4 ms·

Honestly, the author seems to be somewhat delusional about what America is like. People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasi

Honestly, the author seems to be somewhat delusional about what America is like. People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasing power. When I read phrases such as: "As technology has boosted productivity into astronomic levels, we have not seen any shortening of the workweek or even a relaxing of the lunch break in fact we have seen just the opposite." Of course not, the technology enables our work to be magnified. The company wants us to continue working to the same extent because they get more "bang-for-their-buck" I would also like to say, I recently accepted a job paying about 20% less simply because I would be able to work slightly more relaxed. Ironically, it was a bank, as opposed to Google, Apple, Twitter, etc. As my friends all went and worked at those places, I noticed they had to work 50 - 60 hours a week pretty regularly. Instead I chose to take a job where the work would have a larger impact on the company (i.e. I had more weight because I was more technical), and I could work less because I could out perform their expectations. Selecting my job in such a way is me selling my skill set for less money, but more time. Usually people want to always maximize income, and because I am working on side projects I indeed feel I am maximizing income. However, the author seems to ignore this simple fact of life. Working less might be better for some people, it may even be better for the company... but there is no way in hell people are going to EVER want less in life. If this seems to be the case, then you likely don't see the full picture (i.e. perhaps they value freedom over money).

enraged_camel 12y ago
>>Honestly, the author seems to be somewhat delusional about what America is like. People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasing power. I'm not sure this is true, at least for the millennial generation and later. Most people I know who work a lot do so because they don't have any other choice, except maybe "move back in with parents and become a waiter at some diner."
- jeremyt 12y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. Most people I know work so much because either 1) they have a very high paying but high demanding job or 2) they overconsume and have to make the money to pay off the debt that they've created with their overconsumption. For the former (my friends at Google, well-funded startups, and in finance, etc.) I'm afraid I'm not going to shed any tears for them. For the latter, most people I know are neck deep in auto loans, mortgages, credit card debt, etc. Up until this year, I would be hard-pressed to name a friend who had a car that was older than mine. My group of friends roundly poked fun at me when I furnished my new apartment with nice craigslist furniture. To address your point directly, for most people, finding a cheaper apartment is an alternative to "moving back in with parents". I'm currently living in a 450 ft.² studio apartment in a small town in Tennessee for $400/month. I'm quite sure this is affordable to anyone who isn't making minimum wage, and probably them too. Making minimum wage? Get a roommate. I've had roommates my whole life. No, people choose to work a lot because they're living a lifestyle that is more than they can afford.
- lettergram 12y ago
  That's almost 100% because they want a particular life style. For example, my friend has a nearly perfect credit score, he lives with his parents still, works 30 hours a week (making about $35k a year), and his expenses are about $12k yearly. Clearly he has to work, but not all that crazy. However, if he wanted to move out, get a car, etc. it would be pretty hard. I should note, he's a millennial, didn't go to college, is 23, and has about 50k in savings because he's invested all of his money, lives at home, and works remotely. He plans to buy a house in his mid to late 20's (28 is his goal). This is common all over the world, and was common pretty much throughout all history except the 50's - 70's.
  - Roboprog 12y ago
    Your friend is pretty lucky to make over $20/hr without going to college. Does he do some kind of skilled construction work??? Otherwise, that sounds like a good plan if your parents can support you while you pull it off. (you = him, or somebody like him)
    - lettergram 12y ago
      Definitely not me (and my ~$100,000 in student loans)... He does quality assurance for a small business and handles other IT stuff. He loves digging around and finding bugs, and will also contributes to Gentoo. A fair number of the blogs he writes end up on the front page of HN, so you've probably read stuff by him.
joesmo 12y ago
"People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasing power." Not salaried employees. No one chooses to work unpaid overtime which only decreases purchasing power or at best, keeps it the same while taking a toll on free time and health. People choose to work a lot because they're threatened by their employers with losing their jobs if they don't. That's the only sane reason that anyone would choose to work a lot while salaried. When making an hourly wage, at least the time is compensated, so perhaps people are increasing their purchasing power, but it's never by their own choice since in such situations overtime is always dictated by the employer, not the employee (thus it's not a choice). We just have a sick culture of overtime and employers expecting free work. It's never necessary to do such free work (except to avoid getting fired) and certainly not necessary to do it to get things done. In plenty of contract jobs with no overtime, things get done at the same pace and quality of salaried (free work) jobs, only without the extra hours. Yet the myth still prevails, especially amongst startups. It's convenient for executives, owners, founders, and anyone at the top to get free work. After all, wages are the biggest expenditure in almost any business. What person with a stake in the company wouldn't want free labor, even if it's at the expense of their workers' health and livelihood, even if it ends up negatively impacting the business in the long run?
topkai22 12y ago
There is a serious problem in this sort of analysis when you are talking in generalities. The reasons that Apple engineers work 50-60 weeks are very different than for barista's. The Apple engineer will be pressured to work a great deal because their skills are relatively unique and the cost to have a 2nd person split the work with them is likely much more than 2x. As such, Apple is going to seek engineers that will work lots of hours, even if they could get 2 "equally competent" engineers to work 30 hrs a piece for the same price or less. As a result, the 50-60 hr a week engineer is probably paid pretty well, much higher than would be strictly necessary to get the engineer to work at that job versus any other job in the universe.* The Barista's job on the other hand is much closer to being a commodity. If the Barista or the coffeeshop wanted 2 workers to handle the "60 hr" workload instead of one, the cost would be almost the same as having one person work. In fact, due to the way part-time versus full-time labor laws work in the US, it is probably cheaper to have 2 people do it. Therefore, the Barista is probably working 50-60 hrs/week spread across multiple jobs to meet ends meat or have extra money for aspirational goals. * I'm butchering the language here, but I think I got the concept right. Engineers at the big tech firms aren't just paid strictly what it would take to bring them in, but also paid enough so they won't want to look to move. It's one of the reasons moving between companies can be so lucrative. + Of course, most workers in the US don't work a 50-60/week. Your average full-time US worker self reported a 47 work week (http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-lon...), which I suspect is high due to people's tendency to remember the worst week they've worked recently as a representative week. Also, that poll conflicts with BLS data that suggests the average FT worker does 47h/ week inclusive off commute and breaks.

enraged_camel 12y ago

>>Honestly, the author seems to be somewhat delusional about what America is like. People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasing power. I'm not sure this is true, at least for the millennial generation and later. Most people I know who work a lot do so because they don't have any other choice, except maybe "move back in with parents and become a waiter at some diner."

jeremyt 12y ago
I couldn't disagree more. Most people I know work so much because either 1) they have a very high paying but high demanding job or 2) they overconsume and have to make the money to pay off the debt that they've created with their overconsumption. For the former (my friends at Google, well-funded startups, and in finance, etc.) I'm afraid I'm not going to shed any tears for them. For the latter, most people I know are neck deep in auto loans, mortgages, credit card debt, etc. Up until this year, I would be hard-pressed to name a friend who had a car that was older than mine. My group of friends roundly poked fun at me when I furnished my new apartment with nice craigslist furniture. To address your point directly, for most people, finding a cheaper apartment is an alternative to "moving back in with parents". I'm currently living in a 450 ft.² studio apartment in a small town in Tennessee for $400/month. I'm quite sure this is affordable to anyone who isn't making minimum wage, and probably them too. Making minimum wage? Get a roommate. I've had roommates my whole life. No, people choose to work a lot because they're living a lifestyle that is more than they can afford.
lettergram 12y ago
That's almost 100% because they want a particular life style. For example, my friend has a nearly perfect credit score, he lives with his parents still, works 30 hours a week (making about $35k a year), and his expenses are about $12k yearly. Clearly he has to work, but not all that crazy. However, if he wanted to move out, get a car, etc. it would be pretty hard. I should note, he's a millennial, didn't go to college, is 23, and has about 50k in savings because he's invested all of his money, lives at home, and works remotely. He plans to buy a house in his mid to late 20's (28 is his goal). This is common all over the world, and was common pretty much throughout all history except the 50's - 70's.
- Roboprog 12y ago
  Your friend is pretty lucky to make over $20/hr without going to college. Does he do some kind of skilled construction work??? Otherwise, that sounds like a good plan if your parents can support you while you pull it off. (you = him, or somebody like him)
  - lettergram 12y ago
    Definitely not me (and my ~$100,000 in student loans)... He does quality assurance for a small business and handles other IT stuff. He loves digging around and finding bugs, and will also contributes to Gentoo. A fair number of the blogs he writes end up on the front page of HN, so you've probably read stuff by him.

joesmo 12y ago

"People choose to work a lot because that enables them to have greater purchasing power." Not salaried employees. No one chooses to work unpaid overtime which only decreases purchasing power or at best, keeps it the same while taking a toll on free time and health. People choose to work a lot because they're threatened by their employers with losing their jobs if they don't. That's the only sane reason that anyone would choose to work a lot while salaried. When making an hourly wage, at least the time is compensated, so perhaps people are increasing their purchasing power, but it's never by their own choice since in such situations overtime is always dictated by the employer, not the employee (thus it's not a choice). We just have a sick culture of overtime and employers expecting free work. It's never necessary to do such free work (except to avoid getting fired) and certainly not necessary to do it to get things done. In plenty of contract jobs with no overtime, things get done at the same pace and quality of salaried (free work) jobs, only without the extra hours. Yet the myth still prevails, especially amongst startups. It's convenient for executives, owners, founders, and anyone at the top to get free work. After all, wages are the biggest expenditure in almost any business. What person with a stake in the company wouldn't want free labor, even if it's at the expense of their workers' health and livelihood, even if it ends up negatively impacting the business in the long run?

topkai22 12y ago

There is a serious problem in this sort of analysis when you are talking in generalities. The reasons that Apple engineers work 50-60 weeks are very different than for barista's. The Apple engineer will be pressured to work a great deal because their skills are relatively unique and the cost to have a 2nd person split the work with them is likely much more than 2x. As such, Apple is going to seek engineers that will work lots of hours, even if they could get 2 "equally competent" engineers to work 30 hrs a piece for the same price or less. As a result, the 50-60 hr a week engineer is probably paid pretty well, much higher than would be strictly necessary to get the engineer to work at that job versus any other job in the universe.* The Barista's job on the other hand is much closer to being a commodity. If the Barista or the coffeeshop wanted 2 workers to handle the "60 hr" workload instead of one, the cost would be almost the same as having one person work. In fact, due to the way part-time versus full-time labor laws work in the US, it is probably cheaper to have 2 people do it. Therefore, the Barista is probably working 50-60 hrs/week spread across multiple jobs to meet ends meat or have extra money for aspirational goals. * I'm butchering the language here, but I think I got the concept right. Engineers at the big tech firms aren't just paid strictly what it would take to bring them in, but also paid enough so they won't want to look to move. It's one of the reasons moving between companies can be so lucrative. + Of course, most workers in the US don't work a 50-60/week. Your average full-time US worker self reported a 47 work week (http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-longer-seven-hours.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/175286/hour-workweek-actually-lon...), which I suspect is high due to people's tendency to remember the worst week they've worked recently as a representative week. Also, that poll conflicts with BLS data that suggests the average FT worker does 47h/ week inclusive off commute and breaks.