour.
This makes Y less competitive compared to other countries which don't have such a sector X.
Of course in a world without friction, labour would move across borders to the first country's sector X and thereby push up wages in Y around the world. But labour mobility is obviously lower between countries than within countries, so other countries tend to be a little more insulated from this effect of profitable industries abroad.
Does anyone remember the name for this economic theory?
I feel this happened with Norway. In the 70s and 80s for example you saw it become less competitive and more rapidly deindustrialised.
Still, you'd also think this would fuel a high-tech industry because you'd have to get into high-value added sectors to compete. Meanwhile Norway's second biggest export product is fish. Would be fun to have a Norwegian (economist) join us for some explanatory thoughts!
There's so much opportunity for smart people to make a lot of money working in tech that it makes other engineering disciplines (mechanical, nuclear, etc.) or research seem unattractive.
There’s constantly this exhortation to “work hard” and “overcome the obstacles”. People work ALL THE TIME. There’s an underlying pressure to be on constantly.
And I’m asking “why?” I’m an IC. I am by no means invested in the company. If some big event happens, the C-levels and investors may pay out. I might be lucky and keep my job. I’ll bet money that the good health insurance we have and “unlimited” PTO goes away when that happens.
So again, why should I put in extra to make someone else rich? I have no problem with working within reasonable bounds and trading my skills for a salary. I don’t want to start my own business.
There isn't something inherently different about people in the nordic countries that makes them work well. It is the social systems and contracts we live in/with.
I can be secure in the knowledge that I can not be laid off if I am doing good work, unless my employer can truly justify it (the myth of employers not being able to lay of employees is just that. There has to be a justifiable reason though). I know my healthcare is taken care of by the state, I get financial support if I want to start a family, get paid leave to be with my new born child, get most of my education for free, have high trust in the capabilities and fairness of the justice system and on and on.
All of this creates a relaxed environment where most of the base needs in Maslow's pyramid are taken care of, and I don't need to worry about them. Similar to the Harvard study that showed that there was a sweet spot for the ratio of performance to salary increase, having these social norms & contracts in place leaves most of us free to get on with the work with a focus of doing the best we can each time without financial/health/education worries.
And, ofcourse there are plenty of problems in the nordics! Let no one ever sell you a utopian fairytale telling you otherwise.
Who knows if people from Bangladesh had found oil in the 50s, maybe today some Bangladeshi would have written a post about hard work and good quality of life, ignoring this particular ingredient.
We'll see soon how we will manage without that income - if they do actually shut down the fields.
I accept the notion that simplistic glorification of "hard work" is unhelpful and often counterproductive, but most people understand that "hard work" doesn't just mean physical exertion, but also good decision-making, sensible investing, scaling your impact, etc.
Any concept is easy to write a disparaging essay about if you just focus on the most reductive interpretation.
A far more useful essay on the topic would focus on what ability an "ordinary" person (particularly one without substantial inherited wealth) has to influence their life outcomes, and what kinds of things can be done at the individual and societal levels to improve the present situation.
I made a great investment 8 years ago that made me retire quite early. I'm still just sitting on the investment although many people told me to sell it, and also some people want me to ,,work again''.
For me not selling it is the ,,hard work'', as doing anything, like buying houses from the money, or ,,investing it to something sensible'', or ,,diversifying'' would be damaging to my impact. I don't see that people are understanding it.
what can be done, as of today, is education, and applied effort to learn useful skills. That's what hard work is! That's why there's such a huge fuss every year in china regarding the national college entrance examination - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_College_Entrance_Exam... - entire towns are run silent and distraction free to allow students to study and take the exam.
I have worked construction jobs. The body is exhausted at the end of the day, but it is always satisfing at the end of the day to look back on what you have done. However because anyone can do it there isn't as much value in it and so it doesn't pay as well. What hard work you do is more important than how hard you work. However once you have picked the area to work hard work is a second key to getting more.
Of course eventually you need to decide how much is enough. This is a personal question and there is no right answer.
What doesn't work is for zero people in society to work (at least not at out current automation technology level). Someone needs to grow food and make shelter. Someone needs to act in the latest TV shows (even though there are enough reruns to fill a lifetime so this work could be eliminated, and it has always been possible to live without TV).
Elbert Hubbard
I think we often experience disappointment in life when we seek much wealth. I don't want to be mega-wealthy and I don't to be poor.
I hope my government try to do their best for my society. On a personal level I also try to help those less fortunate than myself.
The US is one the worst Western countries when looking the actual metric of Social mobility. As of 2020 the US is 27 after Lithuania in Social mobility[1].
[1] https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...
Speaking as a European.
America is objectively bad at both.
Europe is more moderate, you can get help if you're really poor and you can become middle class; you can't medicate properly but they will save your life for free; you've got basic freedoms but the ceiling is lower, etc.
Seth Godin has a riff on how to think about hard work to get the most out of it: https://seths.blog/2019/02/hard-work/
A lot of the political dialog is also about how more people can have access to quality education. In my own state, we spend around $20k per student per year in the poorest school districts, so I don't think the story that the US just ignores poor communities and tells them to work harder is quite so simple.
ie, we seem to care more about our colleagues'/employees' blood, sweat and tears than the achievement of our (joint) goals.
The economy, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn about anything except hard results.
I think this is more of a problem with our evolved social instincts not being well adapted to modern industrial capitalism than a quirk of American culture.
Perhaps we should work towards a society that offers better incentives in that case? I don't see what the point was of inventing technology if we still have to fight like crabs in an individualistic bucket.
Oil.
Stopped there.
I’m inclined to say that it’s pretty much a given. It’s really hard to be unable to live a sort of comfortable life in Europe (you might not have a brand new TV, but you’ll have your own house and Netflix).
Also, the banks offer very good rates for these types of loans if you have a stable job and prospect.
Renting for very long periods seem like a waste for many people here.
https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-social-mobility-index...
[0] http://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global_Social_Mobility_Report.p...
You do, there is a huge disparity between coastal states and the rest of America. You can see that in the political map. This leads to problems like we saw last week.
Doubt this. Especially if you consider PPP and their monthly expenses/how much they can save by month.
I think it's a much bigger problem but many people disagree with me on that.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Gatsby_curve
* https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/business/wef-social-mobility-...