3 ms·

Yeah...stopped reading at 80 hour weeks. I don't care how esteemed someone is in their industry, if they have to completely destroy their life to get there I qu

Yeah...stopped reading at 80 hour weeks. I don't care how esteemed someone is in their industry, if they have to completely destroy their life to get there I question their judgement and don't want their advice.

Spearchucker 9y ago
Not sure such an absolutist approach is much better. I definitely agree with your sentiment, but as my own clichéd counter-example, I can tell you that I wasn't always like that. I squandered away my 20's and 30's on 80-hour work weeks. It was never expected of me, I just loved my job and did it anyway. Yes, there have been benefits, but today I feel I lost more than I gained. At the time I would've dismissed you and your comment as you do OP's. Life just isn't that black and white.
- lostcolony 9y ago
  It's more nuanced than that. Working at your job 80 hours a week = a waste. Always. HOWEVER, spending 40 hours a week engaged with something you enjoy and are interested in is a perfectly fine way to spend your time. But what, I hear you ask, if I enjoy my job? Well, what about the job do you enjoy? See, if it's the work, chances are you can freelance, self-study, build stuff for yourself, in the same field, and get the same impact, AND you're free to do it how you want, free to learn whatever lessons you want, AND to capture any value it may add for yourself, rather than giving it to your employer. This person is spending their time learning. I.e., investing in themselves. I disagree with their statement that that's required for their job, but it -does- likely make them better at their job than they'd otherwise be, and so long as they enjoy it, I can't find fault with it. But it shouldn't be a burden.
ksk 9y ago
>I don't care how esteemed someone is in their industry, if they have to completely destroy their life to get there I question their judgement and don't want their advice. Well, the best way to negate that advice is to put out your own and show that someone can achieve the same with a much lesser workload. Any other argument is simply an opinion. I certainly don't want to work 80 hours a week, even if I know that I can get a lot more done in that time. However, depending on what it is you're trying to do, putting in 80 hour weeks might be perfectly appropriate. If you want to be simply the best in the world in anything, you simply have to put in a LOT of work. I'm not saying its 80 hours or 56 hours, but yeah, if being average or good-enough is OK, then work-life balance is very achievable.

Spearchucker 9y ago

Not sure such an absolutist approach is much better. I definitely agree with your sentiment, but as my own clichéd counter-example, I can tell you that I wasn't always like that. I squandered away my 20's and 30's on 80-hour work weeks. It was never expected of me, I just loved my job and did it anyway. Yes, there have been benefits, but today I feel I lost more than I gained. At the time I would've dismissed you and your comment as you do OP's. Life just isn't that black and white.

lostcolony 9y ago
It's more nuanced than that. Working at your job 80 hours a week = a waste. Always. HOWEVER, spending 40 hours a week engaged with something you enjoy and are interested in is a perfectly fine way to spend your time. But what, I hear you ask, if I enjoy my job? Well, what about the job do you enjoy? See, if it's the work, chances are you can freelance, self-study, build stuff for yourself, in the same field, and get the same impact, AND you're free to do it how you want, free to learn whatever lessons you want, AND to capture any value it may add for yourself, rather than giving it to your employer. This person is spending their time learning. I.e., investing in themselves. I disagree with their statement that that's required for their job, but it -does- likely make them better at their job than they'd otherwise be, and so long as they enjoy it, I can't find fault with it. But it shouldn't be a burden.

ksk 9y ago

>I don't care how esteemed someone is in their industry, if they have to completely destroy their life to get there I question their judgement and don't want their advice. Well, the best way to negate that advice is to put out your own and show that someone can achieve the same with a much lesser workload. Any other argument is simply an opinion. I certainly don't want to work 80 hours a week, even if I know that I can get a lot more done in that time. However, depending on what it is you're trying to do, putting in 80 hour weeks might be perfectly appropriate. If you want to be simply the best in the world in anything, you simply have to put in a LOT of work. I'm not saying its 80 hours or 56 hours, but yeah, if being average or good-enough is OK, then work-life balance is very achievable.