12 ms·

It is basically a status and class indicator in American society, particularly for the upper middle class and the upper class. If you read "The Meritocracy Myt

It is basically a status and class indicator in American society, particularly for the upper middle class and the upper class. If you read "The Meritocracy Myth" by Yale University law professor Stephen McNamee, you will understand the game being played here quite well. There are upper class Americans in particular who basically work extremely long hours (80-105 hour work weeks) to game the system, with no net productivity gains whatsoever compared to the middle and upper middle class who typically work 40-60 hour work weeks at maximum. In fact, the productivity gains generally wane off at about 32 hours per week, and we really do not need longer work hours in modern society, unless it is for the upper class to "protect" their status. Just like sleep is critical, rest is critical too, for recharging, so you can do a good job at work. The health effects of working extremely long hours, even if it affords you things and experiences others do not have, are just simply not worth it. My father, who grew up as a very indignant American youth, who literally paid for all of his clothes starting by age 12, knew how to play this game very well. He was able to transcend the poor, working, and middle classes, and was comfortably in the upper middle class as senior level management, in the private sector, in finance, as a certified public accountant by training, by the time I was born. At my grandmother's funeral (his mother's funeral) people wished they were industrious as he was in his youth! The sad part about it is he died before he turned 60, and before his mother. It comes at a huge price.

ewestern 5y ago
> There are upper class Americans in particular who basically work extremely long hours (80-105 hour work weeks) to game the system, with no net productivity gains whatsoever compared to the middle and upper middle class who typically work 40-60 hour work weeks at maximum. In fact, the productivity gains generally wane off at about 32 hours per week, and we really do not need longer work hours in modern society There is some confused language being used here. If you're saying the marginal productivity of the 81st hour worked in a week is 0, then that is almost certainly wrong. If you're saying that the marginal productivity of the 81st hour in a week is less than that of the 32nd hour, that may well be true, but if so, nothing else of what you said follows from that.
- disabled 5y ago
  > There is some confused language being used here. If you're saying the marginal productivity of the 81st hour worked in a week is 0, then that is almost certainly wrong. No, I am correct here, and there is no "confused language" in my writing. This has been studied by prominent economists at Stanford University, which is ironically one of the worst Universities in the US for encouraging "working nonstop". Once you work over 55 hours per week, your productivity at that point effectively becomes zero [1]. You effectively cannot accomplish anything more, productively, as a human, past 55 hours of work per week. I suggest that you become more aware of human limitations, along with becoming more aware of human behavior, especially human tribalistic behaviors. Then you would not fall for these kinds of falsehoods. It would help you play "the game" more successfully, which you seem to take interest in. [1] The Productivity of Working Hours (Stanford University study by economist John Pencavel): http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf
  - enkid 5y ago
    Is it that the 56th hour you don't do anything, or that the 56th hour makes the other hours 1/55th less productive, therefore making it seem like you are getting something with the extra hour?
    - OJFord 5y ago
      Yes, exactly this, obviously in the 56th hour next week if you want to you can 'do something'; the point must surely be (to mean anything at all) that if you attempt to sustain that, the 'first 55' suffer more than the 56th rewards. As another commentor says, it simply can't be that marginal productivity drops to zero. At least, if you're trying to produce, there's some external motivation, then it'd take something really serious (starvation, massive sleep deprivation, etc.) to make it actually zero; more than just 'a long week'. It's like if you're super motivated and work all-night on something exciting: if you were rational for a second, you'd realise you'd probably accomplish more on it with a few hours' break to sleep. But that doesn't mean the alternative is doing nothing in the last x hours.
tayo42 5y ago
IDK about even 32 for my self, with wfh lately work feels so streamlined, a day of work is only like 4 hours of focused work. The rest of the day is just being available, so i can help other people with their 4 hours i guess lol
- irateswami 5y ago
  It is the exact same story for me. I don't know how people are able to stare at code, walking through those complex patterns, for 6 hours a day, let alone the entire 9-5 time or the overwork hours the tech industry seems to love. I love technology and I enjoy my work, but it doesn't define me as a human being. There are opportunities I've had to do some work at what people would consider "prestigious" companies but I've turned it down in order to have better work life balance.
  - BLKNSLVR 5y ago
    > doesn't define me as a human being This is it. I've had various issues with unrealistic requests and timelines from those to whom I report, and it feels as if I need to, somehow, "work harder" (whatever that means) to prove that I'm trying to execute their impossible plan. When I get home, however, the mere presence of my wife and kids, and even pet(s), remind me of how I actually define myself, WHO I AM. I like art. Be it paintings, music, film, TV shows. That's where I find "myself". I'm good at things I do for work, but I don't care about it the way I care about the meanings of life I can find staring into a painting, or listening to a song (anywhere from Mr. Bungle to Debussy) or watching a TV show (anywhere from Adventure Time to For All Mankind). I'm privileged enough, and have planned ahead enough, that I could significantly downgrade my already not-very-prestigious, but quite demanding job, and live well. My job doesn't come close to defining me, to myself anyway. That's probably the other "thing" - how people want to be able to define themselves to others. I'm relatively unaffected by that particular neuroticism.
    - lloeki 5y ago
      > I like art. I like coding. The thinking, the problem solving, the expressiveness, the chiselling out of a solid block of emptiness. It is my art. I made it my trade. It's a double-edged sword, with which I badly stabbed myself a couple of times. I tried to drop out, but can't help but come back to it. The job's not me alright, the coding is a big part of me for sure.
simple_phrases 5y ago
>There are upper class Americans in particular who basically work extremely long hours (80-105 hour work weeks) People in the upper class don't need to work because they're able to live off of, and build wealth from, their assets. The lower and middle classes are defined by their economic precarity that hinges on their ability to sell their labor. If someone needs to work to "protect their status", they're upper middle class at best.
- disabled 5y ago
  The aristocratic class in America is mostly gone, with a few notable exceptions. This is where the Meritocracy Myth comes into play, where wealth is "created based on merit" (when people are just gaming things to the extreme). Meritocracy is used as an argument for keeping things status quo, where working non-stop (and other practices) is justified. At least the aristocratic life allowed for a leisure lifestyle for the upper class. Now, it does not.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    I agree with most of that but I would think there are probably more, per capita, aristocrats, socialites, celebrities, and otherwise idle wealthy people today than at any point in history.

ewestern 5y ago

> There are upper class Americans in particular who basically work extremely long hours (80-105 hour work weeks) to game the system, with no net productivity gains whatsoever compared to the middle and upper middle class who typically work 40-60 hour work weeks at maximum. In fact, the productivity gains generally wane off at about 32 hours per week, and we really do not need longer work hours in modern society There is some confused language being used here. If you're saying the marginal productivity of the 81st hour worked in a week is 0, then that is almost certainly wrong. If you're saying that the marginal productivity of the 81st hour in a week is less than that of the 32nd hour, that may well be true, but if so, nothing else of what you said follows from that.

disabled 5y ago
> There is some confused language being used here. If you're saying the marginal productivity of the 81st hour worked in a week is 0, then that is almost certainly wrong. No, I am correct here, and there is no "confused language" in my writing. This has been studied by prominent economists at Stanford University, which is ironically one of the worst Universities in the US for encouraging "working nonstop". Once you work over 55 hours per week, your productivity at that point effectively becomes zero [1]. You effectively cannot accomplish anything more, productively, as a human, past 55 hours of work per week. I suggest that you become more aware of human limitations, along with becoming more aware of human behavior, especially human tribalistic behaviors. Then you would not fall for these kinds of falsehoods. It would help you play "the game" more successfully, which you seem to take interest in. [1] The Productivity of Working Hours (Stanford University study by economist John Pencavel): http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf
- enkid 5y ago
  Is it that the 56th hour you don't do anything, or that the 56th hour makes the other hours 1/55th less productive, therefore making it seem like you are getting something with the extra hour?
  - OJFord 5y ago
    Yes, exactly this, obviously in the 56th hour next week if you want to you can 'do something'; the point must surely be (to mean anything at all) that if you attempt to sustain that, the 'first 55' suffer more than the 56th rewards. As another commentor says, it simply can't be that marginal productivity drops to zero. At least, if you're trying to produce, there's some external motivation, then it'd take something really serious (starvation, massive sleep deprivation, etc.) to make it actually zero; more than just 'a long week'. It's like if you're super motivated and work all-night on something exciting: if you were rational for a second, you'd realise you'd probably accomplish more on it with a few hours' break to sleep. But that doesn't mean the alternative is doing nothing in the last x hours.

tayo42 5y ago

IDK about even 32 for my self, with wfh lately work feels so streamlined, a day of work is only like 4 hours of focused work. The rest of the day is just being available, so i can help other people with their 4 hours i guess lol

irateswami 5y ago
It is the exact same story for me. I don't know how people are able to stare at code, walking through those complex patterns, for 6 hours a day, let alone the entire 9-5 time or the overwork hours the tech industry seems to love. I love technology and I enjoy my work, but it doesn't define me as a human being. There are opportunities I've had to do some work at what people would consider "prestigious" companies but I've turned it down in order to have better work life balance.
- BLKNSLVR 5y ago
  > doesn't define me as a human being This is it. I've had various issues with unrealistic requests and timelines from those to whom I report, and it feels as if I need to, somehow, "work harder" (whatever that means) to prove that I'm trying to execute their impossible plan. When I get home, however, the mere presence of my wife and kids, and even pet(s), remind me of how I actually define myself, WHO I AM. I like art. Be it paintings, music, film, TV shows. That's where I find "myself". I'm good at things I do for work, but I don't care about it the way I care about the meanings of life I can find staring into a painting, or listening to a song (anywhere from Mr. Bungle to Debussy) or watching a TV show (anywhere from Adventure Time to For All Mankind). I'm privileged enough, and have planned ahead enough, that I could significantly downgrade my already not-very-prestigious, but quite demanding job, and live well. My job doesn't come close to defining me, to myself anyway. That's probably the other "thing" - how people want to be able to define themselves to others. I'm relatively unaffected by that particular neuroticism.
  - lloeki 5y ago
    > I like art. I like coding. The thinking, the problem solving, the expressiveness, the chiselling out of a solid block of emptiness. It is my art. I made it my trade. It's a double-edged sword, with which I badly stabbed myself a couple of times. I tried to drop out, but can't help but come back to it. The job's not me alright, the coding is a big part of me for sure.

simple_phrases 5y ago

>There are upper class Americans in particular who basically work extremely long hours (80-105 hour work weeks) People in the upper class don't need to work because they're able to live off of, and build wealth from, their assets. The lower and middle classes are defined by their economic precarity that hinges on their ability to sell their labor. If someone needs to work to "protect their status", they're upper middle class at best.

disabled 5y ago
The aristocratic class in America is mostly gone, with a few notable exceptions. This is where the Meritocracy Myth comes into play, where wealth is "created based on merit" (when people are just gaming things to the extreme). Meritocracy is used as an argument for keeping things status quo, where working non-stop (and other practices) is justified. At least the aristocratic life allowed for a leisure lifestyle for the upper class. Now, it does not.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I agree with most of that but I would think there are probably more, per capita, aristocrats, socialites, celebrities, and otherwise idle wealthy people today than at any point in history.