Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnews_account_1 | Hacker News Reader

Don’t worry. Online forums are always like that. They’ll pretend like they’ve never had a high pressure job that paid out handsomely if you applied yourself and hence motivated you to work harder. To them, they think everyone should have work life balance from the age of 23 just because they’ve discovered its importance at 32 years of age.

Young people have to work hard. I don’t expect my reports to work on any evenings or weekends and if they even suggest it, I tell them not to and give them more lead. At the same time, if they override my decision and work through the evening, I am ready to answer questions over IM if I’m free too. I’m not going to say “why are you working evenings?”.

People online are daft.

View on HN

I just reached my 30s, and have pretty good WLB. Good WLB is just part of the picture though. You can work 5 hours a day and be miserable, and you can work 12 hours a day and be happy. It's also nice to have flexibility and independence I think. Being forced to work 12 hours always sucks over voluntarily working 12 hours.

I'd not recommend 23yo to stay chill in job, particularly if they have some ambition. At the same time, don't devoid yourself of other experiences in life if possible. Honestly, there is plenty of time in a day. If we have good discipline and prioritize correctly, lot can be done. That's what I struggle with personally.

Yes. Typically the guy who is working harder also happens to have varied interests. I’ve yet to see a work drone without an outside life who is doing 24/7 work. If I see them, I’d definitely limit them from work. I was the same 23 yo. I had an active social life and all the troubles of finding love etc. I did all right. Maybe a little worse than some of the folks I see today.

> Young people have to work hard

If people have to work hard to make a good living in the 21st century that we are now in, then it means that whatever society they are in has failed.

No it's not. Clearly our standard of living keeps improving, so costs keep going up.

I could work 10 hours a week and easily afford a 1920's lifestyle. But I prefer 21st century healthcare.

> But I prefer 21st century healthcare

Perfectly viable anywhere without privatized healthcare.

Today, we are able to have only ~10% of the population work, and keep all the living standards of the 90% majority.

No, you’re not going to be able to afford gene therapy on a 1920’s income

Gene therapy is still experimental. So its not an argument.

Unless you are born disabled, you’d better be born in a society that values hard work. At least until we reach self sustaining societies where no one needs to work, the dynamics of which are not worth speculation from our current standpoint in history.

> At least until we reach self sustaining societies

We are beyond 'self sustaining society'. We are throwing away food to protect market prices, we have planned obsolescence that makes perfectly fine devices to be thrown away to force people to buy new devices, we have more empty houses than the number of homeless.

The existing scarcity is artificial. Not something real.

Again this is incorrect. The only thing we have is artificial food security where we have issues with transport despite manufacturing enough to end global hunger. There isn’t enough housing to accommodate everyone. If you mean there are enough buildings, that is a cruel joke to the homeless.

Lol the best part though is thinking we are post scarcity. I thought this place had more brains than reddit or other idiotic forums.

Sorry, all of your propositions are incorrect. But Im not interested in engaging a lengthy discussion.

Maybe because they enjoy work and the learning that comes with it? Or because they want to outdo the preexisting products?

It could be as well that it's an European thing. At least over here work is just work (9 to 5, or less if possible), so we prefer to spent life with friends and family. Yeah, we don't earn $500K/year, but that's alright.

Yeah exactly. I don’t think of a worker who wants to stick to 9-5 as worth less until appraisal. I may still give them a full rating but not as much in bonus. You’re already paid plenty just to do your daily job. If anyone is going above and beyond in meaningfully productive ways, they get paid more.

This feels odd to read as an American. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could make the next AWS on just a 9-5

Not sure if you're joking, but "we prefer to spent life with friends and family" implies that they have no interest or desire to build the next AWS.

> I have a hard time understanding how anyone could make the next AWS on just a 9-5

Why? Surely it's doable within the 9-5 schedule (plus some people for the on-call rotations), it would just take a bit longer?

Maybe because you'd have to go the extra mile to outdo competition and gain a majority market share.

It isn't just the 9-5, but the idea that your job stops when you leave the office. If people see it as a transactional relationship only, it means there's less investment in the product

People may have no desire to build the next aws. That is fine too. He’s not claiming to have a world changing job.

That is so willingly naive. A culture that allows something which grants an advantage eventually requires you do that thing by implicit force. Don’t fool yourself. This is 101 stuff and anyone who doesn’t understand this concept shouldn’t be in charge, because it doesn’t just lead to overwork but also to more pernicious evil things, see MeToo and others.

This is nonsense. You want to muzzle a hard worker because you think the rest of the workforce will not match up? What I count is the output, not if people are working evenings and nights or during the workday. Work output is capped by what I require so I hold all the cards and I’ll pay the guy who wants to work more.

Harrison Bergeron much?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com