Hacker News Reader

Comment by crusso | Hacker News Reader

People want to "live the life", I guess. You can't blame them for wanting money, free time, power, celebrity, and a beautiful family. I think that shooting for success in a "balanced" life is a great thing. What that balance is varies tremendously by the individual.

My only beef is when sideline critics go ballistic just because someone works hard and wants to be a part of a team that works hard. Take a look at the HN-linked article from yesterday where the Google manager talked frankly about being driven and the manager of a group that's very work-oriented and driven. From some of the comments in the thread, you'd think that she was talking about her joy of drowning kittens.

It's a shame to see that kind of attitude dominate the conversation of even one thread on HN, a site that should be open to many routes to success for entrepreneurs, including very hard work.

View on HN

I can't blame people for working in order to have money, bargaining in order to keep some free time. Those are constructive. Dominating everyone and being known by everyone are greedy goals which won't make you happy. If you want a spouse and kids you had better think they are beautiful.

People go ballistic when you suggest that they are obligated to accept terrible working conditions where they don't have (for example) any free time to spend with their beautiful family. They go ballistic because such arguments tend to be very successful and result in bad working conditions. Hopefully you understand that hard work does not require you to put in 160-hour weeks.

  People go ballistic when you suggest that they are obligated to accept terrible
  working conditions where they don't have (for example) any free time to spend
  with their beautiful family.

No, that's a straw man.

I'm talking about people going ballistic when there's no true obligation in question.

We're in a high-demand industry where you can normally go get another job. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions, but typically there isn't a need to suffer in a bad job. When I don't like my work/life/compensation balance, I find a new job. People I work with do the same thing.

Hell, HN is a site dedicated to people who have or aspire to creating their own companies to mold the work environments that suit them and the people with whom they wish to work. Read the article this thread is attached to. Ryan Carson is living a work/personal life balance that is enviable by many standards. I would argue that in order to allow people like Ryan to go out and do what they want, you need to allow other people who want different work/life/compensation balances to pursue the environments they want. Freedom of choice and encouragement to experiment would seem to be a much greater set of principles to embrace, rather than sniping at hard workers from the sidelines because their idea of working through a Saturday evening with their team while they're trying to get that big contract isn't your cup of tea.

What place does glorified perpetual self-victimization have here?

This is the actual issue. You have caricatured people you disagree with in order to make their position sound weaker than it really is. This is not about objectivism, this is about humane work conditions.

It is better if we do not promote a fashion of 160-hour work weeks, because that is bad for human beings. If you run a company, holding people's lives in your hands, you should try to be a good person who makes a good difference in those lives. From a production perspective, productivity actually drops off as fatigue increases. From a business standpoint you should want employees who generate significant value to be happy so they will be loyal rather than leaving or melting down. And it's probably better NOT to become known for squeezing dimes to the detriment of others' health because you thought that was a better way of making money than growing the business.

That isn't "sniping at hard workers" and it isn't "self-victimization." It is resisting the attempt of some employers to give everyone 160 hour work weeks and classify people who don't accept that as antisocial communist complainers. That isn't free-market capitalism, it is the company store.

Give people who bring value to your business fair conditions and fair pay. If a few people want to spend more time for some specific reason that doesn't need to be specifically encouraged and made into a fashion or a de facto requirement. This makes people miserable and it kills them early and it is wrong.

I'm going to leave this:

> You have caricatured people you disagree with

right next to this:

> It is better if we do not promote a fashion of 160-hour work weeks

If you disagree with the substance of what I'm saying, I'll happily discuss the finer points and think about my arguments vs the ones you're offering. I'm here to actively learn, share, and find motivation -- not really to just howl and argue by using fallacious reasoning and cheap debating tactics.

If all you can do is throw up straw men[1], then I'm going to have to challenge you to show where I've made any such arguments. You'll need to show where anyone is advocating 160 hour work weeks, much less "forcing" others to work 160 hour work weeks. That you're distorting the facts of easily-referenced articles[2] is troubling.

Seriously, I'm happy to concede a point and learn from my mistake... but if you think I'm making one, you'll need to provide better arguments.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[2] http://www.entrepreneur.com/blog/223723?Source=Taboola

"Celebrity" would be a negative side effect to me. Constantly under the microscope, open to criticism over every aspect of your life. Some people handle it well, but most do not it seems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com