4 ms·

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were s

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellow fin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. The Mexican replied, “only a little while.” The American then asked why didn’t he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family’s immediate needs. The American then asked, “but what do you do with the rest of your time?” The Mexican fisherman said, “I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life.” The American scoffed, “I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise.” The Mexican fisherman asked, “But, how long will this all take?” To which the American replied, “15 – 20 years.” “But what then?” Asked the Mexican. The American laughed and said, “That’s the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!” “Millions – then what?” The American said, “Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos.”

spacechild1 5y ago
FYI: this is a variation of a story by Heinrich Böll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbei...). The original story is set on the west coast of Europe and the tourist is of unknown nationality.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  First sentence of that WP article: > "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral" ("Anecdote concerning the Lowering of Productivity" in Leila Vennewitz' translation) is a short story by Heinrich Böll about an encounter between an enterprising tourist and a small fisherman, in which the tourist suggests how the fisherman can improve his life. I don't know Leila Vennewitz, but her translation of at least the title isn't all that great: "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral" means not "Anecdote concerning the Lowering of Productivity", but "Anecdote for the Lowering of Productivity".
  - spacechild1 5y ago
    Actually, "zur" can mean both and I think the ambiguity is intentional. It's maybe just not possible to translate it into English without removing one of the two meanings.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Yes, the other usage occurred to me later. But it's secondary, significantly rarer, isn't it? So I'd still say the translator chose the wrong alternative in English. Or maybe they were equally prevalent back in the day, or I've got the current relationship wrong.
jkepler 5y ago
So he would retire once his kids were grown & out of the house.
greggman3 5y ago
This parable is completely unrelated to the topic at hand unless you add in some catch like > The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. > I don't catch them. I just go to one of the other fisherman's boats from my company and take a few of their tuna. That way they get up at 5am and work there asses off and all I have to do is carry a couple of their tuna in to earn a living. Note: I didn't say he stole the tuna. All the tuna needs to be carried in. He just didn't do as much work as the others. He did the minimal work, "carrying in a few tuna", instead of the full work, "spending hours catching tuna and also carrying them all in". The OP isn't running their own business. If they were sure, they could decide to only work enough to pay the bills and enjoy the extra time. Instead the OP is at a company. If they're not doing the work then others are probably picking up the slack and the OP's possibly effectively riding off their work. I get that's harder to account the larger the company but it becomes very clear on small team or small company.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  > The OP isn't running their own business. If they were sure, they could decide to only work enough to pay the bills and enjoy the extra time. What an incredibly odd moral distinction, if you step back and think about it from an objective perspective. As long as there exists an idle class that lives off of previously accumulated capital (including intellectual or social capital), 5-10 hours a week will be a commendable contribution to society in my book. Why does owning a business exempt you from contributing to society? That's an extraordinarily value-laden judgement. So. If we're going to moralize like this, I'll flip the tables and assert that receiving stock dividends from companies at which you've never worked is theft that should be criminalized ;-) Morality is no guide here because we immediately happen upon deep issues of political-economy. It's more productive to focus on the law. OP's employer carefully chose their corporate structure and hired devs into exempt salaried roles FOR A REASON. If they want him to work a certain number of hours and have recourse if he doesn't, then they can switch the role to hourly non-exempt. They won't. For a reason. Excusing all the ways in which corporations short-change tech workers while moralizing about watercooler talk or reddit time or whatever is textbook master-slave morality. General hard agreement on the "is this really how you want to spend your life?" comments, though.
raldi 5y ago
The next week the fisherman got a toothache.
dchapp 5y ago
Exactly one of the characters in that story can weather disasters.
- engineeringwoke 5y ago
  Why would an individual have to defend themselves against disasters when they are so simple to mitigate against collectively?
  - dchapp 5y ago
    First, I claim there exist disasters that are not simple to mitigate against collectively. Civil unrest (the full spectrum, from vigorous protest to outright governmental collapse) being the big one I have in mind. Second, I claim that the wealthy character in the story above has significantly greater ability than the non-wealthy character to: (1) have accurate situational awareness about disasters (e.g., can distinguish shit actually hitting the fan from shit narrowly missing the fan (possibly via superior sensing apparati, more likely, just by delegating the task)); and (2) have well-equipped (read: expensive) bug-in/out plans in place. Thus, even in cases where disasters are mitigated against collectively as you claim is possible, the wealthy character will be in a better position to maintain their pre-disaster quality of life than the non-wealthy character. That said, this is all a little too removed from a concrete comparison for my liking. Maybe you have one in mind? Ideally, an example where collective efforts at disaster mitigation basically made outcomes for individuals insensitive to the wealth of those individuals.

spacechild1 5y ago

FYI: this is a variation of a story by Heinrich Böll (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbeitsmoral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekdote_zur_Senkung_der_Arbei...). The original story is set on the west coast of Europe and the tourist is of unknown nationality.

CRConrad 5y ago
First sentence of that WP article: > "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral" ("Anecdote concerning the Lowering of Productivity" in Leila Vennewitz' translation) is a short story by Heinrich Böll about an encounter between an enterprising tourist and a small fisherman, in which the tourist suggests how the fisherman can improve his life. I don't know Leila Vennewitz, but her translation of at least the title isn't all that great: "Anekdote zur Senkung der Arbeitsmoral" means not "Anecdote concerning the Lowering of Productivity", but "Anecdote for the Lowering of Productivity".
- spacechild1 5y ago
  Actually, "zur" can mean both and I think the ambiguity is intentional. It's maybe just not possible to translate it into English without removing one of the two meanings.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    Yes, the other usage occurred to me later. But it's secondary, significantly rarer, isn't it? So I'd still say the translator chose the wrong alternative in English. Or maybe they were equally prevalent back in the day, or I've got the current relationship wrong.

jkepler 5y ago

So he would retire once his kids were grown & out of the house.

greggman3 5y ago

This parable is completely unrelated to the topic at hand unless you add in some catch like > The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them. > I don't catch them. I just go to one of the other fisherman's boats from my company and take a few of their tuna. That way they get up at 5am and work there asses off and all I have to do is carry a couple of their tuna in to earn a living. Note: I didn't say he stole the tuna. All the tuna needs to be carried in. He just didn't do as much work as the others. He did the minimal work, "carrying in a few tuna", instead of the full work, "spending hours catching tuna and also carrying them all in". The OP isn't running their own business. If they were sure, they could decide to only work enough to pay the bills and enjoy the extra time. Instead the OP is at a company. If they're not doing the work then others are probably picking up the slack and the OP's possibly effectively riding off their work. I get that's harder to account the larger the company but it becomes very clear on small team or small company.

throwawaygh 5y ago
> The OP isn't running their own business. If they were sure, they could decide to only work enough to pay the bills and enjoy the extra time. What an incredibly odd moral distinction, if you step back and think about it from an objective perspective. As long as there exists an idle class that lives off of previously accumulated capital (including intellectual or social capital), 5-10 hours a week will be a commendable contribution to society in my book. Why does owning a business exempt you from contributing to society? That's an extraordinarily value-laden judgement. So. If we're going to moralize like this, I'll flip the tables and assert that receiving stock dividends from companies at which you've never worked is theft that should be criminalized ;-) Morality is no guide here because we immediately happen upon deep issues of political-economy. It's more productive to focus on the law. OP's employer carefully chose their corporate structure and hired devs into exempt salaried roles FOR A REASON. If they want him to work a certain number of hours and have recourse if he doesn't, then they can switch the role to hourly non-exempt. They won't. For a reason. Excusing all the ways in which corporations short-change tech workers while moralizing about watercooler talk or reddit time or whatever is textbook master-slave morality. General hard agreement on the "is this really how you want to spend your life?" comments, though.

raldi 5y ago

The next week the fisherman got a toothache.

dchapp 5y ago

Exactly one of the characters in that story can weather disasters.

engineeringwoke 5y ago
Why would an individual have to defend themselves against disasters when they are so simple to mitigate against collectively?
- dchapp 5y ago
  First, I claim there exist disasters that are not simple to mitigate against collectively. Civil unrest (the full spectrum, from vigorous protest to outright governmental collapse) being the big one I have in mind. Second, I claim that the wealthy character in the story above has significantly greater ability than the non-wealthy character to: (1) have accurate situational awareness about disasters (e.g., can distinguish shit actually hitting the fan from shit narrowly missing the fan (possibly via superior sensing apparati, more likely, just by delegating the task)); and (2) have well-equipped (read: expensive) bug-in/out plans in place. Thus, even in cases where disasters are mitigated against collectively as you claim is possible, the wealthy character will be in a better position to maintain their pre-disaster quality of life than the non-wealthy character. That said, this is all a little too removed from a concrete comparison for my liking. Maybe you have one in mind? Ideally, an example where collective efforts at disaster mitigation basically made outcomes for individuals insensitive to the wealth of those individuals.