4 ms·
I love work. Sometimes I work 50 hours for my full-time employer, and sometimes I work 30 hours for them, and 30 hours for my own side project. Not everyone lo
by jacobmarble 3y ago
I love work. Sometimes I work 50 hours for my full-time employer, and sometimes I work 30 hours for them, and 30 hours for my own side project.
Not everyone loves work as much.
Having the choice to work more or less is good. We should be compensated for whatever value we provide, measured in a way that agrees between employee and employer (or between market and person/business).
So what's the problem?
- frakt0x90 3y agoThe measurement of value.
- dcsommer 3y agoIt's threatening to equality (wealth disparity) and also social/cultural values (aka work vs. family/neighborhood/community/etc.). These are all important equities, as is enabling high performers to work well. It is apparently difficult to find the right cultural balance that enables maximum achievement and all the rest, too. I disagree with any top-down pressures to "solve" this tension.
- calderwoodra 3y agoThe cultural point is one I hadn't considered before. IIUC, you're saying that if my goal is to work 60 hours a week (for any reason), having 40 hours as the cultural minimum is better than 32.
- systemvoltage 3y agoThere are lots of people that contribute less to society than they consume, and they are morally OK with that.
- threeseed 3y agoBased on what though. You could argue that many developers are a net-negative for society given that the industry wastes a lot of time building X idea in Y language for every combination of Y.
- systemvoltage 3y agoThere are lots of people that are not as productive. Fine. But it is the moral part that I have a problem with. They are morally proud that they don't contribute to the society. "Don't be a burden on others" is one of the values I grew up with. Should be a universally good thing IMO.
- klabb3 3y agoI could sit on my ass and play games all day, reek in all the unemployment benefits I possibly could, and still be nowhere near the bottom of net contribution to society. The amount of social benefits that remain in people’s pockets after the grifters have taken their share are rounding errors compared to say bank bailouts and government subsidies (in the US). I don’t think being a burden on others is good, but it’s nothing compared to active destruction, which can come with huge force multipliers. Every large organization have high ranked people that are rewarded for their destruction. There are entire industries dedicated to leeching off of honest people, like tax prep and time shares.
- systemvoltage 3y agoSeems like this entire thread is strawmaning in the worst possible way. Where did I say that active destruction is moral good? We can condemn both but my point was explicitly to people that don't contribute to society by moral virtue. Yet others making other flimsy strawmen.
- threeseed 3y agoMaybe they are just more self aware and intellectually honest. Rather than pretending that their latest open source project which is 99% the same as a dozen others is some extraordinary contribution to society.
- sangnoir 3y agoWhy does it feel you're describing everyone who is not an able-bodied 18-65 year old?
- CatWChainsaw 3y agoBecause they're insinuating it.
- hourago 3y ago> We should be compensated for whatever value we provide, measured in a way that agrees between employee and employer (or between market and person/business). That is a local optimization that hurts the global output. What is efficient for one individual may be damaging when applied to all society. Just a theoretical example is that your dedication to work makes you a worse parent, or a non-parent, removing a more knowledgeable, better educated and more healthy human from existing.
- metabagel 3y agoI haven't asked my employer, but I suspect they would not be willing to allow me to work a 4-day work week, even if I accepted a commensurately lower salary.
- mkoubaa 3y agoIf its something you're interested in doing what's the worst that could happen if you ask?