Hacker News Reader

Comment by mgolawala | Hacker News Reader

I think the solution isn't to pay someone when they have kids. Allow _all_ employees enough time off or flexibility so that there is a work/life balance.

Whether your life consists of caring for others (children, elderly parents, or disabled relatives) or for your self (fitness, education, relaxation, or having fun) should not be differentiated.

The point is employers need to realize that you need to HAVE a life, and that will in the end make you the most productive and happy employee.

Perhaps what we need is acceptance of part time work in more high earning jobs. People who want to work 60-80 hour weeks and make the maximum money should be able to do so, while accommodating those who want to work 30 hours a week but are okay making less.

View on HN

Work/life balance problem applies to very few fields. Imagine an average construction worker, if you give him/her a year off, what on earth are they going to do with it?

What life/work balance problems do they have to begin with?

It is only creative fields with blurry boundaries of what is expected of you that keep shifting somewhat, that this is brought up. It's a non-issue for most jobs, for most people.

I think you're really underestimating construction workers and people in general. Einstein was a patent clerk while doing amazing physics. Jimi Hendrix worked odd jobs and was a paratrooper. People are capable of amazing (and terrible) things and it is folly to think that you can understand people's problems and potential without getting to know them individually.

Shrugs - you're cherry-picking exceptions when I clearly used the word average.

If I say dancing around a fire and chanting, on average, doesn't help people with kidney disease and you retort with 'it helped my grandmother' - where do we go from here?

Should I get to individually know every person with kidney disease to see if dancing around the fire will cure them?

That seems to be what you're suggesting, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

> If I say dancing around a fire and chanting, on average, doesn't help people [...]

What if we really did give people the option of periodic sabbaticals where they could do whatever they want (including "dancing around fires and changing")? It could massively reduce stress levels, and given stress' negative impact on health, this really could help (on average).

We could perhaps achieve something to this effect via "basic income", such that people would be able to take leave of employment without fear of destitution, thus laboring on such a schedule as they would more genuinely voluntarily agree to.

If I'm reading your comment correctly, then I think I'm disagreeing with you on two points:

1) I find that the outliers make a big difference in any distribution. For example: the vast majority of start ups fail, but the ones that succeed can make a large impact. To your example, the vast majority of compounds tried as drugs fail but the rare ones like peniclilin change medicine as we know it.

2) Personally I've found that people's current status in life can be a predictor of future success but it far from perfect. I would suggest that rather than trying to predict who is going to succeed beforehand we come up with a system that gives them some opportunities to be successful.

I think they are objecting to your generalisation of construction workers as lacking in imagination or dreams beyond "living to work". Which I object to, as well, as when I worked in construction that range of people I met and the dreams and goals and ideas they had were immense. People are fascinating, regardless of what job you do, and I think you would be amazed at what people can do when given the opportunity.

>> construction worker

You haven't watched Office Space, have you?

Every construction worker I've ever met expected time off, especially during the winter. They draw unemployment (perhaps construction firms have to pay a higher rate for this?), and typically stuff picks back up in the spring.

> Imagine an average construction worker, if you give him/her a year off, what on earth are they going to do with it?

Whatever they want. You don't think the average construction worker has things they'd rather do with their time than grinding away at their job ceaselessly?

I think either I've misunderstood the person I replied to or I'm being misunderstood here.

Nobody's saying 'Hey, construction workers don't need free time. They're construction workers!'

We are talking sabbaticals and whether or not they improve the situation all around so much, that they ought to be implemented.

You know, like using soap was implemented, because it's cheap and it works GREAT. Now do we implement sabbaticals for EVERYONE?

I say no, not really. Because while MOST people would enjoy time off, how would you like to wait an extra month to get an operation you need? Doctors should have sabbaticals. Btw, they can definitely afford them.

Or you know, the president. Why don't we have presidents take sabbaticals? They're pretty stressed out.

If the only thing to consider is whether the person taking the time off is better off, then great, let's all go sabbatical tomorrow. If we think a few steps ahead, then maybe adjusting pay/working conditions/etc would yield better results than simply saying 'let's lose a productive member of society for a while, in the hopes that he/she will on her own make great use of their time.'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com