Want to work 9-to-5? Good luck building a career | Hacker News Reader

Want to work 9-to-5? Good luck building a career

fortune.com

16 pointsonion2k19 comments

> “What started as a reasonable endeavor—the healthy pursuit of equity in work and life—became distorted, morphing into a misguided entitlement to a workday neatly bookended,” writes Gabrielle Peterson.

Insisting on a personal life is not entitled. Insisting on work outside of the boundaries set during negotiations is entitled.

> If we are at work and receive a phone call from our crying child, would we not take it? If we are in a meeting and discover there is a leak in our house, would we not rush out?

I'm at a loss for words. The implied (false) equivalence between personal calls at work and work calls during off-time is incredibly misguided.

Your personal surroundings are an extension of you. You are not in a business relationship with them. If they thrive, you thrive. If they suffer, you suffer. You can't just leave and get a new home, a new family, new children, new friends, etc.

Unless you are a significant stakeholder in a company, the relationship is completely different. Companies (and apparently this article) always try to pretend they are family, or that their success is somehow linked to yours, to mooch off the benefits of such a relationship. The reality is, you aren't family, and your success isn't linked. If the company could be more successful without you, you're fired at the next opportunity. Vice versa, if you could be more successful without the company you will change jobs at the next opportunity.

What's more, for the vast majority of people I've worked with, the vast majority of time, home does actually stay at home. The crying child, the gas leak, etc. are exceptional situations, and they either don't take up a huge amount of time, or the employee uses PTO to deal with them (because, you know, that's part of what PTO is for).

> ...what ultimately led him to the ax was his insistence on boundaries.

Dear God! Boundaries! How dare he!

I really want to believe that either this article is some kind of parody gone awry, or maybe that it was written by GPT-3 or something, because the only other alternative is that the author is just so far out of touch with reality that it's nearly psychotic. How dare we acknowledge that employees are actually human!

I think it’s purposefully outrageous to get more clicks.

I don't get it - why people in USA are so bent on the proverbial "career" when most SWE jobs pay way above average? Why not _just_ earn a decent salary and live a less stressful life? If you're bored, you can switch jobs comparatively easily due to demand for programmers.

I think most software people in the USA do exactly that. Most of us have fairly low-stress jobs, in larger companies, and just do our work and live our lives. But that is boring, so while it works for us, we're not out talking about it online, so you aren't hearing from us - you hear from the more vocal minority who are pushing for more.

It's not a matter of making enough. It's a matter of validation. Professional status tends to be tied to identity.

It works quite alright, plenty of Europeans manage to have a career.

I loved the bit about a project being due on Monday, and that means I should work on the weekend. If the project is due on Monday then weeks before it should be ready to go. If it's not done Monday, descope, or push the deadline.

The classic quote: "Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on mine."

Could be useful to know that if you work at the Midway Journal you will be expected to work weekends unpaid (and get fired if you don't).

The article seems to malign the priorities of people who choose to focus on work, referring to the phenomenon as "toxic productivity." How about you mind your own business? This is peak victimhood culture – if you don't want to dedicate your life to your career, great. But nobody owes you anything – live and let live.

Yes, of course nobody should expect you to work outside the bounds of an agreement. But similarly, nobody should be able to tell you to work less. If you want to go "all in" on your career, you have every right to do that, and nobody competing with you can credibly complain about it.

We all have different priorities. Don't force yours on others. But also don't be surprised when someone outcompetes you at something they prioritize more than you do. If you want a well-balanced life, don't expect to beat everyone who's working 24/7 at their career.

And if you do choose to go "all in," do it for yourself, not for someone else. If you're sacrificing everything to work 24/7, you should maximize the leverage by targeting a high upside. Found a startup, don't sell your days to a mega-corp. Just remember that anyone you hire doesn't have the same priorities as you. That's the trade.

Huh? Any evidence that you can’t build a career while having boundaries?

None at all. You clearly can, because many people have.

However, saying yes to things is definitely more impressive to people than saying no. Sometimes that might mean sacrificing personal time in order to get stuff done at work. You don't have to, but the person who chooses to is more likely to be asked to do the next thing, and the next, and eventually that impacts your career progression. It can stunt your 'life progression' if you do too much of it though.

The counterpoint to all that is that the person who does good work and gets everything done in their work day, and doesn't need to work longer hours, is often even more impressive still.

As a rule bosses like capable people who are open to putting in more effort, but who don't need to put in more effort. Really, you need to understand how your boss thinks in order to impress them enough to move up.

The thing I have learned in consulting and I try my best not to bring into my private life, is learn to read people and tell them what they want to hear, even if you don't mind actually doing it.

Or worse, apply sales persuasion techniques to drive message home and do stuff your way.

It is all about office politics.

Thanks that’s a great answer. Of course it’s a game of perceptions. A lot is said about saying no to certain kind of work and yes to others. You want the kind of work that is easy but seen as hard (easy could mean easy to you, enjoyable even).

Why is this misdirected rant here? The author admits in the opening paragraph that the whole thing is based on one anecdote, and fixates on a minor point.

> In the past, I've been quite successful working 10-6, 11-7, or at some jobs 3-11. For me, with remote work it's easier than ever to get a lot done, without an open-office, working hours I find to be the most productive.

25+ years career here. Always worked 9 to 5. Except in one job where I had to work late for a few months. Which made me quit and find a better job. Life is not your work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com