8 ms·
Stanford professor: ‘The workplace is killing people and nobody cares’
- tu7001 8y agoMaybe not only companies, but government too, can help, like lowering taxes, for example.
- rwilson4 8y agoOr increasing taxes on the wealthy and using that to provide a better safety net.
- free652 8y agoWealthy isnt a clear definition. You are wealthy to a someone on this planet
- rwilson4 8y agoI would gladly pay higher taxes if the money were spent on homelessness or education or healthcare instead of the military.
- tracer4201 8y agoBingo.
- BlueJacketPig 8y agoWhy wait for the government to get its act together? Why aren't you spending your own money on those things right now? Pick your favorite organization and write a check. Or, even better, get involved and give money directly to those in need.
- KirinDave 8y agoBecause unless everyone simultaneously acts with coordination, these problems are too big and complex to address without some kind of coordination. Even if that coordination is decentralized, it has a cost. Weirdly, no one ever donates to "coordination of cancer fund collection."
- krageon 8y agoI can imagine that people would be in a similar boat that I am in: I am charitable, I enjoy giving time and effort to good causes that directly help people (eg volunteer work in orphanages, feeding the poor). When I want to donate money (I am in a position to do that far more than I do currently), I am left with the insight that actually there is no charity that isn't evil in some way. Examples of evil include very high CEO/upper management salaries, stuff like "fundraisers", performing acts of charity that sound good but actually do nothing (or actively harm), etc. Every time I come to the conclusion that it's easy to do good, but practically impossible to donate to something good in an effective way. With the way my life has been progressing and how I suspect a lot of people's lives progress as they age (less free time, more relative income) this effectively means that charity stops out of necessity as time goes on. I would love to have a solution to this, as it does bother me.
- rwilson4 8y agoI do donate to homeless shelters and cancer research foundations, and I hope other people are also donating to causes important to them! But I don’t have enough money to make a dent in the problem. Collective action is the only way to make progress.
- BadassFractal 8y agoIt has worked so well for San Francisco, we should sink more money into it.
- tdb7893 8y agoIt seems clear enough in context to me. Is it worth it to get into a semantic argument about what consititues wealthy on what is a tech website? Or is the definition of wealthy actually unclear in this context?
- ep103 8y agoIt is if you're trying to derail the argument!
- KirinDave 8y agoFine, the top 0.05% earners in the US.
- Latteland 8y agoWealthy in my opinion is at least the top 1%. Most experienced tech workers are there.
- KirinDave 8y agoRight, but most tech workers still pull the majority of their yearly earnings via the income tax AMT brackets. I'm not sure that's the place where people have complaints about the system. It's more about the systemic unfairness of investment based income.
- Latteland 8y agoAh, I get it. Yes, I agree with your direction, that charging lower tax rates so people who claim 'capital gains' instead of salary pay less, because they are investors or some bs.
- Agathos 8y agoWith a trillion dollar deficit, what could go wrong?
- ep103 8y agoEasy, just cut the spending from the labor rights enforcement agencies. That should solve our workplace issues. If we really want to go next level, maybe we can make sure that that tax cut goes primarily to CEOs, instead of workers, as well.
- tengbretson 8y ago> maybe we can make sure that that tax cut goes primarily to CEOs What does it mean for a tax cut to "go to" one group vs another?
- ep103 8y agoIs this a serious question? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-ca...
- Latteland 8y agoif we stop protecting people from mistreatment and racists hiring, what would get better? I don't understand your comment.
- ep103 8y agoIt was sarcasm. Lowering taxes is often touted by right wing leaning economic politicians as a way of boosting the economy and making it more competitive. But that 1) only works in certain types of economic landscapes 2) has a dubious track record, and 3) leaves out of the picture that often tax cuts often come at the expense of social programs (in its most extreme, right-wing form, see Starve the Beast) Since, in America, the party that most strongly advocates tax cuts, tends to do so to the benefit of the rich, and at the expense of labor and labor-helping social and enforcement programs, I was trying to make a joke to point out how absurd an argument OP was making.
- KirinDave 8y agoDo you think think that taxes are a primary source of stress for most Americans? Remember, the US is now passed the threshold where 51% of people get more back from the government than they pay in taxes. For around half of Americans, they have an easier month when their taxes filings are processed. The way that lowering taxes might help is in ending the massive subsidies the government hands out to various businesses to try and bolster this negative feedback cycle. While I am a strong proponent of a social contract and socialized health care, they are potentially enabling poor working conditions by having the populace pay for the care required as a result of those conditions.
- skh 8y agoDoes your 51% stat include sales taxes, gas taxes, phone taxes, electricity taxes, etc? I believe you are talking about federal income tax and not including other forms of taxation. Is this correct? People getting money back from tax filings is an indication of too much tax being taken out of their paychecks. Isn’t it? People pay taxes throughout the year. Once a year, for most people, they formally file their taxes and some get money back.
- KirinDave 8y agoThis includes income and all sales. It is not the exact case in every state, it's an average. "Rebates" can exceed your total tax obligations.
- skh 8y agoDo you have a source on this? I find it hard to believe that 51% of all taxpayers receive a net rebate when taking into account all forms of taxation. If you can’t find one no problem. I’ve heard something similar to this but it was applied solely to federal income taxes.
- haburka 8y agoWhen asked why turning a blind eye to people being laid off was popular, the researcher said: > Maybe it’s because we see the polar bears and the trees and the physical environment as not being agentic, in the sense of not being able to take action to defend themselves. And maybe we see human beings as being more agentic and responsible for their own well-being. Humans are agentic! That means they can potentially find a different job after being laid off, or move to a different company if they work too many hours. However, this is mostly only a guarantee if they are high demand, and it can still be very stressful to interview. I think the larger issue is that companies aren’t willing to train older people into learning high demand skills, which means those that are laid off can’t easily recover.
- ep103 8y agoAll of these things are only possible for the majority in a labor constrained economy. Like the ones our parents experienced in the 50s. We're in a capital constrained economy. Its simply not an option for most people.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y agoThere's 7.1 million open jobs in the U.S. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm Plus this is hackernews. Does anyone here think software isn't hiring right now?
- HarryHirsch 8y agoMeanwhile, in what's supposedly the best labour market in 50 years salaries just aren't rising. Who cares about software, software doesn't employ enough people to make an impact in the economy.
- chrisco255 8y agoYes, they are: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3point1percent-highest-level-in-a-decade.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3... 3.1 percent wage increase in Q3 2018. I see fast food jobs in my city for $13 an hour.
- bko 8y ago> You begin with that premise: A large fraction–some estimates are 75 percent–of the disease burden in the U.S. is from chronic diseases. > Second, there is a tremendous amount of epidemiological literature that suggests that diabetes, cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome—and many health-relevant individual behaviors such as overeating and underexercising and drug and alcohol abuse–come from stress. > And third, there is a large amount of data that suggests the biggest source of stress is the workplace. So that’s how Chapman can stand up and make the statement that CEOs are the cause of the health care crisis: You are the source of stress, stress causes chronic disease, and chronic disease is the biggest component of our ongoing and enormous health care costs. This only makes sense if overall stress, specifically workplace stress, is going up over time. My general impression is that workplaces today are more pleasant than they have ever been. Managers realized non-monetary benefits are cheaper and often times more effective than purely monetary benefits. This means flexible working hours, ability to work remotely and overall workplace environment. > Job engagement, according to Gallup, is low. Distrust in management, according to the Edelman trust index, is high. Job satisfaction, according to the Conference Board, is low and has been in continual decline. The gig economy is growing, economic insecurity is growing, and wage growth overall has stagnated. The evidence is just polls rather than more substantial evidence. Even if they serve as an accurate representation, it may be interpreted in many ways. For instance, my job satisfaction can be low because its a tight labor market and I know I can get more money elsewhere, or my standards evolved. To say that this is evidence that the workplace is "killing people" is a stretch. > I look out at the workplace and I see stress, layoffs, longer hours, work-family conflict, enormous amounts of economic insecurity This is just objectively false as layoffs are historically low [0] in the US and working hours are shorter over the last ten years [1] or so. It seems to me the author is being dishonest and trying to reach a preordained conclusion [0] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/layoffs-in-us-could-soon-drop-below-200000-a-week-for-first-time-since-1969-2018-08-17 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/layoffs-in-us-could-soon-d... [1] https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS
- jackpirate 8y ago> This only makes sense if overall stress, specifically workplace stress, is going up over time. My general impression is that workplaces today are more pleasant than they have ever been. Managers realized non-monetary benefits are cheaper and often times more effective than purely monetary benefits. This means flexible working hours, ability to work remotely and overall workplace environment. This comment strikes me as possibly true in the tech/startup world, but definitely not true in the vast majority of jobs that people work at like retail/restaurants/other service. While these jobs have existed for forever, I could see them being more stressful these days as competition has forced managers to be more cutthroat with hours and benefits offered, and especially in the bay area where workers can't even afford to live near where they work and must commute an hour to wait tables.
- jl2718 8y agoThis article sort of pokes weakly from all angles at an idea that something is wrong without really pinning it down. And it works because we all see that indeed there is something wrong. I would posit that workplace health is like all other longevity studies. The strength and long-term stability of social connections is by far the dominant factor in longevity, health, and life satisfaction. Isolation kills. In today’s workplace, social connection is anathematic. Teams are physically distributed. Career progress happens only by leaving. Layoffs are preferred to re-tasking. Homophily is discrimination. Talking about your life with coworkers is a liability. Telling a joke or asking someone out on a date can get you fired. Set off the twitter rage machine and not only is your career over, but the company has a PR nightmare. There are no such things as friendships at work.
- bootsz 8y agoCouldn't agree more. Years ago I used to work for a small dev shop of about 6 people. We were super tight-knit and over time became like family. I'm still friends with some of them today. I've since gone on to work at BigCo's, and damn do they feel cold and impersonal by comparison. > Homophily is discrimination I think you are onto an interesting point here. I do not dispute the importance of diversity/inclusiveness/fairness, but there is an uncomfortable truth that these things directly conflict with the factors that facilitate close bonding in groups. When you force an environment to be absolutely non-exclusive in every possible way, it becomes rather sterile somehow. I don't doubt that the homogeneity of my old company was one of the reasons we were able to become so close. I'm not necessarily suggesting companies should become more exclusionary, just reflecting on the tradeoffs involved.
- sjg007 8y agoI worked at a BigCo and my best friends are still there. Same department but different teams.
- kwisqa 8y agoNot true in other countries.
- chriselles 8y agoI had dinner with Professor Jeff Pfeffer in Auckland, NZ last year with a few other Stanford classmates. My perception of our time over dinner with him and reading his book “Dying for a Paycheck” left me with the following impressions/perceptions: We will hopefully see a social/cultural awakening to the toxic threat of workplace stress much as we did with the environmental movement in the 1960’s post “Silent Spring”. We have made great strides in enhancing water/air/soil quality at local/national levels in the last 50 years so there is precedence for enhancing workplace quality. Workplace stress “kills”(contributes more to the death of) more people than smoking, obesity, and alcohol abuse, according to Jeff’s research(admittedly, I haven’t dug deep to look at data set or measurement methodology). I’m an employer, a former early stage Amazon employee, and the chairperson of a large national veteran support charity. Wearing all 3 “hats” I have seen the negative cost of workplace stress. I left Amazon due to extreme burnout. I have provided staff(at great personal cost) unlimited time off benefits during emergencies my peers called ludicrous, but retain And I have seen 262 veterans suffering the consequences of varying degrees of extreme workplace stress. I think treating stress as an injury is a very important one for both employees and employers. I think the future is not about employers handing out free gym membership for physical well-being, but also providing training and support for mental/emotional well being. Treating stress as akin to a traumatic injury that requires immediate mitigation as well as an ultra local environmental threat akin to breathing dirty air or drinking dirty water is important. Well worth taking quite seriously, although I am clearly biased.
- ethiclub 8y agoOne thing not mentioned in the article is the omission of natural light. We have forced staff into dark, cramped spaces - Then introduced artificial light (knowing very little about the brain, light, vitamin D, SAD etc.). Our office space planning has painted us into a corner. It is now hard to reintroduce natural light back into the workplace.