The Decline of Work | Hacker News Reader

The Decline of Work

wsj.com

13 pointsjkuria34 comments

> When you slack off and withhold your human capital, you steal from everyone.

But mostly from rich people, which is the only reason they care

And articles get written in the WSJ preaching to the choir.

Also, you presumably are redeploying that capital to people you care the most about: friends and family.

Your family captures 100% of the value you create for them. Your family captures 10% of the value you create for your employer.

I for sure know where my effort is best spent.

Does the WSJ do plutocratic parody? Is this actually for real? That sounds like an old Dilbert cartoon where the perfect employee says that having a personal life is like stealing from the company.

Wow, Housing is unaffordable for young people, education costs are rising, many see no way out, why try. Sounds like someone dropped their stogie in their whiskey and is a bit cranky before bed time, and of course the golf club fees are skyrocketing. Why won't the baristas work for free!

I'm considering relocating and telling my job farewell entirely. It is impossible to keep up with these ridiculous demands and see no amount of work pay off in any tangible way. Seems like I'm part of the problem, where the economic output I create with my time haunts me in the housing market and now it has reached food supply. The more value I produce, the wider the scissor opens in many ways, because those on the bigger handle make sure it stays that way with the money I make for them.

“ Every (legal) job adds value, and if you slack off or don’t deploy your human capital and live up to your potential, you’re stealing societal wealth from the rest of us. That’s selfish.”

No it is not selfish as long as the contract is measured against output. If a factory increases efficiency resulting in idling of the machines for 2 hours thus decreasing costs, yet at the same time keep the prices of its output same - that would never ever considered stealing. Then why is the writer considering an individuals skill and experience increasing their efficiency and producing the same output in less time as stealing?? The time the individual saves is upto them to spend any way they wish including to slack off or take a nap. The problem is that management science has failed to invent the right metrics of productivity.

> If a factory increases efficiency resulting in idling of the machines for 2 hours thus decreasing costs, yet at the same time keep the prices of its output same - that would never ever considered stealing.

I disagree: the shareholders of the company clearly would consider it to be stealing if the machines were idling for the mentioned 2 hours (i.e. they are not used to produce more money to the shareholders) if there does not exist a good economic reason for this decision (e.g. the downtime of the machines is used for better maintenance of them making the production process more reliable; not spilling the market with the products enables the company to demand higher prices for the product (artificial shortage)).

Well as another shareholder I also wouldn’t mind with idling machines , because I am happy with the current production and profit and I am also happy that my company is not generating unnecessary pollution for unnecessary profit (and as you pointed out the marginal profit decreases with increased supply). I like the world I live in to be nice and safe for my children. Little bit long term point of view :)

But this is a minority view among investors.

Most shareholders leave the demand and supply planning activity to the companies themselves.They will not consider idling of machines on the factory floor as stealing.

I'm so sick of opinion pieces that are written for people who share the exact worldview of the author and are just looking to pat themselves on the back for being better than the "other".

Do people really like being pandered to this much?

It's the Wall Street Journal - the kind of people that read that throw a fit when the barista spells their name wrong on the cup and then write pages long thinkpieces about it that other dorks in their circle read.

Judging by the op-ed pages I'm acquainted with, yes people do.

I am withholding my human capital at the moment, because the job that I worked hard for, worked well at, and enjoyed, was taken from me during the lockdowns of 2020-2021.

When I open Zoom and see shitty pixelated faces in bedrooms, I think - you fucked up the job I used to enjoy. I can't reintegrate into the workforce as a result.

This isn't a popular viewpoint here because most people here are on the other side of thinking WFH is the best thing since sliced bread. I imagine they see this as a personal attack or threat or something.

It just doesn't work for me, that's all. However well it works for you.

So I'm here, twiddling my thumbs and hoping that my investments are enough until I can find peace with this. I still have no idea what I'm going to do, I still can't accept that my career is gone.

Many companies are back in person, sounds like excuse making.

I haven't been keeping on the beat, I suppose. I would really appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of a software employer in London that is operating in person (not 'hybrid').

I'm working but feel the same way. I'm really hoping I can find good in person team to work with but it feels impossible.

> When you slack off and withhold your human capital, you steal from everyone.

This article is the equivalent of an incel saying, "That hot girl didn't want to sleep with me, what a jerk", but is instead employers saying, "That guy doesn't want to work for min wage, what a jerk".

Both need to grow up!

Amazing what a year of labor shortages can do to a guy.

https://archive.ph/V1uGk

The illusion of a dream that kept people grinding has shattered. Housing prices doubling means that it's now clear that you will never achieve financial freedom, not that most would have but now there is no hope. Without any end goal, it's pointless to give your 100%. Now people's next goal is to make best what you are gonna get, and that is to do minimum.

This barely-an-article is just engagement farming of the worst "what's the best state in the US?" type. The author is assuming the voice of a caricature of an out-of-touch parasitic capitalist. If it weren't in the WSJ, I would assume this is left-wing parody of the WSJ.

> Unions are on the rise again, attempting to organize Starbucks stores (more money for barista body piercings?), Amazon warehouses and every other service-economy job. It’s wealth destruction.

Weird, the time with the highest productivity, wage, and wealth growth occurred during a time when unions were active in both the US and Western Europe, yet the capitalist class leeches fought tooth and nail to stop it (and are fighting tooth and nail to stop it now).

Oh, I guess they only care if they get theirs. Disgraceful.

False - the wage growth and ability to negotiate was born of the US being the only place on earth with functioning production capacity, which quickly eroded due to competition, which eroded the bargaining power of labour.

I can sum this article up in one song, so you don't waste your time reading it: https://youtu.be/DCkJ5lGPqFs

I wouldn’t waste the effort in reading this. Andy Kessler is not a serious columnist.

When my employer no longer compensates me with the precise minimum they believe they can get away with, I'll stop working the precise minimum I believe I can get away with.

Teacher's have disgraced themselves and their career over the pandemic. It has become 100% clear they prioritise themselves and their own needs, not the students they supposedly fight for.

Teacher's unions are a weird beast as well, aren't unions supposed to be about about organising labour in the face of capital? But if schools are mainly run by the government then what is the labour-capital relationship here? Too often this just turns into mediocre ideological teachers making demands on tax payers with no real accountability.

I'm in Australia and the teachers here are already on excellent salaries but you'd never know it from the demands and entitlement they frequently show.

Education as a sector can't be disrupted quickly enough (and thankfully the internet is doing this and I expect by the end of the decade the new AI tools will have educational components that will outperform the average teacher).

> It has become 100% clear they prioritise themselves and their own needs

Imagine complaining that a worker prioritizes their own needs and calling that 'disgrace[ful]'.

It is disgraceful when out the other side of their mouths every unreasonable demand they make is prefaced with "don't be selfish, give us what we want. What about the children?".

They care about the kids only when it suits them to care.

A person can care about more than one thing at a time - they can be concerned with both their own survival and the education of children.

> Teacher's have disgraced themselves…

Should be “Teachers”.

> Teacher's unions are a weird beast…

Should be “Teachers'”.

You should have listened to your teachers when they tried to teach this to you.

Lol exactly my point.

Only "value add" many teachers add is inconsequential grammar points that don't hurt comprehension in any case.

Never seen so many midwits convinced they are indispensable as in the teaching profession. Technological disruption is coming hard and fast and good riddance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com