The Funemployment Phenomenon | Hacker News Reader

The Funemployment Phenomenon

adambossy.com

24 pointsabossy19 comments

Currently I'm tied fairly tightly to 9-to-yuck employment, but I think a lot of knowledge workers are not. We make gobsmackingly good amounts of money. Many niches in our industry/industries tolerate frequent changes of employment well. What is to say that instead of taking continuous employment at an annualized salary of X you tolerate working for an annualized salary of 2/3 X and spend a third of your life between jobs? (Heck, after doing that for a while, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that you spend two thirds of your life between periods of intense concentration on things which matter to you?)

Where is it written that the one acceptable business model for individuals is selling precisely 40 hours a week of your services to one company, with the contract to continue for many years at a time? That model is a historical accident, not a law of nature.

> That model is a historical accident, not a law of nature.

Beautifully stated!

This begs the question, how then are humans most productive, by nature? If we can model our workforce around a higher level of productivity, then we can reduce our work hours accordingly (or increase the world's wealth, whichever one).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

"..organizing by physical proximity and geritocracy is no longer necessary.."

I just quit a job where I was working in Silicon Valley but most of the team was in Toronto. Other aspects of the project were outsourced to India, China, and Germany. For my new job, all developers sit on the same floor. Things works 10x better at my new job. I know that Linux and some open source projects have achieved geographic independence, but that doesn't mean it's easier enough for everyone to do it yet. I think there's a core of super dedicated people that keep geographically disparate projects alive and working well.

>I think there's a core of super dedicated people that keep geographically disparate projects alive and working well.

There's generally a core of super dedicated people that keep any project alive and working well.

What really gets me: 'Experts say it’s both a reflection of the country’s cultural narcissism'

Experts on what exactly?

It's a reflection on how society absolutely does not need for everyone to be a working, productive member in order for society to continue functioning.

However, most members of society need to be working and at least marginally productive so they can continue to keep themselves functioning. Better or worse, it is the way we've organized the markets that bring people the essentials. Sentiment on whether it is better or worse seems more muddled given the current turmoil.

It largely depends on where one sets the threshold to define something as functioning. I've noticed at least a couple of different thresholds being argued about in other threads.

The LA Times article does actually quote two experts: David Logan, a professor at USC who specializes in cultural change in companies, and Jean Twenge, an associate professor at San Diego State University who has published a bunch of papers on youth culture and its effects on individuals.

Actually I viewed the original "funemployment" article as a propaganda piece, focused on putting a happy face on what are pretty bad numbers.

Funemployment is like enjoying the thrill of skydiving without a parachute. Sure, it's a blast while you're in the air, but the landing's going to suck.

Only if you're absolutely insistent on playing chicken with the ground. You will, of course, lose -- probably badly. People have walked away from their parachutes not opening, though. Most don't, and it's not an experience you should seek out, but it is something to be mindful of, should you ever find yourself in that situation.

Your simile is inapt, though: funemployment is a ride you can step off as soon as you find one you like better. I've done it both ways, after a fashion, and can heartily recommend it, provided you've gotten yourself together enough to step off in time. Hell, I'd even recommend it (though somewhat more reservedly) if you don't step off in time. Nothing teaches you more about yourself than hardship, particularly when it's self-inflicted.

http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/inspiration/justaride.html

The world needs more Bill Hicks types. He was -- still is -- my favorite comic, bar none.

Depends on your idea of fun. If your idea of fun is doing intensive research (e.g. hacking) then you'll build experience in stuff you wouldn't have had the opportunity to fit in between the brainfry of 9-yuck hours. I've had this experience, and the landing was superb - when I returned to work I had skills that I wouldn't have had if I'd just bounced from one job to another. Things that made me better able to 'hit the high notes'.

Funemplyment? Really?

What is going on inside of these people's minds? Did they just people forget to grow up? Must be...

I guess that's what comes of a career path always being so well-trodden before sheeple. Nice high school, college paid for, then a nice "secure" job at a nice "big firm". And when those jobs are suddenly out of reach, it's not because of "the bad economy", but because bullshitting your way through college half-sober on your parents' dime didn't teach you in the least how to be a productive member of society.

But fine, lie to yourself, call yourself funemployed. Ha, it's funemployment until the credit cards run out or mom and dad decide to retire. Then you realize you're back to square 0, except not any younger. That's when we realize that the vast majority of our society is a bunch of morons without a clue, replace truck drivers with computers, most of the Walmart employees with cheap RFID tags on goods, and watch the true economic divide appear - between people who have useful skills and those who don't.

Yeah, quick everyone, ACT SERIOUS.

I stopped reading at:

"Traditional corporations are obsolete. With the advent of the Internet, organizing by physical proximity and geritocracy is no longer necessary."

The new does replace the old, eventually.

I absolutely agree. I probably over-simplified for the sake of brevity.

The world isn't ready to move away from 9-to-5. But a whole lot of new workers are coming into the workforce that seek the alternative lifestyle described in the blog post. These workers will ultimately dominate the business world, and hence it will be reshaped.

In my mind, "obsolete" means that it is no longer growing. In this case, the growth of the traditional corporate mindset is stagnant and will inevitably die. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com