>My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things. [links to long bike trip]
Ok that's cool and all but many of us have bills to pay. Bike trips don't pay the bills. Software people have been economically advantaged up until now that they can go and do stuff like that.
Even software people have bills to pay and mouths to feed. I think people like the article author are either single or have no dependents, and it's a big reason I cannot take many of these posts seriously. Much like the story of Peter Pan, the authors of these posts are college students who never grew up and had to be responsible.
Within a few years I think UBI or UBS will be required for people to continue living, in which case basic needs (bills) won't be a concern. There's just no way for us to transition fast enough to avoid high unemployment as AI replaces large swaths of jobs. I do worry about the ~10 year transition it will take for societal governments to react.
I think UBI is a pipe dream. I live in the UK and even with our social safety net which is much stronger than the US's, I can't imagine the government ever handing out money adequate to live a middle class life to large chunk of the population.
UBI has problems that far as I know haven't been addressed. Vast numbers of people no longer being occupied doesn't seem like it would lead to a healthy society. And how do you uphold democracy when the government is effectively handing out the paychecks?
>Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
Can't uphold what isn't there, lol
As for how do we avoid becoming WALL-E blobs... elite opinion seems to suggest the UBI will be just enough to prevent people from going into the streets with pitchforks, but not enough for a dignified life. (Enough to live in ze pod and eat ze proverbial bugs.)
I don't see employment being a very big thing (unless AI creates some kinda fake jobs economy to pacify the humans, which would be a rational thing to do).
The crisis of meaning is going to be worse than the economic crisis, and I think people would literally pay to work rather than question their existence on such a deep level.
Beyond fake jobs and human-only jobs (robot can't replace the cute barista at Starbucks!), I think entrepreneurship will be the only real vehicle. So... basically how it already is today.
Within a few years I think UBI or UBS will be required for people to continue living, in which case basic needs (bills) won't be a concern. There's just no way for us to transition fast enough to avoid high unemployment as AI replaces large swaths of jobs. I do worry about the ~10 year transition it will take for societal governments to react.
This strikes me as wildly optimistic. People aren't going to be able to live on UBI at a level where massive political and social unrest is averted unless it's like $2k per person per month, minimum. And I'm skeptical that the US government is going to start printing $8.5 trillion dollars of UBI in the next decade.
There’s an old aphorism: “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”
I worked in tech, because I love tech. No other reason, really. I accepted a job, making maybe half of what I could make, elsewhere, because of the personal satisfaction I got from it, and the relationships I made, there.
When I retired, I have continued to develop software, and am currently “leaning into” AI-assisted development.
During that time, I’ve also had plenty of time to be human.
I have found that aphorism does not ring true for me.
“Do what you love for work, and you'll stop loving it" seems more true to me. It always eventually turns into a chore once it is a thing you need to do.
On the one hand, I think a lot of the ruinous parts are the extra things it forces beyond the parts you actually love. So the problem there is you are actually doing a bunch of things you don't love, so do "work" some portion of your day.
The other is that many of us do love a bit of oppositional defiance. Doing what is demanded of us by others is definitely not doing what we love in that respect!
I enjoy writing and designing software systems, and have since my first apple ii use in 2nd grade writing logo programs (the turtle drawing programming language)
I write software in my spare time, for fun, as it scratches a particular itch in my brain, but I also enjoy a lot of other hobbies as well: woodworking, car repair, boating, beekeeping...
Having a 9 to 5 desk job in any field is it's own type of soul crushing, even moreso as of late for myself personally. However, if I need to perform the song and dance to support my family, I'll at least do it to the tune of something I enjoy. With software engineering I can at least "get lost in" the work, so the drudgery can be temporarily forgotten until I can get home to my family and side projects.
IMO, there are more steps. Do what you love for work, someone will exploit you for it, and break your heart.
One of my kids has taken this advice, does art (really good art) for themselves and is pursuing a STEM career instead. The other is pursuing a game dev career, despite every current and former dev in his life warning him off for the last fifteen years. To quote Kissing Jessica Stein, “OY! This child will suffer.”
It certainly killed a lot of my tinkering outside of work, but that's more a matter of when I'm already doing the thing for most of the day, even though I like it I don't always want to continue doing it for the rest of the day too when I get home.
I'm really glad that I left the rodent rally, but I did not want to leave tech. I just wanted to be in a place, where my work doesn't get fed into a wood-chipper, by terrible managers.
Once they were taken out of the equation, happiness ensued.
I deliberately turn down jobs that pay. Once someone pays me for my work, I'm duty-bound to give them what they pay for; even if that sucks, and I don't like doing bad work.
This was the same for me. The only things I did not like about tech were not really related to tech but rather bad leadership or the wrong kinds of leadership. Early in my career I worked for one of the worst and literally most criminal managed hosting organizations and it was the best boon for my career making me fearless. I learned how to remove all emotion from my experiences and off-board bad leaders. Everything else for me was being in the right place around the right people at the right time and teaching those around me everything I knew in hopes they would take over those tasks. My biggest satisfaction and what I took the most pride in was helping others with their careers and helping them off-board bad and abusive management.
I am "privileged," but pretty much every other vocation has been in a place where people are getting squeezed by others or tools. Nothing new here, folks.
It's just that now, the bell tolls for tech workers, and they are suddenly getting to understand what other fields have been dealing with, for decades -centuries, in some cases.
50% of your waking hours are spent at work. The person you are revolves around your working hours, the problems you solve the concerns you have, the money you make the persona you display at work.
Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
Maybe you wish to be more than your working self. That’s honorable and desirable. Just declaring it isn’t going to cut it though.
> Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
I retired a few years ago, and I believe and insist that I am very much the same person.
To see a person only as what they do at work seems awfully limiting. Even when I was working, I was also a sailor, musician, woodworker, home brewer, cat person, chess player, leather guy, and a good number of other things. And yes, even after retiring, I am still a computer guy. I even like hobby coding projects more than I did.
I'd only become more "me" if I stopped working. Work isn't a place I go to self actualize, it's a place I go to earn money to do the things I want to do.
Maybe, maybe not. Directly, I only work about 30h/week, so I actually have 86 hours of free time and 30 hours of work per week.
And, at this point I'm working for my kids, not for me. I could have easily retired years ago if I didn't have kids. I could retire right now but my kids might not inherit much if I did. I lucked into a field that paid me > 10x the median salary in the US, but my kids might not be so lucky.
So, I'm working a little harder and longer than I need to, so that my kids perhaps don't have to. 1 year of working and saving for me might, 25 years from now, mean my kids can retire 10 years earlier than they would. That seems like a worthwhile thing for me to do, even if it means I have a little less "me" time.
This idea that you are not your job is ridiculous because of the amount of time that you spend at your work. And it’s not just fifty of your waking hours, right? There’s also time spent preparing for, commuting to, and winding down from that work. And also, you know, how much of your work are you doing in the shower? It stains the rest of your life; it soaks into everything.
This concept goes hand in hand with...
(oh, to say nothing of the many years of your life dedicated to developing this vocation through school and training or whatever. So it’s not just hours of the day; it’s years of your life that revolve around developing this vocation. It’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that it’s possible to separate yourself meaningfully from your vocation. Frankly, it’s insulting—to suggest that such separation is possible or even preferable, or to judge people for failing to separate their vocation from their identity when it’s impossible.
It makes me think of some of the impossible requirements placed on women: that they not be too slutty while at the same time not wearing a hijab or being too conservative. They get pressure from both sides, and there’s very little space, if any, that goes unjudged or unremarked upon. Having children too early, too late, or not at all—women will get flack from one corner of society or another. Likewise, workers get flack for overidentifying with their vocation, but it’s really impossible to extricate ourselves from it. For that reason, I find the whole idea offensive.)
...this concept of not making friends at work—or of distinguishing between your “work friends” and your “real friends.”
People tell me, “Your manager is not your friend. Your co-workers are not here to be your friends. You shouldn’t expect loyalty from them.” And okay, I get that. I understand the economic realities; I’ve had co-workers say things like, “Hey, I agree with you on this one, but I have a mortgage. I have kids in college. So I’m not going to speak up. I’m not going to join you in this complaint or in this effort to improve working conditions.”
I understand there are real economic constraints on the friendships, the loyalty, and the relationships that we establish in the office. I’ve also had co-workers who were loyal, empathetic, caring, honest, earnest—decent, good people—and they were groomed for management in a way that basically meant that once a week they’d be taken into a room and grilled about everyone else’s behavior. They were made into unwilling spies, and that has a chilling effect on the depth of friendships you can create.
What’s tragic about that is, as I said at the start, because so much of our lives are dedicated to our vocation, the fact that we cannot establish meaningful, trusting, loyal relationships—that we’re forced to snitch on and betray one another—is a stunning, fundamental, disgusting injustice.
It’s an enormous violation of human liberties and possibilities. It is an utterly debased compromise that we’ve made as a society, one that wrecks us. It is a deeply troubling flaw in our foundation—that the majority of our hours, days, and years are dedicated to an environment where mutual trust and free association are fundamentally compromised.
Well put. It's also eye-opening to watch some exceptionally lucky/gifted individuals exude an unmistakable air of deep contentment that only comes from being "time-rich" i.e. possessing complete command of your time. They get to strictly curate the projects and people around which their livelihood revolves. They can't stop gushing about it. It's like even they cannot believe that they are forming lifelong friendships and having meaningful experiences AT work; b/c everyone had told'em that life exists 'outside of work'.
Of course, that's a ride inaccessible to rest of us plebs, but it's nonetheless insightful to see what that ticket buys.
More like 15% of you work from home for a small company and shut the fuck up about wanting to be a career man. If you're not a homo consumator and play your cards right that's enough to check out of the corporate life before 45
When you meet someone, you assess them on two dimensions. The first is warmth - do you believe they mean you well? The second is competence - do you believe they're capable?
Well, sometimes.
At other times, the assessment may be based on signalling, tribalism, perception of status, personal connections, career connections, transactional goals, or other criteria.
Some people don't have or can't show warmth. Or they don't have the ability to "crack a joke at the right time" or make small talk. Should that be held against people when making assessments?
Some people indeed identify too much with their jobs, but for many others getting replaced by A.I means on very practical terms - a huge hit in salary, it means possibly retraining - maybe for years, means stress to the family (mortgage, bills etc) perhaps even stress to the marriage.
I disagree that the people near you only love you or need you for your presence; they also rely on your paycheck. Your daugher may love you for you but she needs that check to the private school, that money for nice clothes and gadgets like her friends all have and paying for that apartment in the nice neighborhood.
I know it's hard, but I guess it's a good idea to live below your means in case something happens, and also save considerably to face moments of uncertainty. People with tech salaries can do it. Most of the world (and country, independently of where you live) live with much less.
Agreed with the title and some of the broad sentiment, but two things stood out.
> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known
Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.
> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to
There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.
For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.
With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.
Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.
One's job and the rest of one's life are not clearly delineated. Best friends and spouses are often met through work, which is inexplicably linked with one's actual performance on the job. This article treats them as if they are isolated. Also, it's worth noting that one's sense of purpose (as in career) is important to happiness, just as being part of a strong social network in one's personal life is. Balance is key.
People don't need self-help advise, they need a fair redistribution of increased productivity.
We don't make a big deal of our jobs because we are stupid - it's the society that assigns this or that income to this or that job, and income determines lifestyle or in worst case the survival.
I want to thank everyone who hates work, is mentally checked out of their jobs and quiet quitting etc.
It makes it much easier for me to distinguish myself as a hard worker who cares about the business being successful. It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
When you are old and have lots of formative experiences that are not work-based, we can shake hands and mutually appreciate each other's motives and respective outcomes.
I am arguably a successful employee in a tech-focused role. I enjoy my job and others seem to feel I'm good at what I do.
That said: I am NOT at all interested in identifying myself in social situations by my job. When someone asks what I do, I respond that I work in tech. I am not interested in giving more details nor talking in-depth about what I do to others I have just met.
Why? Because that's not at all what makes me...me. I am far more interested in what I do outside of work (reading...a lot, listening to music, spending as much time w/my family as possible, traveling, spending time at my lake home, etc). That is what I work to do; enjoy my life.
I realize this is an uncommon opinion, but I find it SO VERY ODD that folks are OBSESSED about their jobs and make it a central point of their existence to those outside of their specific industry. I do NOT care what someone does for their day-to-day; it's unlikely it will have any impact on me or my friendship with them. I want to know what they bring to the table in our current or potential social situation and the fact that they make PowerPoint presentations for whomever to look at, ask a few questions answered in the presentation's appendix, and never think about again doesn't do anything to further any of that.
I’d much rather know and learn about someone’s passion for woodworking, hill walking, flower arranging, whatever they enjoy doing in their free time, rather than having to talk about their (or my!) work.
So you are saying that your job does not have any impact on your personality, despite you are there for 8+h a day?
The environment you are in for hours (even if its great, you are forced) does not shapre who you are?
And regarding social interactions: Its no difference for you interacting with people from your mind-liked crowd in opposion to someone who runs a gun-shop-chain? For sure, a constructed example, but Id say there is for sure some difference when acting with the different groups?
> So you are saying that your job does not have any impact on your personality, despite you are there for 8+h a day
(Not OP) It's not a core part of it, no. I'm a person who likes solving problems and has an attention to detail. If I see that something is wrong I have a desire to fix it regardless of it's my responsibility or not. This could be finding an outdated piece of documentation at work or finding a piece of litter on the street.
These traits make me an effective software engineer (up to the senior level, then I have to fight against those parts of my personality and focus on specific high-impact things if I want to succeed at Staff+), but they are a part of who I am totally independent from my career.
Software engineering is a field that I am good at and that pays exceptionally well, but I could be happy utilizing these traits in any number of careers. Were I financially independent, my dream career would probably be something closer to the people who design and build elaborate contraptions for stage shows such as Cirque du Soleil.
Yeah! IMHO "What are you into / what do you care about or do for fun?" should replace "What do you do? [ie, what's your profession / where do you work]" as the default ice-breaker. More interesting, less reductive or competitive.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
If you believe the managers who interact with you have any say in who gets laid off, then your understanding of how business works isn't nearly as good as you seem to believe it is.
Something tells me you haven't been laid off before. I think the overconfidence you're displaying here will be shattered if that were to happen. I hope it doesn't happen to you, but if it does I hope you remember that you are not your job.
I think it has a lot to do with the size of the organization. If you're at a relatively small company, it's not that hard to identify and retain the top performers.
If you're at a faceless megacorp, that's a different story.
You can be laid off at small companies too. For example, a company may be running out of runway and it's looking increasingly likely the next round of funding will not materialize in time. It needs to control expenses and extend runway an extra 6 months, but everyone's a "top-performer". Who gets laid off? It's likely going to be those adding features (e.g. product folks), not those maintaining the business (accounting, devops). We can get into whether it's a good idea to kick off the death spiral for a company in that way, but my point is that no one is immune to layoffs, not at any scale, except maybe the founders.
> worker who cares about the business being successful
In most cases, this is a sucker mentality that makes you vulnerable to abusive employers. You will stress yourself out making your boss richer. They won't care or make reciprocal gestures. They'd be happy to replace you should you become inconvenient.
It’s not about stressing yourself out; that’s something you can ultimately control (though admittedly, many people are bad at separating the two) but more about _how good you are at putting on a show_ of giving a shit.
There is a non zero chance that the company I work for pivots into some weird crypto niche (low, but we’re already fintech-y). If that happens, I’m out, but no way in hell am I gonna pivot my work personality overnight because of a business decision made by the company’s board and investors.
If I need to put on a happy face for my boss to keep my job, then I’m gonna do it because I can’t afford not to at the moment. That’s not to say there is no line, but being a generally positive person in the workplace is a role I’m fine with playing. It costs me very little personally and opens a lot of doors because let’s face it, nobody likes working with a loathsome human being, even if they’re right.
Am I a sucker? Maybe by your definition, but I don’t feel like one currently.
I mostly agree with the parent post. There certainly are roles where the entire scope of the job is to convert Jira tickets to code and nothing else and nobody will blame you for being a checked out 9-5er in such places but that isn't the audience of HN. Most here are software engineers who get fairly broad latitude to exercise judgment and expertise/education in furtherance of business goals and that's they get the FAANG-sized paycheck and RSUs/stock grants for. And you better believe colleagues in those roles notice who is just doing the minimum and who is helping to achieve goals.
I've known people who survived multiple rounds of layoffs, not because they were "distinguished", but because they were the cheapest. Meanwhile, their more talented counterparts got the ax for being too expensive. Simple as that.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
I can assure you that when they are laying off to cut costs, which is most of the time, what they notice is A) the old/expensive ones who can be let go without any major disruptions and B) the "expendables" such as contractors or those they have a personal dislike of - the latter usually has not much to do with hard work and a lot more to do with perception. Category A is to meet cost targets while category B can also help with number targets.
If you think your hard work alone will save you, I pray that life spares you that rude shock.
I have no faith that this is satire since America is full of people who underestimate the impact of luck and privilege in the course of their life in favor of a view that everything is due to their own personal efforts and the suffering of others is obviously due to their personal defects. These people will relentlessly defend any actions by the owner class without realizing that they themselves are not in that class and never will be. They say things like this a lot.
It does matter because it's your network that gets you your next job and colleagues remember who was doing a good job and helping meet goals and those who didn't.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't do this here, no matter how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
The company has ex Fly.io people:;dissent is flagged. What a surprise. Fly.io will still end like Starfighter, where abusing HN for marketing did not work.
This was obvious to those who value their time over the job given to them and all the office politics, performative meetings and the blame-game that comes with it.
Indeed, thinking that people and the way they extract money from the environment is same is ridiculous and i've been teaching my kid from childhood that it's just wrong. We've been conditioned to think that way from the industrial era. I hope now people will finally learn to think different.
>My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things. [links to long bike trip]
Ok that's cool and all but many of us have bills to pay. Bike trips don't pay the bills. Software people have been economically advantaged up until now that they can go and do stuff like that.
Even software people have bills to pay and mouths to feed. I think people like the article author are either single or have no dependents, and it's a big reason I cannot take many of these posts seriously. Much like the story of Peter Pan, the authors of these posts are college students who never grew up and had to be responsible.
Within a few years I think UBI or UBS will be required for people to continue living, in which case basic needs (bills) won't be a concern. There's just no way for us to transition fast enough to avoid high unemployment as AI replaces large swaths of jobs. I do worry about the ~10 year transition it will take for societal governments to react.
I think UBI is a pipe dream. I live in the UK and even with our social safety net which is much stronger than the US's, I can't imagine the government ever handing out money adequate to live a middle class life to large chunk of the population.
UBI has problems that far as I know haven't been addressed. Vast numbers of people no longer being occupied doesn't seem like it would lead to a healthy society. And how do you uphold democracy when the government is effectively handing out the paychecks?
Recently: Ireland rolls out basic income scheme for artists
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46977175
Not quite UK, and not very big, but somewhat promising :)
>How do you uphold democracy
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
>Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
Can't uphold what isn't there, lol
As for how do we avoid becoming WALL-E blobs... elite opinion seems to suggest the UBI will be just enough to prevent people from going into the streets with pitchforks, but not enough for a dignified life. (Enough to live in ze pod and eat ze proverbial bugs.)
I don't see employment being a very big thing (unless AI creates some kinda fake jobs economy to pacify the humans, which would be a rational thing to do).
The crisis of meaning is going to be worse than the economic crisis, and I think people would literally pay to work rather than question their existence on such a deep level.
Beyond fake jobs and human-only jobs (robot can't replace the cute barista at Starbucks!), I think entrepreneurship will be the only real vehicle. So... basically how it already is today.
Within a few years I think UBI or UBS will be required for people to continue living, in which case basic needs (bills) won't be a concern. There's just no way for us to transition fast enough to avoid high unemployment as AI replaces large swaths of jobs. I do worry about the ~10 year transition it will take for societal governments to react.
This strikes me as wildly optimistic. People aren't going to be able to live on UBI at a level where massive political and social unrest is averted unless it's like $2k per person per month, minimum. And I'm skeptical that the US government is going to start printing $8.5 trillion dollars of UBI in the next decade.
There’s an old aphorism: “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”
I worked in tech, because I love tech. No other reason, really. I accepted a job, making maybe half of what I could make, elsewhere, because of the personal satisfaction I got from it, and the relationships I made, there.
When I retired, I have continued to develop software, and am currently “leaning into” AI-assisted development.
During that time, I’ve also had plenty of time to be human.
I have found that aphorism does not ring true for me.
“Do what you love for work, and you'll stop loving it" seems more true to me. It always eventually turns into a chore once it is a thing you need to do.
It's a bit fractal and tautological...
On the one hand, I think a lot of the ruinous parts are the extra things it forces beyond the parts you actually love. So the problem there is you are actually doing a bunch of things you don't love, so do "work" some portion of your day.
The other is that many of us do love a bit of oppositional defiance. Doing what is demanded of us by others is definitely not doing what we love in that respect!
I enjoy writing and designing software systems, and have since my first apple ii use in 2nd grade writing logo programs (the turtle drawing programming language)
I write software in my spare time, for fun, as it scratches a particular itch in my brain, but I also enjoy a lot of other hobbies as well: woodworking, car repair, boating, beekeeping...
Having a 9 to 5 desk job in any field is it's own type of soul crushing, even moreso as of late for myself personally. However, if I need to perform the song and dance to support my family, I'll at least do it to the tune of something I enjoy. With software engineering I can at least "get lost in" the work, so the drudgery can be temporarily forgotten until I can get home to my family and side projects.
IMO, there are more steps. Do what you love for work, someone will exploit you for it, and break your heart.
One of my kids has taken this advice, does art (really good art) for themselves and is pursuing a STEM career instead. The other is pursuing a game dev career, despite every current and former dev in his life warning him off for the last fifteen years. To quote Kissing Jessica Stein, “OY! This child will suffer.”
It certainly killed a lot of my tinkering outside of work, but that's more a matter of when I'm already doing the thing for most of the day, even though I like it I don't always want to continue doing it for the rest of the day too when I get home.
Yes and no.
I'm really glad that I left the rodent rally, but I did not want to leave tech. I just wanted to be in a place, where my work doesn't get fed into a wood-chipper, by terrible managers.
Once they were taken out of the equation, happiness ensued.
I deliberately turn down jobs that pay. Once someone pays me for my work, I'm duty-bound to give them what they pay for; even if that sucks, and I don't like doing bad work.
This was the same for me. The only things I did not like about tech were not really related to tech but rather bad leadership or the wrong kinds of leadership. Early in my career I worked for one of the worst and literally most criminal managed hosting organizations and it was the best boon for my career making me fearless. I learned how to remove all emotion from my experiences and off-board bad leaders. Everything else for me was being in the right place around the right people at the right time and teaching those around me everything I knew in hopes they would take over those tasks. My biggest satisfaction and what I took the most pride in was helping others with their careers and helping them off-board bad and abusive management.
Exactly.
I am "privileged," but pretty much every other vocation has been in a place where people are getting squeezed by others or tools. Nothing new here, folks.
It's just that now, the bell tolls for tech workers, and they are suddenly getting to understand what other fields have been dealing with, for decades -centuries, in some cases.
That's a very privileged thing to say about a career where the tools to replace developers did not exist
Thanks. I needed to be put in my place.
[dead]
"Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life."
It's possible sex workers took this advice too literally...
50% of your waking hours are spent at work. The person you are revolves around your working hours, the problems you solve the concerns you have, the money you make the persona you display at work.
Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
Maybe you wish to be more than your working self. That’s honorable and desirable. Just declaring it isn’t going to cut it though.
> Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
I retired a few years ago, and I believe and insist that I am very much the same person.
To see a person only as what they do at work seems awfully limiting. Even when I was working, I was also a sailor, musician, woodworker, home brewer, cat person, chess player, leather guy, and a good number of other things. And yes, even after retiring, I am still a computer guy. I even like hobby coding projects more than I did.
I'd only become more "me" if I stopped working. Work isn't a place I go to self actualize, it's a place I go to earn money to do the things I want to do.
It's also a place a great number of people have to hide who they are because they have to fit in.
This.
I refrain from making jokes or even smalltalk in my new role because I noticed people don't do that here and keep meetings to the point.
Super sad that the majority of your day for the majority of your life is repressive of your "self.*
Maybe, maybe not. Directly, I only work about 30h/week, so I actually have 86 hours of free time and 30 hours of work per week.
And, at this point I'm working for my kids, not for me. I could have easily retired years ago if I didn't have kids. I could retire right now but my kids might not inherit much if I did. I lucked into a field that paid me > 10x the median salary in the US, but my kids might not be so lucky.
So, I'm working a little harder and longer than I need to, so that my kids perhaps don't have to. 1 year of working and saving for me might, 25 years from now, mean my kids can retire 10 years earlier than they would. That seems like a worthwhile thing for me to do, even if it means I have a little less "me" time.
This idea that you are not your job is ridiculous because of the amount of time that you spend at your work. And it’s not just fifty of your waking hours, right? There’s also time spent preparing for, commuting to, and winding down from that work. And also, you know, how much of your work are you doing in the shower? It stains the rest of your life; it soaks into everything.
This concept goes hand in hand with...
(oh, to say nothing of the many years of your life dedicated to developing this vocation through school and training or whatever. So it’s not just hours of the day; it’s years of your life that revolve around developing this vocation. It’s deeply disingenuous to suggest that it’s possible to separate yourself meaningfully from your vocation. Frankly, it’s insulting—to suggest that such separation is possible or even preferable, or to judge people for failing to separate their vocation from their identity when it’s impossible.
It makes me think of some of the impossible requirements placed on women: that they not be too slutty while at the same time not wearing a hijab or being too conservative. They get pressure from both sides, and there’s very little space, if any, that goes unjudged or unremarked upon. Having children too early, too late, or not at all—women will get flack from one corner of society or another. Likewise, workers get flack for overidentifying with their vocation, but it’s really impossible to extricate ourselves from it. For that reason, I find the whole idea offensive.)
...this concept of not making friends at work—or of distinguishing between your “work friends” and your “real friends.”
People tell me, “Your manager is not your friend. Your co-workers are not here to be your friends. You shouldn’t expect loyalty from them.” And okay, I get that. I understand the economic realities; I’ve had co-workers say things like, “Hey, I agree with you on this one, but I have a mortgage. I have kids in college. So I’m not going to speak up. I’m not going to join you in this complaint or in this effort to improve working conditions.”
I understand there are real economic constraints on the friendships, the loyalty, and the relationships that we establish in the office. I’ve also had co-workers who were loyal, empathetic, caring, honest, earnest—decent, good people—and they were groomed for management in a way that basically meant that once a week they’d be taken into a room and grilled about everyone else’s behavior. They were made into unwilling spies, and that has a chilling effect on the depth of friendships you can create. What’s tragic about that is, as I said at the start, because so much of our lives are dedicated to our vocation, the fact that we cannot establish meaningful, trusting, loyal relationships—that we’re forced to snitch on and betray one another—is a stunning, fundamental, disgusting injustice.
It’s an enormous violation of human liberties and possibilities. It is an utterly debased compromise that we’ve made as a society, one that wrecks us. It is a deeply troubling flaw in our foundation—that the majority of our hours, days, and years are dedicated to an environment where mutual trust and free association are fundamentally compromised.
Well put. It's also eye-opening to watch some exceptionally lucky/gifted individuals exude an unmistakable air of deep contentment that only comes from being "time-rich" i.e. possessing complete command of your time. They get to strictly curate the projects and people around which their livelihood revolves. They can't stop gushing about it. It's like even they cannot believe that they are forming lifelong friendships and having meaningful experiences AT work; b/c everyone had told'em that life exists 'outside of work'.
Of course, that's a ride inaccessible to rest of us plebs, but it's nonetheless insightful to see what that ticket buys.
> 60% of your waking hours are spent at work.
More like 15% of you work from home for a small company and shut the fuck up about wanting to be a career man. If you're not a homo consumator and play your cards right that's enough to check out of the corporate life before 45
When you meet someone, you assess them on two dimensions. The first is warmth - do you believe they mean you well? The second is competence - do you believe they're capable?
Well, sometimes.
At other times, the assessment may be based on signalling, tribalism, perception of status, personal connections, career connections, transactional goals, or other criteria.
Some people don't have or can't show warmth. Or they don't have the ability to "crack a joke at the right time" or make small talk. Should that be held against people when making assessments?
>Should that be held against people when making assessments?
It shouldn't but it does.
We're currently in the process of designing and building machines that can do everything better, faster and cheaper than humans.
Gradually, we are succeeding.
This leaves us with two options:
a) Decouple the value of human life from economic output
b) Watch as the value of human life rapidly approaches zero
The people who figure this out early are rare. Most only get there after losing the job or burning out completely. Shame it takes that long
Some people indeed identify too much with their jobs, but for many others getting replaced by A.I means on very practical terms - a huge hit in salary, it means possibly retraining - maybe for years, means stress to the family (mortgage, bills etc) perhaps even stress to the marriage. I disagree that the people near you only love you or need you for your presence; they also rely on your paycheck. Your daugher may love you for you but she needs that check to the private school, that money for nice clothes and gadgets like her friends all have and paying for that apartment in the nice neighborhood.
I know it's hard, but I guess it's a good idea to live below your means in case something happens, and also save considerably to face moments of uncertainty. People with tech salaries can do it. Most of the world (and country, independently of where you live) live with much less.
Nobody needs private school, give me a fucking break.
It's an example, you give me a fucking break.
Agreed with the title and some of the broad sentiment, but two things stood out.
> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known
Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.
> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to
There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.
For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.
With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.
Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.
[flagged]
Fine essay overall but “We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to”
I really don’t think this is true
The US could make homelessness a thing of the past with a minuscule fraction of what it is spending on the military. It is very much a choice.
One's job and the rest of one's life are not clearly delineated. Best friends and spouses are often met through work, which is inexplicably linked with one's actual performance on the job. This article treats them as if they are isolated. Also, it's worth noting that one's sense of purpose (as in career) is important to happiness, just as being part of a strong social network in one's personal life is. Balance is key.
People don't need self-help advise, they need a fair redistribution of increased productivity.
We don't make a big deal of our jobs because we are stupid - it's the society that assigns this or that income to this or that job, and income determines lifestyle or in worst case the survival.
I used to BE a software engineer. Then, I experienced a 3 years long burnout and got professional help. Now I work AS an Engineering Manager.
You are not your job. Do not put your ego in what you do. That’s something I discuss a lot during my 1:1s.
I am not my age or gender either in this sense, but I am still going to say 'I am a man' and 'I am x years old', because I am fluent in English.
I want to thank everyone who hates work, is mentally checked out of their jobs and quiet quitting etc.
It makes it much easier for me to distinguish myself as a hard worker who cares about the business being successful. It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
When you are old and have lots of formative experiences that are not work-based, we can shake hands and mutually appreciate each other's motives and respective outcomes.
I am arguably a successful employee in a tech-focused role. I enjoy my job and others seem to feel I'm good at what I do.
That said: I am NOT at all interested in identifying myself in social situations by my job. When someone asks what I do, I respond that I work in tech. I am not interested in giving more details nor talking in-depth about what I do to others I have just met.
Why? Because that's not at all what makes me...me. I am far more interested in what I do outside of work (reading...a lot, listening to music, spending as much time w/my family as possible, traveling, spending time at my lake home, etc). That is what I work to do; enjoy my life.
I realize this is an uncommon opinion, but I find it SO VERY ODD that folks are OBSESSED about their jobs and make it a central point of their existence to those outside of their specific industry. I do NOT care what someone does for their day-to-day; it's unlikely it will have any impact on me or my friendship with them. I want to know what they bring to the table in our current or potential social situation and the fact that they make PowerPoint presentations for whomever to look at, ask a few questions answered in the presentation's appendix, and never think about again doesn't do anything to further any of that.
Well said, thanks
I’d much rather know and learn about someone’s passion for woodworking, hill walking, flower arranging, whatever they enjoy doing in their free time, rather than having to talk about their (or my!) work.
So you are saying that your job does not have any impact on your personality, despite you are there for 8+h a day? The environment you are in for hours (even if its great, you are forced) does not shapre who you are?
And regarding social interactions: Its no difference for you interacting with people from your mind-liked crowd in opposion to someone who runs a gun-shop-chain? For sure, a constructed example, but Id say there is for sure some difference when acting with the different groups?
> So you are saying that your job does not have any impact on your personality, despite you are there for 8+h a day
(Not OP) It's not a core part of it, no. I'm a person who likes solving problems and has an attention to detail. If I see that something is wrong I have a desire to fix it regardless of it's my responsibility or not. This could be finding an outdated piece of documentation at work or finding a piece of litter on the street.
These traits make me an effective software engineer (up to the senior level, then I have to fight against those parts of my personality and focus on specific high-impact things if I want to succeed at Staff+), but they are a part of who I am totally independent from my career.
Software engineering is a field that I am good at and that pays exceptionally well, but I could be happy utilizing these traits in any number of careers. Were I financially independent, my dream career would probably be something closer to the people who design and build elaborate contraptions for stage shows such as Cirque du Soleil.
Yeah! IMHO "What are you into / what do you care about or do for fun?" should replace "What do you do? [ie, what's your profession / where do you work]" as the default ice-breaker. More interesting, less reductive or competitive.
It sounds like you have a privileged life, and a hard time getting into the shoes of people who don’t.
Do you have any friends? Your job is a good topic that allows you to find something in common with another person.
I prefer to ask people what they do for fun when looking for something in common, as opposed to what they do for work.
Some people are recently laid off, and asking what they do for work might sting a bit.
Not if they work outside of tech…
Traveling? Lake home? I am glad to go to work just to not listen to my wife how we are so poor and cannot have nice things.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
If you believe the managers who interact with you have any say in who gets laid off, then your understanding of how business works isn't nearly as good as you seem to believe it is.
Depends on the size of company. I’ve definitely worked for companies where I know for a fact that my manager had the final say.
Something tells me you haven't been laid off before. I think the overconfidence you're displaying here will be shattered if that were to happen. I hope it doesn't happen to you, but if it does I hope you remember that you are not your job.
I think it has a lot to do with the size of the organization. If you're at a relatively small company, it's not that hard to identify and retain the top performers.
If you're at a faceless megacorp, that's a different story.
You can be laid off at small companies too. For example, a company may be running out of runway and it's looking increasingly likely the next round of funding will not materialize in time. It needs to control expenses and extend runway an extra 6 months, but everyone's a "top-performer". Who gets laid off? It's likely going to be those adding features (e.g. product folks), not those maintaining the business (accounting, devops). We can get into whether it's a good idea to kick off the death spiral for a company in that way, but my point is that no one is immune to layoffs, not at any scale, except maybe the founders.
> everyone's a "top-performer"
Except, that’s very rarely the case IME.
We’re talking about improving, not guaranteeing, your odds long term employment.
> worker who cares about the business being successful
In most cases, this is a sucker mentality that makes you vulnerable to abusive employers. You will stress yourself out making your boss richer. They won't care or make reciprocal gestures. They'd be happy to replace you should you become inconvenient.
It’s not about stressing yourself out; that’s something you can ultimately control (though admittedly, many people are bad at separating the two) but more about _how good you are at putting on a show_ of giving a shit.
There is a non zero chance that the company I work for pivots into some weird crypto niche (low, but we’re already fintech-y). If that happens, I’m out, but no way in hell am I gonna pivot my work personality overnight because of a business decision made by the company’s board and investors.
If I need to put on a happy face for my boss to keep my job, then I’m gonna do it because I can’t afford not to at the moment. That’s not to say there is no line, but being a generally positive person in the workplace is a role I’m fine with playing. It costs me very little personally and opens a lot of doors because let’s face it, nobody likes working with a loathsome human being, even if they’re right.
Am I a sucker? Maybe by your definition, but I don’t feel like one currently.
> Am I a sucker? Maybe by your definition, but I don’t feel like one currently.
Part of being a sucker is not thinking you're a sucker.
> more about _how good you are at putting on a show_ of giving a shit.
> If I need to put on a happy face for my boss to keep my job,
OK, this is an entirely different thing. This is being dishonest.
I mostly agree with the parent post. There certainly are roles where the entire scope of the job is to convert Jira tickets to code and nothing else and nobody will blame you for being a checked out 9-5er in such places but that isn't the audience of HN. Most here are software engineers who get fairly broad latitude to exercise judgment and expertise/education in furtherance of business goals and that's they get the FAANG-sized paycheck and RSUs/stock grants for. And you better believe colleagues in those roles notice who is just doing the minimum and who is helping to achieve goals.
I've known people who survived multiple rounds of layoffs, not because they were "distinguished", but because they were the cheapest. Meanwhile, their more talented counterparts got the ax for being too expensive. Simple as that.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
I can assure you that when they are laying off to cut costs, which is most of the time, what they notice is A) the old/expensive ones who can be let go without any major disruptions and B) the "expendables" such as contractors or those they have a personal dislike of - the latter usually has not much to do with hard work and a lot more to do with perception. Category A is to meet cost targets while category B can also help with number targets.
If you think your hard work alone will save you, I pray that life spares you that rude shock.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
I got to this bit before realising this is satire
I have no faith that this is satire since America is full of people who underestimate the impact of luck and privilege in the course of their life in favor of a view that everything is due to their own personal efforts and the suffering of others is obviously due to their personal defects. These people will relentlessly defend any actions by the owner class without realizing that they themselves are not in that class and never will be. They say things like this a lot.
This approach makes huge sense when you're a contractor who is aiming to graduate into a staff engineer.
Yeah that.
I don’t put any effort in now. Still get paid the same. Now have more time for better stuff.
> It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
Sounds like you’re young and early in your career.
Wait till you’re part of a layoff where an entire division or arm of the company is axed in a 750 person headcount reduction.
Doesn’t matter how good you are, how many years of service you have or even if the CEO loves you. You’ll be out.
It does matter because it's your network that gets you your next job and colleagues remember who was doing a good job and helping meet goals and those who didn't.
We were talking about keeping a job, not finding a new one.
Hate to say it but very appropriate username.
[flagged]
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. You can't do this here, no matter how wrong another comment is or you feel it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Until you get fired…
The company has ex Fly.io people:;dissent is flagged. What a surprise. Fly.io will still end like Starfighter, where abusing HN for marketing did not work.
This was obvious to those who value their time over the job given to them and all the office politics, performative meetings and the blame-game that comes with it.
Indeed, thinking that people and the way they extract money from the environment is same is ridiculous and i've been teaching my kid from childhood that it's just wrong. We've been conditioned to think that way from the industrial era. I hope now people will finally learn to think different.
[dead]
[flagged]