3 ms·
> if it's a choice and not a necessity You described the problem yourself: given enough people making a particular choice, it becomes necessity for others. See
by ilammy 5y ago
> if it's a choice and not a necessity
You described the problem yourself: given enough people making a particular choice, it becomes necessity for others. See two-income trap, for example.
So basically, it's okay for you as long as you're not a minority. Of course, it's better to be healthy and wealthy than to be sick and poor.
- zsmi 5y agoWhy is it a trap? If someone wants to work twice as much for twice the pay, more power to them. And I am very sure there are people at my work who make more than me, regardless of how many hours I put in.
- ipaddr 5y agoNot work twice as much put in twice as many hours. No one wastes as much time at work as someone who works 12/14+ hours a day.
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoSome people really are effective 12 hrs a day 7 days a week. I've seen it. It's rare, but not super rare.
- asdff 5y agoNow imagine just how much more effective they would be with sane working hours
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoNo, I mean there are people who are able to maintain very high output. Ie, each additional hour is a net positive. Some people can run 100m in sub 10 seconds. It's rare. Some people can work very long hours with high productivity. It's annoying for the rest of us, but that doesn't make it false.
- cutemonster 5y agoThis is true. A short lunch workout and a 1h siesta nap resets the brain. (I definitely wouldn't recommend doing this working for someone else than oneself, or expecting anyone else than oneself to do it. And then not talking about it, so the others in your company don't know, and feel no such pressure)