6 ms·

> In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be. So why spend 60 h

by ph0rque 18y ago

> In ten years, some of you will be rich, successful and powerful. Most of you -- despite all of your hard work and independence -- won't be. So why spend 60 hours a week in a suit under fluorescent lights in an 8' x 8' cube either way?

mattmaroon 18y ago
Right, we'll all be happier. It's not about being rich, it's about being the primary beneficiaries of our labor and striking a proper work-life balance.
- timr 18y ago
  Perhaps. Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals.
  - davidw 18y ago
    I think there used to be a different balance between various things. You could expect to find a 'good company', dedicate a lot of your live to it, and be more or less reciprocated. These days, it's "every man for himself". In Europe, they have, in some places, attempted to legislate this relationship, which I don't agree with, but sometimes I feel there may be something we are missing out on in terms of long term, loyal employer/employee relationships. I'm not sure I'd want that myself, having pretty much grown up with the hopping around + brutal layoffs style common in tech, but still... it makes you think.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      I think that's exactly it. It's just taken a couple of generations to adapt to this new reality. My parents (well, my mom at least, my dad was an entrepreneur) would never quit their jobs. This was something that was unheard of. Xer's would be happy with whatever job came their way. Now, the millenials are fully understanding that their jobs are about as secure as their car parked in the bad part of town. Honestly, corporations have changed how they treat their employees, and so the employees are adapting.
      - davidw 18y ago
        Right... it's a problem with solutions at different equilibriums (I'm not sure of the exact way to phrase that), and I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies: sure, there's more flexibility and responsiveness, but as an employee, I have figured out at this point that I don't really have any more loyalty to an employer than they are likely to have for me, and perhaps we both lose out because of it in some ways, at least for certain combinations of people/jobs/companies.
        run4yourlives 18y ago
        I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies: That I think is the key. Everyone figures that it'll be great when we're all sitting around in our pj's "working", but will it? We're talking about a change to the fundamental nature of our society. There will be winners and losers, but that's a very different world from the one we know.
      - tom_rath 18y ago
        It's not that Gen-Xers were happy with whatever job came our way, it's that we had rent to pay and food to buy (and had no desire to live with Mom and Dad). Once the economy got better (and our businesses succeeded), we got picky too. You might have what it takes to walk the walk, but don't jump to conclusions before you've trod the path of a truly awful economy.
        run4yourlives 18y ago
        I'm gen X. I'm actually in my third "career". Trust me, I didn't do security after leaving the army because I liked it. You're 100% correct though, I have no problem limiting my tolerance for bad situations these days.
        LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
        Well, it certainly looks like we'll have the opportunity.
        18y ago
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    No, but ours is the first to do so en masse and be widely pilloried for them, at least in this country.
    - timr 18y ago
      Hm. I don't know...when people say things like that, it tends to reflect feelings of persecution more accurately than fact. As recently as the late 1960s, American youth were idealizing personal freedom, quality of life and independence, and "adults" were criticizing them for it (probably in the WSJ). San Francisco is practically a monument to the era...
      - fallentimes 18y ago
        The people you refer to in the 1960's didn't actually _do anything_ they just talked about doing something (there's a great South Park episode about this). Matt and many others are doing what he talks about.
        astine 18y ago
        Oh, but they did in the 30s.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - DaniFong 18y ago
      One could call it so far the closest thing to a true Marxist revolution. Workers in control of the means of production.
    - Tamerlin 18y ago
      Most of the Gen-Y's that I've worked with have been pretty intelligent, but very arrogant and largely useless, because they hide their inexperience behind their arrogance and claim they're doing things a "new way" even when it's considerably worse than the "old" way.
  - Prrometheus 18y ago
    >Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals. Ours is the first generation with the technology to enable it.
    - timr 18y ago
      I'm pretty sure that our parents had new technology, too. More to the point, I'll bet that when they were 23, they were bragging about how their new technology was going to allow them to change the world. It's almost a cliche, really. Granted, our didn't have computers or the internet; technology has marched onward. But regardless of whether we're discussing the modem or the mimeograph, the story of the young usurping the old with 'modern' technology is a classic.
      - Prrometheus 18y ago
        Not all technology is created equal. The ability to communicate, coordinate, and compute has reduced the optimum size of the firm in many industries. What is more important, it has reduced the minimum size of a successful firm. Steam power and heavy industry, by contrast, had the opposite effect.
        j2d2 18y ago
        Ultimately, you both can be right. It's about where you stand relative to everyone else. If the younger folks are enabling themselves via tech faster than the older, it should be possible to position yourself better. I think it's more a testament to the improvements we've made in technology how easy it is for kids to become BIG deals quickly with good ideas.
      - 13ren 18y ago
        A young man sets out to seek his fortune... Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or trivial, but that it is universal. BTW: Matt does acknowledge that the next generation will do the same to his (at the end). He's right about greater productivity - but if everyone is more productive, then the competitive bar simply resets at a higher level. It's an endless trudge, if the finish line recedes as you approach... There's a sophisticated argument that with a smaller firm-size, you have more CEO's. The problem with competitive success remains that not everyone can be a winner - it's a zero-sum game by definition. But everyone can have a family. Everyone can have the satisfaction of improvement and mastery. Everyone can enjoy the thrill of risking a lesser thing for a greater thing. Everyone can take pride in effort and sacrifice for a worthy goal. And ultimately, these things are immensely more satisfying than vacationing for months in Europe. Talkin bout my generation
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
run4yourlives 18y ago
One word: Security. When you get married and have kids, you'll see how much more important that word becomes.
- ph0rque 18y ago
  What makes you think that I'm not married and without kids? In fact, I value my free time more knowing I can spend it with my wife and daughter.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    Fair enough, but many people value their next paycheck more than the free time. You asked why we should toil away as an employee for someone else, and that's the answer. Being an entrepreneur is risky business.
    - vlad 18y ago
      In the long term, working on your own projects using the latest technologies and latest editions of popular languages, and having projects to show for it, will give you much more experience and credibility than working at a company for the same amount of time. Over the years, I'm sure early adapters of Java, .Net, Ajax, Rails, Django, and Objective C did not have a hard time finding jobs. Companies typically try to convert existing developers to use new languages, and an employee hired for this knowledge will be an expert. A startup using the latest technologies will want to hire employees who already possess this knowledge. Finally, a user experimenting with new technologies might decide that he or she is so far ahead of companies who are still using old technology that he or she should start a business.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        >In the long term, it's less risky than working Bullshit. For every single Paul Graham there are hundreds of entrepreneurs living in abject poverty, wondering how they'll feed their kids or where they get the money to pay the mortgage. You're taking a very small subset of extremely bright, assertive go getters and insinuating that this is the norm. It is not, and statistics show this.

by ph0rque 18y ago

mattmaroon 18y ago

Right, we'll all be happier. It's not about being rich, it's about being the primary beneficiaries of our labor and striking a proper work-life balance.

timr 18y ago
Perhaps. Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals.
- davidw 18y ago
  I think there used to be a different balance between various things. You could expect to find a 'good company', dedicate a lot of your live to it, and be more or less reciprocated. These days, it's "every man for himself". In Europe, they have, in some places, attempted to legislate this relationship, which I don't agree with, but sometimes I feel there may be something we are missing out on in terms of long term, loyal employer/employee relationships. I'm not sure I'd want that myself, having pretty much grown up with the hopping around + brutal layoffs style common in tech, but still... it makes you think.
  - run4yourlives 18y ago
    I think that's exactly it. It's just taken a couple of generations to adapt to this new reality. My parents (well, my mom at least, my dad was an entrepreneur) would never quit their jobs. This was something that was unheard of. Xer's would be happy with whatever job came their way. Now, the millenials are fully understanding that their jobs are about as secure as their car parked in the bad part of town. Honestly, corporations have changed how they treat their employees, and so the employees are adapting.
    - davidw 18y ago
      Right... it's a problem with solutions at different equilibriums (I'm not sure of the exact way to phrase that), and I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies: sure, there's more flexibility and responsiveness, but as an employee, I have figured out at this point that I don't really have any more loyalty to an employer than they are likely to have for me, and perhaps we both lose out because of it in some ways, at least for certain combinations of people/jobs/companies.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        I'm not sure that what we are moving towards is necessarily the best for all people/jobs/companies: That I think is the key. Everyone figures that it'll be great when we're all sitting around in our pj's "working", but will it? We're talking about a change to the fundamental nature of our society. There will be winners and losers, but that's a very different world from the one we know.
    - tom_rath 18y ago
      It's not that Gen-Xers were happy with whatever job came our way, it's that we had rent to pay and food to buy (and had no desire to live with Mom and Dad). Once the economy got better (and our businesses succeeded), we got picky too. You might have what it takes to walk the walk, but don't jump to conclusions before you've trod the path of a truly awful economy.
      - run4yourlives 18y ago
        I'm gen X. I'm actually in my third "career". Trust me, I didn't do security after leaving the army because I liked it. You're 100% correct though, I have no problem limiting my tolerance for bad situations these days.
      - LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
        Well, it certainly looks like we'll have the opportunity.
      - 18y ago
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  No, but ours is the first to do so en masse and be widely pilloried for them, at least in this country.
  - timr 18y ago
    Hm. I don't know...when people say things like that, it tends to reflect feelings of persecution more accurately than fact. As recently as the late 1960s, American youth were idealizing personal freedom, quality of life and independence, and "adults" were criticizing them for it (probably in the WSJ). San Francisco is practically a monument to the era...
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      The people you refer to in the 1960's didn't actually _do anything_ they just talked about doing something (there's a great South Park episode about this). Matt and many others are doing what he talks about.
      - astine 18y ago
        Oh, but they did in the 30s.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - DaniFong 18y ago
    One could call it so far the closest thing to a true Marxist revolution. Workers in control of the means of production.
  - Tamerlin 18y ago
    Most of the Gen-Y's that I've worked with have been pretty intelligent, but very arrogant and largely useless, because they hide their inexperience behind their arrogance and claim they're doing things a "new way" even when it's considerably worse than the "old" way.
- Prrometheus 18y ago
  >Just try to remember that yours is not the first generation to pursue these goals. Ours is the first generation with the technology to enable it.
  - timr 18y ago
    I'm pretty sure that our parents had new technology, too. More to the point, I'll bet that when they were 23, they were bragging about how their new technology was going to allow them to change the world. It's almost a cliche, really. Granted, our didn't have computers or the internet; technology has marched onward. But regardless of whether we're discussing the modem or the mimeograph, the story of the young usurping the old with 'modern' technology is a classic.
    - Prrometheus 18y ago
      Not all technology is created equal. The ability to communicate, coordinate, and compute has reduced the optimum size of the firm in many industries. What is more important, it has reduced the minimum size of a successful firm. Steam power and heavy industry, by contrast, had the opposite effect.
      - j2d2 18y ago
        Ultimately, you both can be right. It's about where you stand relative to everyone else. If the younger folks are enabling themselves via tech faster than the older, it should be possible to position yourself better. I think it's more a testament to the improvements we've made in technology how easy it is for kids to become BIG deals quickly with good ideas.
    - 13ren 18y ago
      A young man sets out to seek his fortune... Yes, it's the beginning of a fairly tale, a standard mythological motif - by which I don't mean it is fictional or trivial, but that it is universal. BTW: Matt does acknowledge that the next generation will do the same to his (at the end). He's right about greater productivity - but if everyone is more productive, then the competitive bar simply resets at a higher level. It's an endless trudge, if the finish line recedes as you approach... There's a sophisticated argument that with a smaller firm-size, you have more CEO's. The problem with competitive success remains that not everyone can be a winner - it's a zero-sum game by definition. But everyone can have a family. Everyone can have the satisfaction of improvement and mastery. Everyone can enjoy the thrill of risking a lesser thing for a greater thing. Everyone can take pride in effort and sacrifice for a worthy goal. And ultimately, these things are immensely more satisfying than vacationing for months in Europe. Talkin bout my generation

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

run4yourlives 18y ago

One word: Security. When you get married and have kids, you'll see how much more important that word becomes.

ph0rque 18y ago
What makes you think that I'm not married and without kids? In fact, I value my free time more knowing I can spend it with my wife and daughter.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Fair enough, but many people value their next paycheck more than the free time. You asked why we should toil away as an employee for someone else, and that's the answer. Being an entrepreneur is risky business.
  - vlad 18y ago
    In the long term, working on your own projects using the latest technologies and latest editions of popular languages, and having projects to show for it, will give you much more experience and credibility than working at a company for the same amount of time. Over the years, I'm sure early adapters of Java, .Net, Ajax, Rails, Django, and Objective C did not have a hard time finding jobs. Companies typically try to convert existing developers to use new languages, and an employee hired for this knowledge will be an expert. A startup using the latest technologies will want to hire employees who already possess this knowledge. Finally, a user experimenting with new technologies might decide that he or she is so far ahead of companies who are still using old technology that he or she should start a business.
    - run4yourlives 18y ago
      >In the long term, it's less risky than working Bullshit. For every single Paul Graham there are hundreds of entrepreneurs living in abject poverty, wondering how they'll feed their kids or where they get the money to pay the mortgage. You're taking a very small subset of extremely bright, assertive go getters and insinuating that this is the norm. It is not, and statistics show this.