Hacker News Reader

Comment by jarrett | Hacker News Reader

The part about being dedicated enough to donate weekends and vacation time struck me. I'm of multiple minds about that mentality when it's applied to a large company. On the one hand, there's something beautiful about having a day job so meaningful you'll happily do more of it for free. On the other hand, I wonder if there's something exploitative about the following situation: Both employees and owners give over their lives, employees get satisfaction, and owners get satisfaction plus the financial rewards of the lives everyone donated. On the other other hand, if the employees enter into that deal consciously and happily, then maybe nobody loses. On the other other other hand, maybe there's also an element of brainwashing--which can, in principle, cause people to consciously and happily enter into exploitative relationships. Clearly, this is a complicated issue, and I don't feel at all qualified to pass moral judgment on it one way or another.

View on HN

>On the other other hand, if the employees enter into that deal consciously and happily, then maybe nobody loses.

Society loses. Friends and family lose. Health is probably compromised. Other businesses lose from the employees not being able to spend their money as frequently.

Maybe I wouldn't be so critical of it if we in American had the same amount of days off as other first world countries.

The key point is "consciously and happily". Different people have different situations going on in their life. If you're a 23-year old single employee, you might decide that you are willing to work 60 hours a week because you really like your work. If you're a 38-year old married employee with kids, you might decide that you're only willing to work 40 hours a week because you value time with your family. Having a company that realizes that there's a difference between people, and not everybody has the flexibility or willingness to put in 60-hour weeks, that's the key.

as long as people in those two camps are rewarded differently then this makes sense

And this train goes back to the "perceived effort" vs "actual effort" approach to compensation.

Fundamentally, is 60+ hour weeks sustainable, even if you love your job? Many in HN might view burnout, or an unwillingness to work 60+/week, as a personal flaw. But there's also another camp that argues consistent overtime produces a poorer product in the end. Personally, I notice a dip once I've worked 50+ hours/week for a couple weeks. I come into work mentally tired & get far less done.

Sure, an easy approach to compensation is "how much of his time/life did he sacrifice to work?" It's also by far the most common. Additionally, the people who signal that they're working hard in through self-promotion tend to take home more bacon. I understand human beings are emotional creatures, but in the vacuum of commenting on how much people should be compensated for hours on the job in a white-collar brain-intensive task, I think there should be more nuance than "Pay = hours * rate".

I am not exceptionally smart, but I am a "hard worker." I often work nights and weekends, and I don't hate it.

As a result of my efforts, I am more skilled, and consequently enjoy a more lucrative position than I otherwise would. If I were a mediocre developer I could earn half as much as I do, or less. My nights & weekends developing software for my employer are investments in myself.

Family? Kids? Working at night and weekends quickly disappear once you have life in your work-life balance...

> My nights & weekends developing software for my employer are investments in myself.

No offense, but if they were investments in yourself I think you'd be either:

A) Moonlight for $$

B) Working on a startup idea you were thinking about [you are on HN after all]

The skill gain from doing stuff for your employer for $0, at least to me, doesn't seem equal to the return from things that my benefit me financially one day.

I'm not the parent, but here's my input: As a sysadmin/devops type who mostly enjoys building infrastructure, none of the stuff I've learned at work could really be done on my own time, and none of it is stuff I would be likely to find via contract work (or at least, nothing that I could schedule around a 9-5 job).

Also, not everyone has, or wants to execute on, startup ideas. Some people don't want to be founders. Some people don't want the stress, the responsibility, etc. I sure don't. I have a nice job where I can do experimental things with small/medium-sized infrastructure, I have a much higher budget than I would in a startup, I get a steady paycheque and vacation time, and a lot of awesome coworkers.

So all the stuff I've done at my job, like the parent post, is investment in my skills. The things I've built here, the technologies I've learned, the failed experiments, all of it contributes towards my professional skills much more effectively and more efficiently than doing it in my spare time, for a contract, or for a startup idea.

That is valid, I guess this is a case of my point of view clouding my judgement about what other people's options are. :)

Most people are motivated by more than money. Working in product development at a place like Apple, or Google, or Amazon, etc, gives you a chance to work with very smart, accomplished people. It gives you license to do great work and maybe push some envelopes with what is possible in your field. It gives you a platform to have a major impact on society. It makes other people say "wow" when they hear where you work, or what product you helped create.

For some people that is a form of motivation, and even a form of compensation. Doing graphic design at a PR agency for a cereal campaign, even if it pays more money and gives more vacation time, might be less attractive to people than a harder, more demanding job that confers the above benefits.

It's also important to look at the entire career. Busting her ass at Apple for 6 years might set up a young designer to get taken very seriously if she decides to move to another company, or start her own. That would be less true if she was a junior designer working hourly for Brauny paper towel company (or whatever).

"Busting her ass at Apple for 6 years might set up a young designer to get taken very seriously if she decides to move to another company, or start her own."

No. Don't take a job under the premise that it has good experience and will set you up for a later higher paying job with another company. That's a a myth. Get better at negotiating your salary now.

You should never take the mindset to to defer your salary in exchange for experience. Get paid what you're worth.

I think the argument is that a job is more than just about salary, as long as you're getting paid enough to live comfortably, because there's more to job satisfaction than your paycheque. In the case of Apple, that comes in the form of working in a good (pro-design) environment, on a good design team, on projects that people actually use. On top of that, you're working for a famous company on highly visible products, which is an additional bonus on top of the rest of the job.

I certainly would never tell someone to take a crappy job because of visibility, but if you're getting paid enough, then highly visible work is a 'nice to have'.

You're creating a false dichotomy. One can be good at negotiating salary and still choose a job that comes with high demands.

It's obviously not a myth that each job can help you get the next. Else why does anyone prepare a resume? Or do an internship?

It gives you a platform to have a major impact on society.

Major? Can you give some examples where a line engineer at one of the big companies has personally done something through their work that has had a major impact on society? "Wow, you work at a cool place" is small talk and prestige, not something that has a societal impact; something that inherently changes the way people interact with and/or perceive each other.

You don't think Google search or iPhone have had a major impact on society?

Sure I do. I just don't think that the fundamental parts of those products that has that major impact were the brainchild of line engineers.

But is the work really meaningful? I suppose it depends on the definition, and it's probably a subjective matter anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com