4 ms·

You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it

by eitally 11y ago

You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours. I don't disagree with you entirely, but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past. What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too.

_delirium 11y ago
Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.
st3v3r 11y ago
"You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
    - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
      Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
      - st3v3r 11y ago

by eitally 11y ago

_delirium 11y ago

Did the U.S. tech industry actually have long hours during the period when it became world-leading? The U.S. was dominant in technology by the 1970s, and as far as I understand the '50s-'70s tech work culture, it was more of a professional engineering culture. 9-to-5 jobs, everyone wore a tie, etc.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
As it is known now, there sort of wasn't a "tech work culture." People just topped out at fairly low salaries relative to now. People were mostly "lifers". There was very little hope of a replacement job. I had relatives caught up in the early 1970s aerospace bust and they were out of work for a while and had to retool. As a view into it, see "Moon Machines" - that's what it looked like as a child to me. A lot of the "work long hours" thing is cargo culting / social signalling to project the image of "high performance." The first step is admitting you're not John Carmack. I have tendencies that way; I'll get caught up in something at home on the weekends and completely lose track of time. But it must be managed. I know better than to do that at work. You have to let the work breathe ( a metaphor for letting all your cognitive processes catch up after a burst ). It's fun to do... beer/coffee-fueled sprints far into the night but it's not very responsible nor sustainable. I learned this looking carefully at what I'd done in those.

st3v3r 11y ago

"You need to weigh this perspective with the alternative point of view, that the US tech industry wouldn't have developed as quickly or be as world leading as it is if it wasn't for what has been accomplished because of the long hours." I do not believe that for a second. And even if it were true, how does that justify not paying for those hours? "but I think we ended up in a good enough spot that it's much more productive to focus on the future than dwell on the past." Those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. "What gets me is the dichotomy between "big tech" and everyone else employing programmers/designers/UXers doing exactly the same kind of work but for 1/3-1/2 the pay. But hey, when those companies have quarterly EPS above $5, they might start paying better, too." If the company is doing well, it makes absolutely no sense that the people who did the actual work to make that happen don't share in it.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
The unseen factor in companies is how risk is priced. Our perceptions of capital have gotten extremely self-referential - cash is its own good thing for lottery winners. If you're Apple, the probability of another iPhone is low. For MS, it's Windows. Dunno what really qualifies for Google, but Yahoo seems to be struggling. I strongly recommend empathy with the positions of those you oppose. It is, IMO, the only path to understanding. Chances are they're not psychotic. The scary part is - we seem out of ideas.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  I should have empathy with the positions which say that I should feel happy to work unpaid overtime, and that I don't deserve to be paid for my time?
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    Not at all - just be able to at least understand the positions you oppose.
    - st3v3r 11y ago