5 ms·

An idea I had (not sure if correct) is that many people have a similar amount of "work ethic", but distribute it differently. So, for example, person A can inve

An idea I had (not sure if correct) is that many people have a similar amount of "work ethic", but distribute it differently. So, for example, person A can invest nearly 100% into their job and will be perceived to be "extremely hardcore", while person B might have the exact same absolute amount, but only allocate a fraction to their job, distributing the rest to other activities. This person will be "normal". Most people should limit the allocation to their job because they have very limited upside. Most entrepreneurs should allocate much more than employees because of less limited upside. I feel like many bosses want people to allocate more to a job, but don't offer the corresponding upside.

osigurdson 2y ago
I think there are some companies / missions / bosses, who can clearly identify goals and a concrete strategy to achieve them. This, plus some equity, can really help set people's incentives in the right direction such that people want to put in more time and effort. On the other hand, a lot of companies don't offer either and seem to believe that simply rallying the masses to put in 20% more time (on average) will somehow lead to outsized gains.
reverendsteveii 2y ago
>I feel like many bosses want people to allocate more to a job, but don't offer the corresponding upside. I agree, and I think that if you look back at the early dot com startups that did things like food, recreation, laundry and even housing right on-campus you'll see a culture that tried to actually meet that need in a way that doesn't seem unfair. The idea was "you give us everything you've got at work and everything else will just take care of itself". Then, as inevitable as death, came the investor class demanding more for less and eliminating the benefits with the hope that the sigma grindset would just perpetuate itself anyway.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  But nobody can give you more time. Thread makes a good point that everyone should be evaluating their time investment in work vs. their potential upside, especially if they're sacrificing time to other aspects of life. (Relationships, family, travel, etc) Giving everything you've got with a potential huge reward = risky but possibly worth it Doing the same without a huge reward = you're a sucker, because your company is getting more from you than they're giving
  - reverendsteveii 2y ago
    >But nobody can give you more time. Yeah they can. That's exactly what someone who does your laundry for you does. They give you that time back, and in exchange for some of your time (in the form of money, which for working people is never anything but time spent doing things other than what you want). If I make $70/hr and can buy an hour of doing laundry back for $20 I can work that hour instead of spending it on laundry, have the same amount of time and $50. Or I can work that hour and buy laundry three times, netting me $10 and 2 hours.
    - BigGreenJorts 2y ago
      Same with the food and housing examples. Save meal prep time given back, commuting time given back (I am assuming corporate housing is relatively close to the office compared to usual, self selected housing).
      - reverendsteveii 2y ago
        once I realized money is just time but we don't all get to trade between the two at the same rate a lot of things started to make sense.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        Extending your point -- why should a company even pay employees, if they provide everything needed for a happy life + a retirement plan? What could possibly go wrong if an employer provided everything for their employees?
        reverendsteveii 2y ago
        I see what you're trying to do here but....yes, actually? Or to be more accurate to what I'm thinking is that not also the job of money? To provide what's needed for a happy life and a retirement plan? And for those of us who are not in the rent-seeking class, money is acquired by working for pay. The only actual issue is exclusivity - when you can only live in company housing and can only buy at the company store they're free to take advantage of you. When the company housing has to compete with other housing and the company store has to match or beat prices at other stores they become just one more potential source and you as the wage-earner get to decide between them and everyone else.
tartoran 2y ago
Yes, they want you to give all you've got and neglect all other aspects of your life. Young people are very good candidates to fall into this trap. Once they burn through those precious years working for somebody else and get none of the upsides they get it too. But there are always new young people ready to "change" the world.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Imho, this is the original staffing sin of the video game industry. An endless supply of naive labor is never a good thing to trust manangement with.
  - MattSayar 2y ago
    Has that changed at all in the video game industry? I assume it's just as prevalent a problem as ever since games are just as popular as ever.
    - clown_strike 2y ago
      They unionized in recent news.
otikik 2y ago
I had a boss like that. One time he told me "In a bacon and eggs dish, the hen contributes but the pig really gets involved. I want all my team to be pigs". I internally thought "yeah, but you are neither the hen or the pig, you are the guy eating the dish". I left as soon as I could.
- maxfurman 2y ago
  He used a metaphor in which he slaughters his entire team? Sheesh, talk about making the subtext text.
  - AlecSchueler 2y ago
    The metaphor also breaks down because if you're trying to make a bacon and eggs dish without any hens then you end up eating bacon with bacon instead.
    - cgannett 2y ago
      I dont think the metaphor breaks down at all I just think it is saying things that while very true are not meant to be communicated to the pigs and hens.
      - AlecSchueler 2y ago
        A bacon and eggs dish without eggs isn't a bacon and eggs dish, so in the metaphor the business fails to achieve its stated aim.
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  Cannibalistic metaphors were not on my red flag list but they are now.
- osigurdson 2y ago
  In reality, that boss probably was just repeating something that he heard - hoping that his boss would like how it sounds. I recall similar parables in early 00's agile. It is a lot easier to say things like this than come up with an actual strategy.
osigurdson 2y ago
Agree. He isn't very hardcore as he isn't working 16 hours a day at my company for $10 per hour.
ctkhn 2y ago
This is what unions are all about - most people should limit the allocation to their job, but a lot of employers (not just Musk) want employees to work "like owners" without providing real ownership of the equity upside of the company they work for. Even most equity packages do not provide upside on a remotely similar scale (you might make 500k extra) compared to what the founders, execs, and VCs will make on your labor. I'm not sure that HN is going to be very Marx-friendly but Capital Vol 1 gets into this if you can hang through all the blathering about coats and fabric.
pc86 2y ago
This is true in the sense that everyone has the same number of hours in the day, and someone who is 25 and single and lives in a studio apartment 3 blocks from the office will by definition be able to spend more time working than someone who lives 90 minutes from the office in the suburbs and has 4 school-aged kids. But there are absolutely different levels of work ethic and stamina between people. And I'm not even talking about willingness which obviously varies, but some people can work for 12 hours straight and some people are just physically incapable of doing it.

osigurdson 2y ago

I think there are some companies / missions / bosses, who can clearly identify goals and a concrete strategy to achieve them. This, plus some equity, can really help set people's incentives in the right direction such that people want to put in more time and effort. On the other hand, a lot of companies don't offer either and seem to believe that simply rallying the masses to put in 20% more time (on average) will somehow lead to outsized gains.

reverendsteveii 2y ago

>I feel like many bosses want people to allocate more to a job, but don't offer the corresponding upside. I agree, and I think that if you look back at the early dot com startups that did things like food, recreation, laundry and even housing right on-campus you'll see a culture that tried to actually meet that need in a way that doesn't seem unfair. The idea was "you give us everything you've got at work and everything else will just take care of itself". Then, as inevitable as death, came the investor class demanding more for less and eliminating the benefits with the hope that the sigma grindset would just perpetuate itself anyway.

ethbr1 2y ago
But nobody can give you more time. Thread makes a good point that everyone should be evaluating their time investment in work vs. their potential upside, especially if they're sacrificing time to other aspects of life. (Relationships, family, travel, etc) Giving everything you've got with a potential huge reward = risky but possibly worth it Doing the same without a huge reward = you're a sucker, because your company is getting more from you than they're giving
- reverendsteveii 2y ago
  >But nobody can give you more time. Yeah they can. That's exactly what someone who does your laundry for you does. They give you that time back, and in exchange for some of your time (in the form of money, which for working people is never anything but time spent doing things other than what you want). If I make $70/hr and can buy an hour of doing laundry back for $20 I can work that hour instead of spending it on laundry, have the same amount of time and $50. Or I can work that hour and buy laundry three times, netting me $10 and 2 hours.
  - BigGreenJorts 2y ago
    Same with the food and housing examples. Save meal prep time given back, commuting time given back (I am assuming corporate housing is relatively close to the office compared to usual, self selected housing).
    - reverendsteveii 2y ago
      once I realized money is just time but we don't all get to trade between the two at the same rate a lot of things started to make sense.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      Extending your point -- why should a company even pay employees, if they provide everything needed for a happy life + a retirement plan? What could possibly go wrong if an employer provided everything for their employees?
      - reverendsteveii 2y ago
        I see what you're trying to do here but....yes, actually? Or to be more accurate to what I'm thinking is that not also the job of money? To provide what's needed for a happy life and a retirement plan? And for those of us who are not in the rent-seeking class, money is acquired by working for pay. The only actual issue is exclusivity - when you can only live in company housing and can only buy at the company store they're free to take advantage of you. When the company housing has to compete with other housing and the company store has to match or beat prices at other stores they become just one more potential source and you as the wage-earner get to decide between them and everyone else.

tartoran 2y ago

Yes, they want you to give all you've got and neglect all other aspects of your life. Young people are very good candidates to fall into this trap. Once they burn through those precious years working for somebody else and get none of the upsides they get it too. But there are always new young people ready to "change" the world.

ethbr1 2y ago
Imho, this is the original staffing sin of the video game industry. An endless supply of naive labor is never a good thing to trust manangement with.
- MattSayar 2y ago
  Has that changed at all in the video game industry? I assume it's just as prevalent a problem as ever since games are just as popular as ever.
  - clown_strike 2y ago
    They unionized in recent news.

otikik 2y ago

I had a boss like that. One time he told me "In a bacon and eggs dish, the hen contributes but the pig really gets involved. I want all my team to be pigs". I internally thought "yeah, but you are neither the hen or the pig, you are the guy eating the dish". I left as soon as I could.

maxfurman 2y ago
He used a metaphor in which he slaughters his entire team? Sheesh, talk about making the subtext text.
- AlecSchueler 2y ago
  The metaphor also breaks down because if you're trying to make a bacon and eggs dish without any hens then you end up eating bacon with bacon instead.
  - cgannett 2y ago
    I dont think the metaphor breaks down at all I just think it is saying things that while very true are not meant to be communicated to the pigs and hens.
    - AlecSchueler 2y ago
      A bacon and eggs dish without eggs isn't a bacon and eggs dish, so in the metaphor the business fails to achieve its stated aim.
josefritzishere 2y ago
Cannibalistic metaphors were not on my red flag list but they are now.
osigurdson 2y ago
In reality, that boss probably was just repeating something that he heard - hoping that his boss would like how it sounds. I recall similar parables in early 00's agile. It is a lot easier to say things like this than come up with an actual strategy.

osigurdson 2y ago

Agree. He isn't very hardcore as he isn't working 16 hours a day at my company for $10 per hour.

ctkhn 2y ago

This is what unions are all about - most people should limit the allocation to their job, but a lot of employers (not just Musk) want employees to work "like owners" without providing real ownership of the equity upside of the company they work for. Even most equity packages do not provide upside on a remotely similar scale (you might make 500k extra) compared to what the founders, execs, and VCs will make on your labor. I'm not sure that HN is going to be very Marx-friendly but Capital Vol 1 gets into this if you can hang through all the blathering about coats and fabric.

pc86 2y ago

This is true in the sense that everyone has the same number of hours in the day, and someone who is 25 and single and lives in a studio apartment 3 blocks from the office will by definition be able to spend more time working than someone who lives 90 minutes from the office in the suburbs and has 4 school-aged kids. But there are absolutely different levels of work ethic and stamina between people. And I'm not even talking about willingness which obviously varies, but some people can work for 12 hours straight and some people are just physically incapable of doing it.