4 ms·
It's interesting the comments here are about (a) dead-end jobs where they don't care about you (b) poverty and such (c) jobs one only tolerates vs self-realizat
by sershe 4y ago
It's interesting the comments here are about (a) dead-end jobs where they don't care about you (b) poverty and such (c) jobs one only tolerates vs self-realization.
The article however is about the upper-middle class men. So, these arguments are really irrelevant to them (except maybe the caring bit, but I doubt career-oriented people are unaware of how little companies care about them - they can, after all switch, companies). In tech, I've met tons of people who work a lot because they like it and people who could have obviously retired (startup exits) but keep working anyway, in not-so-glamorous jobs, some even as ICs with all the attendant BS.
Apparently less people identify with work and want to work, for a reason that Atlantic fails to tease out. Atlantic claims it's better this way but I'm not so sure. Better for whom? I'm not even certain it's better for the upper-middle class men themselves - would they get some better ways to self-actualize instead? Not a given. It's unlikely better for the economy, or for anyone else really.
Everyone has different preferences. Based on those they get different outcomes.
I actually have also met, and read on HN tons of people in tech who kinda resent people who work a lot because it makes them look bad. But many cannot admit this to others (or themselves) so they invent all kinds of justifications about how it's bad for people to work hard for an uncaring company not being a founder, or how it's better to have kids or go surfing and be a balanced person, or whatever. And really this outcome of getting more done is bad and maybe even fake and they are not better than me!
It's like the books about athletes, where they always emphasize that people who realize their genetic potential are the ones who love the grind and train a ton in a structured way (practicing serves, reading chess books, doing drills, whatever it is). If you don't like the boring repetitive training, and don't force yourself, you won't get as good. Then you can either say "well, I am not as good at training so I'm not going to get good at this sport, it's my fault only, and that's ok". Or you can come up with some excuses or devalue others' outcomes.
This article is just the latter "oh I was too lazy to practice serves so I never got good at tennis, but all those tennis players kept practicing even after making a bunch of money. Well now they are stopping and it makes me feel better, so I conclude it's better for society"
- ck425 4y ago> Everyone has different preferences. Based on those they get different outcomes. I actually have also met, and read on HN tons of people in tech who kinda resent people who work a lot because it makes them look bad. The reason people resent folk who work crazy hard isn't because it makes them look bad (though it's probably factor to an extent). It's because that that preference has become the default for the whole of society in the West. The article points out that both policy in the US and social norms/values have become highly preferenced towards those who work crazy hard. The point isn't that it's bad for certain individuals to value work over everything else, it's that it's bad for society as a whole. As you say everyone has different preferences but due to this shift people whose preference isn't to put work/career before everything else are being penalised. And despite the rhetoric here it's perfectly possible to value work and work hard without it being your top priority in life.
- sershe 4y ago> The article points out that both policy in the US and social norms/values have become highly preferenced towards those who work crazy hard. The point isn't that it's bad for certain individuals to value work over everything else, it's that it's bad for society as a whole. Why is it bad specifically? > As you say everyone has different preferences but due to this shift people whose preference isn't to put work/career before everything else are being penalised Imagine you want to remodel your bathroom. Or, also, imagine you have a bad water leak in your bathroom - after all, on-call is one of the major things people in tech complain about with regard to work-life balance. You call up two otherwise similar plumbers, and one tells you that he can be there ASAP to fix your leak, and he'll do the plumbing for the remodel in 2 visits next week. The other is a balanced person so he won't fix your leak until Monday, and he doesn't like to work for a long stretch of time, so the remodel's gonna take 4 visits, sometime next month. Cost's the same, so you hire the 1st plumber. How would you feel if the 2nd one calls you back and complains he's unfairly "being penalised for his preferences"? That's the thing. Everyone (ok, most people) would prefer to hire (or work with) a workaholic, other things being equal. But in abstract, some mysterious "society" should apparently prefer otherwise.