Why Do We Work So Hard? (1843magazine.com) 282
An anonymous reader points us to a fascinating piece at The Economist that tries to explain the elements that drive people to work so hard: Working effectively at a good job builds up our identity and esteem in the eyes of others. We cheer each other on, we share in (and quietly regret) the successes of our friends, we lose touch with people beyond our network. Spending our leisure time with other professional strivers buttresses the notion that hard work is part of the good life and that the sacrifices it entails are those that a decent person makes. This is what a class with a strong sense of identity does: it effortlessly recasts the group's distinguishing vices as virtues. This reminds me of an article by Om Malik, veteran reporter and founder of the GigaOm news outlet, who wrote this when announcing his retirement. From his piece: "I relate to Jeter's desire to find life outside of work. Living a 24-hour news life has come at a personal cost. I still wake in middle of the night to check the stream to see if something is breaking, worrying whether I missed some news. It is a unique type of addiction that only a few can understand, and it is time for me to opt out of this non-stop news life."
because (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:because (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have very little money and lots of free time, yes. As your income increases and free time decreases, time becomes more valuable at some point. One of the goals of our economic system is removing the choice of working only to the tipping point, and only leaving the options of not working at all (and being destitute) or working nearly all of your waking hours.
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
That's the worst reasoning I've seen on the internet all day long, and that's really saying something.
Re:because (Score:5, Informative)
Only because you're really ignorant, but hiding that from yourself. There is an imbalance in the earnings from labor and those from equity that isn't justified by anything except social and corporate structures. In truth work beyond the real level of achievement adequate to fuel leisure only fuels the class divide supporting the ultra-rich, and dupes the poorer into believing they need it for their own security. Puritan ethic is "work is good", but said another way "arbeit macht frei" - the implication is the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:because (Score:4, Funny)
-- George Bernard Shaw, famous socialist
... and satirist.
Re: (Score:2)
There ain't shit to do when you're broke. Paris Hilton is a result of what happens when you remove the incentive to work. People work hard so they can play hard, but the balance is essential.
Re: (Score:3)
More realistically and honestly, that work they claim to work so hard at ain't that hard at all. The honest truth in our current corrupt society the hardest work is the least well paid and the easiest work is the most well paid and that easy work, you can not work hard at, impossible because it is by no stretch of the imagination hard work. Yeah some people work so hard because PR=B$ and the work ain't hard at all. I have dug footing trenches by hand and I have drawn them using CADD and you know what that
Re:because (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, things are way more complicated than that.
I'm near or at the bottom. I can't tell anyone what to do. I manage nothing, even the use of my own skills or time without talking first with my supervisor (who to his credit is likely to accept any ideas I might have - up to and including small software projects if it'll improve the workflow.)
This is normal, I'm not complaining.
My supervisor manages me and a few others in our department. His job is really stressful, in part because a lot of the time the people asking him to make stuff happen don't fully appreciate the amount of work involved, nor the time necessary to complete the task. That gets delegated to us to some degree, though he has a lot of similar work to handle as well. He manages us, but is also one of us.
He's not my ruler, but he is my boss.
His boss is also my boss, but not all of his bosses are also my boss - the one I answer to often speaks directly to me, and the ones my supervisor has to deal with often involve tasks that don't involve me. This is kind of a relief, because my boss's boss is a cool guy and we get along fine. He's probably rich, but he doesn't flaunt it and he's not at the top or anywhere near it - not that I care about that sort of thing.
HIS boss - my boss's, boss's, boss, I rarely speak to and does work I don't fully understand. I think he communicates with the people we do business with - the property owners we work for. These owners are what I consider the real bosses. Donald Trump "builds" his buildings the same way these guys do - with people like us. We never see them, not at my level anyway. We just make their desired thing happen - but I'm okay with that. These guys aren't the ones responsible for time management.
If your gripe is that all your time is spent working, it's probably a middle manager's fault (or yours). Not some distant "ruler", and definitely not an actual one (unless you live in North Korea). Though admittedly I work in a relatively flat organizational structure and a small one at that. I can and do see where the real time constraints occur - when other people make promises of performance on your behalf. If they do it poorly, you're just as f-ked as if you were the one to make that promise.
Re: (Score:3)
To add to my previous post - one thing a manager can do to mitigate overworking employees is to hire more employees. A lot of people refuse to do this, especially during a recession, yet expect the same level of work, or have people over them expecting it. That's when your manager is supposed to stand up for you and the team and say, "We only have so many people. We need more if you want that much done in X amount of time. Please give me more time, or give me authorization to look for more people."
Re: (Score:2)
one thing a manager can do to mitigate overworking employees is to hire more employees.
There's many more things than that. Middle management is full of people with desires to climb up the food chain. They accept tasks or goals that are unachievable and when they do and don't have the resources to complete them they delegate those tasks anyway.
I'm not overworked anymore and I know exactly why: quite frequently my boss comes to me and asks me instead of doing something to write a quick justification of why it's not a priority so he can pass it to the appropriate people. I remember going to my m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
That's the worst reasoning I've seen on the internet all day long, and that's really saying something.
There's a good argument that he's "right", though not about his summary sentence. There's a bit more to it. Our rulers have managed to get control of almost all of the resources, and we work so hard because they have enforced artificial scarcity over the rest of us, and if we don't then we will become poor. Then we will be criminalized for being poor, and driven into poverty. It's illegal to live in poverty (child protective, mandatory insurance with secret formulae, etc) and it drives people onto the stree
Re: (Score:2)
Except the UK which like everything else likes to mimic the US's worst habits including long hours, frozen wages and extreme pressure to keep climbing the ladder or be let go as a shirker.
Re: (Score:2)
You realise that its extremely hard to just let a worker go in the UK, right? We dont have the equivalent of Californias "right to work" rules here.
Re: (Score:3)
Rubbish, you have very few rights for the first couple of years, if you want to make someone redundant then you're free to do so, if you want to fire someone who's not pulling there weight then you tell them twice to pull their socks up then you fire them but larger companies mostly don't give a stuff about people who don't pull their weight.
Or are you wishing to fire someone who's worked for the firm 2+ years because you don't like them?
Re: (Score:2)
We dont have the equivalent of Californias "right to work" rules here.
California is not a "right to work" state. Closed shops are legal in California, and union membership can be compelled.
Re:because (Score:4, Informative)
You're confusing "right-to-work" with "at-will employment". Right-to-work means that union membership can't be a condition of employment. At-will employment means either you or your employer can terminate the relationship unless there's a contract specifiying otherwise.
Re:because (Score:5, Insightful)
Because those older than us and those with better access to credit, have driven asset prices to the highs of human history. No longer are housing prices a normal 2.5x annual salary -- they are 5-7x and in some areas even higher. Access to government credit for educational costs has led to the highest education prices in world history. And a wholly sinister cartel of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical equipment manufacturers, insurance companies and their Washington DC puppets, has led America to the highest healthcare costs in the history of mankind.
Prior generations would have called the current state of economic serfdom which Americans find themselves living under, "Tyranny". We just call it "things are getting really expensive".
In other countries, when the native inhabitants of a city could no longer afford to live in their home towns, they burned the houses of the rich to the ground and sent them packing.
Today, it is the ousted natives that go packing. But everywhere the same game is being played: Those with access to credit are quickly driving up asset values and creating a two tiered society. The "landed aristocracy" and the "you dummies should have bought real estate" camps. For millennials that distinction is compounded by whether or not mommy and daddy paid for education, or if the shackles of student debt are binding you to your workstation.
Why do we work so hard?
What kind of a privileged, ivory tower question is that anyway?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We work so hard because it's in the best interests of our rulers that we do, because they get to gather the fruits of our labour. That's all there is to it.
Just quit and get a better job. Go back to school or something if you need it.
And own your statements. Use first-person. None of that is universal.
Re:because (Score:4, Interesting)
And own your statements. Use first-person.
"We" is a first-person pronoun. It's just plural. GP didn't say "all people..." or "all people except me..." (though I suspect the meaning intended was more like "most people, but not those smart people who realize how the system works, like me..." ).
None of that is universal.
No, but GP has a valid observation about how our economic system is set up. If our society allowed workers to drop weekly hours a bit as productivity increased significantly (aa it has for basically the past century), then we could all be working a lot less while making a living wage. There were experiments back in the 1930s by some big companies to reduce the standard workweek for wage employees, and it had a number of positive benefits for everyone. Some European countries have done the same, especially in encouraging long vacation time.
But in the US, this trend stopped and is much less strong, while income disparities in classes has gone way up. Draw your own conclusions about the motivations.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone wants to work less though. If I can make $60k working 40 hours a week, I should be able to grab another $15-20 thousand easy picking up 10 to 20 more hours a week. I can live somewhat comfortable on $60 thousand a year but why should I limit myself when I have the free time and abilities to do it? Certainly not because you want to do it for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone wants to work less though. If I can make $60k working 40 hours a week, I should be able to grab another $15-20 thousand easy picking up 10 to 20 more hours a week. I can live somewhat comfortable on $60 thousand a year but why should I limit myself when I have the free time and abilities to do it? Certainly not because you want to do it for yourself.
And if you like what you are going, hell yeah! While not getting paid overtime per se, I was well compensated for my efforts compared to the folks who couldn't be bothered to put in any extra time.
Then when those found out I pretty much banked and invested that difference? The weird thing was, they thought I was playing the game wrong, while it was actually them.
Re: (Score:2)
You might as well recommend eating cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Just quit and get a better job. Go back to school or something if you need it.
And own your statements. Use first-person. None of that is universal.
Oh man, they are gonna crucify you.
No doubt that there are bad employers, no doubt at all. Some who expect much for little recompense. Som you need to get away from. So as you say, get away form the bad ones.
I've worked pretty "hard" all my life. I am probably considered an idiot here in slashdot for that, but in my defense I was well paid for it, and got to retire at my working salary at 55. That's kinda not too bad at all.
And I heard the same prattle thats going on in here all of my working life -
Re: (Score:2)
One of the goals of our economic system is removing the choice of working only to the tipping point, and only leaving the options of not working at all (and being destitute) or working nearly all of your waking hours.
It seems you're saying that a person who chooses to not work enough to support the lifestyle they want should be given a free ride. I find it hard to believe any economic system could function that way.
Here in the US most people who want to work "full time" are working 40 hours per week. There are some who work more, mostly because their tipping point favors more money at that stage in their life. Only once in my career have I been asked to work longer hours than I wanted to without extra compensation; need
Re: (Score:2)
I read it as more like "quality of life isn't necessarily proportional to amount of hours worked, but rather it is exceedingly low below an amount which is essentially working all the time, and even then it may still not be great depending on the type of work performed."
There are many many reasons for this, including things like: Health insurance tied to "full time" employment. Mortgages having such long terms with fixed payments. The tax structure. Slow changes in wages / salaries compared to changes in
Re:because (Score:4)
The issue here is there is no option less than 40 hours per week that will put a roof over your head. And working "only" 40 hours is increasingly a pipe dream. 40 hours already feels way too long to me, it dominates the majority of my waking hours. Spending all that time with sore feet, aching back, pain in my eyes, unable to get comfortable, unable to hug my wife or son, surrounded by strange people I don't really like. That's no way to spend the majority of one's existence.
But anything less is strictly fast food or retail work at minimum wage, which won't even pay for rent.
Re: (Score:3)
8hrs per day [if you are lucky] work
1 hr lunch + 2 small breaks [at work]
3 hrs commute [this can be shorter, I admit, but not all are lucky]
8hrs sleep
1 hr preparing food
free time for anything else - 3hrs in total [for you, wife, kids, friends, everyone and everything else]
So, this is it - working and basic necessities leaves 3hrs per day during the working week. Those who are lucky with the commute might not be so lucky with the 40 hrs.
I still get incredulous stares from [scientists no less!] when someone s
Re: (Score:2)
Because money improves your quality of life more than extra time does. When most people have extra time, they spend it watching TV or other similar things. When they have extra money, they can buy a bigger TV.
Well if time is fixed and all other things is equal then obviously those who earn more will buy more expensive things to get the highest utility from money, with a few exceptions that are indifferent or care more about putting kids through college than themselves. But it's not really fixed and I still haven't met anyone who don't value evenings and weekends and holidays, in fact most people say they do. But from there to stepping outside the norm of "full time employment" is very rare and you can see there
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because money improves your quality of life more than extra time does.
Wrong. Beyond 'minimum' needs like food, shelter, health, security, and perhaps some good sex thrown in, income basically is disposable. What humans need beyond that is to feel loved, competent and a sense of enthusiasm for what they strive for. Which all has nothing to do with 'physical' wealth. Money in those latter areas is nothing but a shallow substitute, and mostly a bad one at that. That's why most people are quite unhappy with their lives, even though they're doing well by any outward metric. Depression is the first world disease that comes with that.
By any historic measure we live in times of infinite abundance. 80%+ of work done in first world societies are bullshit jobs [strikemag.org] and superfluos work. Most of which can be done by robots, better planing or, most of the time, simply left out all together.
I work part time for more spare-time, and while I sometimes moan that because of my compareatively lower income I have the feeling I am - to most women of my social herachy - not suitable for long-term relationship because of that (especially with the values our society to wrongly pursues), I repeatedly run into situations that can only be described as plain an utter envy over my freedom compared to my peers. By men and women alike. I'm only suitably as a dance partner and a lover to most. ... A situation I will probably have to learn to live with. ... And, yes, I'm going to cry you a river now. :-)
Conclusion:
You Sir need to get yourself a copy of the 4 Hour Workweek [fourhourworkweek.com]. Or, better yet, the original: Senecas Letters from a Stoic. [amazon.com], read it and get a life (Hint: It is *not* about dependant income-work.) Stoicism: The optimised wester variant of zen-buddhism as you might call it. Get with the programm and start enjoying you life like never before. Welcome to the club.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Beyond 'minimum' needs like food, shelter, health, security, and perhaps some good sex thrown in, income basically is disposable.
Except there's not a clearly defined boundary line that a person crosses at a certain income level. There's a long transition zone, where more money means better food, a nicer home, a safer neighborhood, and more sex. Your Utopian society in which everyone is happy to share the wealth equally doesn't exist.
$75,000 (Score:2)
Except there's not a clearly defined boundary line that a person crosses at a certain income level.
http://content.time.com/time/m... [time.com]
The study doesn't say why $75,000 is the benchmark, but "it does seem to me a plausible number at which people would think money is not an issue," says Deaton. At that level, people probably have enough expendable cash to do things that make them feel good, like going out with friends. (The federal poverty level for a family of four, by the way, is $22,050.)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. Beyond 'minimum' needs like food, shelter, health, security, and perhaps some good sex thrown in, income basically is disposable. What humans need beyond that is to feel loved, competent and a sense of enthusiasm for what they strive for.
Sorry, no. Money continues to increase happiness until you break into the middle class. You know, the class that is rapidly vanishing in the USA, because the economy is completely fucking broken and people are completely in denial about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In a society in decline, that is certainly accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:because - 1984 (Score:4, Informative)
As monopolies and collective oligarchies continue to form and gain power most of the worlds population is no longer necessary for production so the illusion (just as in the matrix) of struggle has to be there to keep the masses believing their efforts and lives matter. War or the brink of war is usually the most effective way to keep the masses engaged in productivity tasks.
The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world.
Goods must be produced, but they need not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society. What is concerned here is not the morale of masses, whose attitude is unimportant so long as they are kept steadily at work, but the morale of the Party itself. Even the humblest Party member is expected to be competent, industrious, and even intelligent within narrow limits, but it is also necessary that he should be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation, and orgiastic triumph. In other words it is necessary that he should have the mentality appropriate to a state of war. It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist. The splitting of the intelligence which the Party requires of its members, and which is more easily achieved in an atmosphere of war, is now almost universal, but the higher up the ranks one goes, the more marked it becomes. It is precisely in the Inner Party that war hysteria and hatred of the enemy are strongest. In his capacity as an administrator, it is often necessary for a member of the Inner Party to know that this or that item of war news is untruthful, and he may often be aware that the entire war is spurious and is either not happening or is being waged for purposes quite other than the declared ones: but such knowledge is easily neutralized by the technique of doublethink. Meanwhile no Inner Party member wavers for an instant in his mystical belief that the war is real, and that it is bound to end victoriously, with Oceania the undisputed master of the entire world. All members of the Inner Party believe in this coming conquest as an article of faith. It is to be achieved either by gradually acquiring more and more territory and so building up an overwhelming preponderance of power, or by the discovery of some new and unanswerable weapon. The search for new weapons continues unceasingly, and is one of the very few remaining activities in which the inventive or speculative type of mind can find any outlet. In Oceania at the present day, Science, in the old sense, has almost ceased to exist. In Newspeak there is no word for " Science ". The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts the world is either standing still or going backwards. The fields are cultivated with horse-ploughs while books are written by machinery. But in matters of vital importance - meaning, in effect, war and police espionage - the empirical approach is still encouraged, or at least tolerated. - George Orwell, 1984
The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, jou
Re: (Score:3)
I would pay money to have more free time. So would half the programmers here.
You can. Arrange a 32 hour work week. Take a sabbatical. Become a contractor and set your own schedule. These are all things that can be done.
Re:because (Score:4, Insightful)
In theory. In practice, most employers want full-time employees who are there five days a week. Most companies don't offer sabbaticals. If those were realistic options, there wouldn't be so many people complaining.
As for contracting, that's nice in theory, and it might pay the bills if you can manage to keep a continuous stream of contracts, but that often requires a huge amount of time that you aren't getting paid for. And if you don't keep the stream full, you'll end up struggling to pay the bills. Also, when you do have contracts, there's a deadline associated with them, so you can't always plan vacations as far ahead as you would when working for a normal employer.
Re: (Score:2)
The Myth of Sysiphus (Score:2)
From The Myth of Sysiphus by Albert Camus [dbanach.com]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
:-)
Level up [smbc-comics.com]
Start at the bottom [smbc-comics.com]
How about it pays well? (Score:3)
If there is another job offer that pays better than your current job but doesn't require you to work as hard, all other factors being equal, would you take it?
The article might have a point if most people would say "no" to this question. The real answer is probably too boring to make news -- most people work so hard because they want/need the money.
The hyperbole about the "virtue" of working so hard are just kool-aid from management and HR so they won't appear the villain.
Re: (Score:3)
Because anyone will take more pay for what they are doing. It's more a question of would you be willing to take a pay cut and work less?
I got so fed up and stressed with having to fix stupid IT problems that I quit the company and only do projects. So far, while taking it easy to recharge myself, I've made half of what I got in a month but only worked a fifth of the time. The rest of the time I spend writing and drawing, trying to start m
Re: (Score:2)
I meant pays MORE. Yes, *anyone* will take more pay for what they are doing, so the only reason for one to work hard is because one expected better pay from working harder.
The crap about identity, esteem, virtue, etc the article talked about are pure BS kool-aid from management and HR.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is another job offer that pays better than your current job but doesn't require you to work as hard, all other factors being equal, would you take it?
Maybe, maybe not. I get bored easily. And working hard is kind of undefinable as far as I can see. Is working hard manual labor vs sitting at a desk? Is easier work mean no work or much less work? There are some folks like myself who have a very low threshold of boredom, and some folks who would be content to do nothing all day.
As well, doing a job you hate doing for half the time is more work than doing one you like even if you put in more than the 40 hours a week tht apparently makes people's heads ex
Sigh! It's just obsessing, not an addiction. (Score:2)
One obsesses on an activity. One is addicted to drugs. Nothing else to be said.
Re: (Score:2)
So no video-game addiction or sex-addiction? Makes sense.
Simple: You are all cows (Score:5, Interesting)
The wealthy class spends billions on propaganda to convince YOU to work harder so that THEY can make profits. The productivity of USA workers is among the highest in the world and keeps going up in general, yet our wages have been flat.
That means we work our asses off and THEY get the benefits; and they want to keep it that way, for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Simple: You are all cows (Score:5, Informative)
Funny, as one born in a communist country, I can tell you don't know shit about socialism/communism and how they worked.
The rulling class, elected by the free will of the people (yeah, right), was supposed to think for the unwashed workers and peasants. The unwashed had to work as hard as they could in order for the whole society to be able to beat back the class enemy (capitalism). Wehn that happened and socialism/communism would rule the world, we would all live in paradise where everybody would work according to their abilities (rulling class thinking, workers working) and everybody would get a share according to their needs (rulling class a bigger one as they have to be free of troubles in order to guide the society, working class enough to be able to work another day).
It's the same message every rulling class is promoting to the unwashed: work your ass off so we (as in we, the rulling class, not in we, as a country) would have enough to live happily ever after.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The USSR was a dictatorship with The Party at the top, and the populace placated with lies of how they were moving towards a true communistic state, but you have to hand over all power to The Party, because we're the only ones who can manage this transition. All lies, of course.
If you had bothered to actually read Das Kapital and other fundamental texts of marxism, socialism and communism, you would know that no such state would ever have a ruling class or dictator of any kind. You would also know that the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There it is again. Where would socialism/marxism/communism BE without the No True Scotsman fallacy? "Well, anyone who would do that is no true socialist!" It would be in the dustbin of history, of course. It just goes to show you the power of a good fallacy, and like Fox Mulder, people just want to believe.
All 'isms but one rely very heavily on the No True Scotsman fallacy. We see it in here when Libertarians bloviate about how the invisible hand of the free market will end all social ills, then never accept that it is an unachievable situation.
But to directly answer your question, Socialism?Marxism, which by the way are two different things once we get out of the Fox News bubble - are in the exact same place Capitalism and Libertarianism are - failed ideologies when ruled by ideals instead of pragmatism.
Re:Simple: You are all cows (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that you mistake that treatment for respect proves how successful the propaganda has been.
Re: (Score:2)
You're conflating high productivity with 'working your ass off'.
Speak for yourself (Score:4, Interesting)
I have taken a year off. Plans include travel, photography, self-development, and anything I find interesting on a day to day basis. I'm now a month and a half away from the office, and loving every moment of it.
As to why I can afford it... Because I didn't buy the biggest house I could. Because I don't own a car, TV or smartphone. Because I didn't spend every cent I earn on gadgets I don't need.
Re: (Score:2)
As relatives around me grew older and more infirm, and simply by virtue of having the free time,
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent decision
Re: (Score:2)
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Quite like, say, Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, sorry, answer to the wrong posting. Please ignore.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must not be married.
Re: (Score:3)
I feel truly sad for you. There is so much more to life than work. Sitting in the same cubicle every day. The same people. The same shit. One big circle jerk, all of you telling each other you are such great people.
Has your boss ever taken a holiday? When do you think he will retire, and do you think he will thank you for the sacrifice of your entire life, when he does?
After you are dead, what will people say? Will people remember you for some gadget that you designed, and they used a decade ago, you think?
Re: (Score:2)
I feel truly sad for you. There is so much more to life than work. Sitting in the same cubicle every day. The same people. The same shit.
So who says you have to do that? I had a full busy career, with travel, lots of change, and seldom got bored. Even had multiple offices.
Now the interesting thing is there were people with the same job description as mine, who had your attitude.
The difference between them and myself? They didn't want to have to leave the office, they didn't want change, and despite not wanting to travel or do the things I did, they seemed to embrace what they claimed to dislike.
Don't feel sorry for me. I retired at
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:4, Interesting)
Very much this. The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves. It also takes a very limited mind to not have any real interests outside of what your bosses tell you to work on.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much this. The worst enemy of freedom (and free time) are happy, stupid slaves. It also takes a very limited mind to not have any real interests outside of what your bosses tell you to work on.
Another false dilemma. I have had a lot of hobbies before and since retirement. Yet I worked a lot of extra hours without an issue. That doesn't fith with your idea of if you like work, you'll have nothing else in your life.
Your's is the sort of logic that declares those guys living under the bridges as the winners in life.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just work (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not just work, I know the same thing applies to sports and just about everything people do. Especially as you become good at something it draws you in and you want to go further and get better. Success at something is in a real sense addictive. Eventually you get to the point Robert Heinlein described as: "There is no way to stop. Writers go on writing long after it becomes financially unnecessary... because it hurts less to write than it does not to write."
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just work, I know the same thing applies to sports and just about everything people do. Especially as you become good at something it draws you in and you want to go further and get better. Success at something is in a real sense addictive. Eventually you get to the point Robert Heinlein described as: "There is no way to stop. Writers go on writing long after it becomes financially unnecessary... because it hurts less to write than it does not to write."
Its a passion. And fortunately probably 95 percent of us don't have one. And that really isn't a bad thing. Altogether too many people are told "Just follow your passion, and you will be happy". That's bullshit.
Most people are like what you see in here in Slashdot. THey don't like their jobs,they don't want to give a moment's extra time because they believe that is harming them somehow. And they have all manner of platitudes for people who do. ike "They have no family life" "They die as soon as they reti
Do not work hard. (Score:5, Interesting)
A mentor of mine, consummate if ever there was one, had worked 45 years at The Aerospace Corporation. Over his career, he had saved numerous satellite programs well over a billion dollars in total. He worked long, hard hours, dedicating every ounce of energy to The Aerospace Corporation.
He was the tops. He'd call me near the end of a fiscal year, and ask if I could spend-out $250k on supplies or equipment, for my own projects, within two or three weeks. "Spend!" one of his emails stated. That level of power, combined with the above-described level of dedication and supreme engineering insight and service.
Then he had a stroke. Within less than two months, he had been forced into retirement (no 6-month Disability leave for you!). Seriously, two months! That is the thanks that he got for saving innumerable satellite programs $100M's, amounting to over $1B in his career. A little vascular oopsie suddenly ended it all, and he was unceremoniously kicked out the door. There was a tiny, awkward "retirement" party, where he was presented with a wooden box of artifacts from his greatest satellite program achievements –worthless to him in a nursing home.
I noticed that while he was examining this 'treasure-box' to the sound of fake-happy applause from everyone at The Aerospace Corporation, no one, not even his attendant nurse, bothered to take a moment to wipe away the huge, gross erupted boil on his left temple. Its core was about 3/4-inch long, and was just lolling there on his face, while everyone took pictures and pretended that it was a celebration.
That is what you get for dedication to a corporate entity such as The Aerospace Corporation. No bonuses. No overtime. And when your body has a little glitch, you are yesterday's garbage.
All companies are like this.
PS — I cannot tell you the name of the company I worked for, but perhaps you can figure it out from the hints.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I know. Was it The Aerospace Corporation?
Re: (Score:2)
That sucks. Good indication of why our country is going down the toilet, we feel like we have no choice but to have this attitude to protect our own sanity and wellbeing, lest it be sucked out of us.
Re: (Score:2)
So, have you ever visited this mentor in his nursing home?
If not, you're part of the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot tell you the name of the company I worked for, but perhaps you can figure it out from the hints.
Umm. Boeing?
Read Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers [amazon.com]. A good analysis of employee surveys and statistics collected at that company which pretty much illustrate the same points you made. Particularly stress related health problems. The sooner you get out of that company, the longer you'll live.
Re:Do not work hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your apocryphal story might have a little more insight if his job caused him to have the stroke.
You mean, like if stress were a major contributor to cardiovascular disease?
Why do I work so hard? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just over five years ago, my wife and I were overjoyed to bring a baby girl into this world.
By the time she was two, she was diagnosed as autistic. Not the mild kind where the kid turns out to be really into one hobby; the more severe sort where she was markedly disabled.
So we put her into therapy, into a program that uses scientifically identified treatments; which measures every goal, every progress, and charts and records every bit of minutiae to inform further therapy. We get some government funding, but my wife and I put an extra $40k/year into her therapy of our own money. And neither of us come from wealthy backgrounds, so this isn't pocket change for us by any stretch. We get by by doing without so many of the things our own peers take for granted, including basic things like home ownership. We don't get to go out much, and don't go on fancy holidays. We don't buy things that aren't essential. We have no retirement savings.
And you know what? Our little girl has made progress. She can't speak. I clean piss and shit out of our rugs several times a day. But she is very affectionate, and loves nothing more than to hug and kiss us. She likes to lead the people she loves and trusts by the finger to her favourite toys and activities so we can play together. She loves to laugh. She has an amazing capacity for processing symbols, including letters and numbers, well above her typically developing age group. She can read and spell. She is quite surprising at her ability to use electronics, and carries an iPad with software on it to help her communicate with others. She is exceptionally happy all of the time (we count our blessings that she doesn't have any of the behavioural issues often connected to children with autism).
Beyond the therapy, we set money aside in trust for her for when she is an adult. It's unknowable at this time whether she'll be able to function independently when she's older. My wife and I are very well aware that we won't live forever, and barring any sort of tragedy she'll easily outlive us. So on top of the therapy expense, we put away what we can into investments in her name for the long term -- we're talking 15 - 80 years (based on current life expectancy). We have to plan way ahead, as we can't stomach the idea of her being placed into an institution with nothing when we're gone to dust.
(She has no siblings to help take care of her when we're gone. When your first child is disabled with a disability that most probably has a genetic component, you start having to have conversations and make decisions you would never ever have to worry about otherwise. Will the next child also be disabled? Will they be even more seriously disabled? How could we ever afford to care for two disabled children, when we just scrape by with the one we have? Can we afford to take that risk, knowing that both children may suffer because of it? The idea of having a baby shouldn't be fear inducing, and yet that's what the concept holds for my wife and I. There is currently no genetic testing the can be done for autism. We as parents can't be tested. A gestating fetus can't be tested. It's a crap-shoot, and we don't even know the odds).
So why do I work hard? I do it for her. It's her one and only chance at ever having any sort of life. I'll probably never be able to retire -- I fully expect to die at my desk. This wasn't at all what I had planned for my life, but it's the life I have before me. What's more, she's worth it. My reward is when she knows it's time to go to bed, and she leads me by the finger to her bed for a story, a song, a cuddle, and a kiss goodnight.
(Posted anonymously for obvious reasons)
Re: (Score:3)
That's amazing. She is very lucky to have such caring parents. Good luck to you all.
Re: (Score:2)
+1, Inspirational
Protestant work ethic (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's all down to the protestant work ethic that's been drilled into the minds of all westerners for generations. "Work hard in this life, and you shall receive your just rewards in the next life" and so on. This was dreamed up by royalty, nobility and particularly the church, in order to keep the masses complacent and too tired to effect a proper revolt.
And then there's the just-word fallacy, that those who work hard also earn the rewards, which is demonstrably false and always has been.
Quantity over Quality... (Score:2)
People work a lot because the hours worked are easily quantifiable. Quality (and hence productivity) is far, far harder to estimate as it actually requires understanding. At the same time, science and common sense (a rare commodity these days) tells us that people working a lot have decreased overall productivity, hence working hard is about the most stupid thing you can do or require your underlings to do.
This is not a new problem, and its root cause has been known for a very, very long time: "A good decis
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time, science and common sense (a rare commodity these days) tells us that people working a lot have decreased overall productivity, hence working hard is about the most stupid thing you can do or require your underlings to do.
You took working a lot, and made it the same thing as working hard.
The two are not even the same thing. Allow me to explain.
Our ex-neighbor's daughter is a tad lazy. They would give her a job, like raking the leaves in the yard, and she would moan and whine, act all put upon, and end up taking an entire day to do a two hour job. She definitely worked long - taking 8 or 9 hours to do the job. She certainly thought she was working hard.
Now in my own case, I put in a lot of hours, and I enjoyed fixing pr
We do multiple jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
Wrong title (Score:4, Funny)
My experience in life and the workplace is that the majority of people do as little as possible.
Some of them can spend hours a day telling you how busy they are.
Because reward for job done well is more jobs. (Score:5, Insightful)
After making from second lieutenant to lieutenant to captain and then may be major, the reward for job done well is more work. Meanwhile the same starting class are the slackers who don't work very hard, but also not very smart, they get stuck at lower level. But a few smart slackers manage to sneak through, getting help from hard workers, finding the hard workers and joining their team and wangling some reflected glory etc etc. These are the ones, who don't work very hard, but they have the eye for figuring out who are hard working but not so astute people. They are the ones, we want in management. We find them and promote them higher than major to lt-col, brigs level. They smartly direct lots of work to hard workers who are capable of working hard.
Of course the hard workers realize they have been had, but it would be too late. The retired majors sit in the officers club, drowning their sorrows over scotch on the rocks, will tell everyone within listening distance, "Brigadier Ramaseshan. class of 84, Rajasthan Rifles, heard of him? Let me tell you what a chump he is. Couple of years junior to me, we were..." They will be surrounded by others similar to them, "Come one, Ramaseshan is nothing. Rear Admiral Dahage, Class of 82, GOC-in-C Western Naval Command, he was once arrested by Delhi police for riding a bicycle in the Cannaught Circus into the fountain. In his pajamas! At 3 AM" "Really? I knew he was arrested, but I thought he stole a policeman's helmet or something".
Revolutions (Score:3)
So, we've had an industrial revolution, a technical revolution and lately the IT revolution, these should of resulted in less work, so why are people working long hours?
You could point out that people used to work 60-70 hours per week, but I'd point out in return that those people likely lived a few minutes away from where they worked and so the situation is nearly as bad now as it was a hundred years ago if you take commuting in to account. Salaried workers are working 49 hours per week and often commuting 10+ hours per week.
If the French can live comfortably with a 35 hour working week then why can't the rest of us?
Re: (Score:2)
This is sparta? (Score:2)
The amazing fact about sparta is they were outnumbered 1 vs 10 by their slaves.
Slaves that oppositely to Athena they would overwork, underprotect and overtrain to be their cannon folder. Basically overpowering and overnumbering the citizens.
And only twice over centuries did they have revolts. Once from the Thebans that valued critical thinking.
Else, every culture seems to be more likely to more easy to exploit the more they were exploited.
The "ilotes" paradox. Exploitation of slaves seems to make them more
Work smart .... (Score:2)
Isn't this a first world problem? (Score:2)
Forced overtime (Score:2)
Work (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Because I love my job (Score:4, Interesting)
Amen. I wouldn't say I love my job, but it's a branch of the kind of work I like to do (3d modeling and programming). I work the hardest when I work a full 8 hour day, then go home and instead of watching TV, work on my own projects. It is in these days I feel the most fulfilled. The days where I just work 8 hours and then veg out watching cartoons are the days I feel the least fulfilled.
Sometimes I'm needed to work on a crunch time schedule. I hate those, but I'm almost never alone in this and we're always happy at the end. It's like defeating a dragon. It didn't eat us alive, we're proud of ourselves, and now our boss's are really happy with us too.
Hard work in life is normal. What isn't is when you're too far removed from the fruits of your labor and are unable to take pride in it (like fast food or low-end retail). When you have pride in your work, and you can take credit for your part in it, it feels good.
Re: (Score:2)
What people say and what they do are different things. That even applies to the ones like Hitler. How do you think he managed to get so much popular support? Right, by promising things to the people that the people wanted (delivery optional). Very much like, say, Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Hitler did exactly what he said he would. Within 5 years, the German worker and the German intellectual were equals. It wasn't like today where writers and artists shit all over waiters and plumbers.
Re: (Score:3)
If Hitler had of aimed his obsessions at peaceful endeavours (like the advancement of science, space exploration, etc), who knows what the world would have been like today...
That's because he tapped into the resentment of post World War One, as well as opening up and encouraging latent racism.
Hatred can get a lot of stuff done in a short time, but is always self destructive in the end. When your main tool is eliminating enemies of the state, eventually everyone looks alike an enemy. His thousand year Reich only lasted a few years for a good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, one of _those_. You should get help, you fail at being human.
Incidentally, I know quite a few really good engineers with children. And most of them even know that working more is a really, really stupid thing to do for an engineer because that increases error-rate dramatically and reduces creativity and insight. But I guess a self-absorbed narcissist like you cannot even grasp that idea.