Long time ago i went on http://omegle.com/ - a place where you can chat with strangers. I then end up talking with this guy from India who was an engineer, i then asked him how much he worked per day in hours, and the replay was about 12. This has gotten my brain to spin around.
I have came to the believe that we are working too much and there should be regulation as to how much we can work, why you may ask?
Why would you get a higher salary per hour, if this also means that you are gonna work for more hours? I mean dont people give credits to the sheer fact that they can do whatever they want once their workday is over?
I know in engineering there are deadlines, but why put those deadlines so tight? And i know prolonging a deadline will decrease the competitiveness of the company, but what if all nations could come together and say no one should work 12 hours per day, or even more than 8?
It should be a basic human right to not work more than 8 hours. It should be a right of the earth.
Now you may think that last sentence is wakky, but thats ok, because there is one more thing i have not touched yet: The environment.
As i see it, the destruction of our environment are closely linked together with how much we earn and thus how much we work. If people would earn less they couldnt consume so much as they do, and then we wouldnt destroy our planet like we do.
Also working less means parents will have more time with their children, this means we will have better manners, less people would get banned from TL, and there would be less crime in our society.
Now you may say that i am lazy, and i may be, but that has nothing to do with the content of this blog.
Are we really so confined in our mind that the only things we can do with our time are work, sleep and clean up the house we live in? Thats just wrong in so many ways, but i feel im the only one who can see it.
Also if you watch the movie Crooked E: The Unshredded Truth about Enron there in one of the last scenes + Show Spoiler +
Where you meet the big CEO, i just cant forget this scene, this old greedy man who doesnt know anything than money and you can see that its just one big waste of life. That scene just makes me sad.
If everyone worked less the whole world would make less money meaning things would cost less meaning we would buy the same amount of stuff as we do now.
And how would you apply that everyone only works 8 hours a day? There is no way to regulate that.
For alot of people work is also a way of earning their self esteem. They feel good about the work they do. From there on it's a given they want to do their work correct, and put in more hours if needed.
It is important to not work to much though, you are right about that. But there is no way you could make it happen. There will always be people who will want to work more and will do so.
I'm pretty sure the planet is going to be alright.
And who are you to say what life is about? Why is the pursuit/acquiring wealth such a bad thing? Why is working a bad thing? Why is progress a bad thing? Why are clean streets and new computers and better pharmaceuticals and better satellites and everything else that takes more then 8 hours a day to accomplish well a bad thing?
On July 03 2010 22:50 seppolevne wrote: I'm pretty sure the planet is going to be alright.
And who are you to say what life is about? Why is the pursuit/acquiring wealth such a bad thing? Why is working a bad thing? Why is progress a bad thing? Why are clean streets and new computers and better pharmaceuticals and better satellites and everything else that takes more then 8 hours a day to accomplish well a bad thing?
Lol so if we all worked 8 hours per day we couldnt invent things? Is that what you are saying? comon you can do better than that.
i somewhat agree with your observation that work for the sake of working is pointless, but especially the capitalist society is obsessed with the idea that we must under all circumstances create growth through jobs through increasing demand/consumption.
now here is my problem: as far as i can tell there is no overreaching goal that humanity is striving to achieve by all this work. it is just done to keep the current (broken) system running, but what it really does is that it serves to deplete (use up and turn into profit) all available resources as fast as possible. in other words it serves to deprive ourselves of the value that is "our" planet/environment, destroying it with no regard for anything but money. another thing thats wrong with it, besides of not giving a fuck about whether or not we actually NEED what we produce or working towards a greater goal, is that there can never be enough work for everyone with enough people to pay for that work. why is that? obviously technological progress alone means that the amount of people needed to do a job is continuously decreasing while the effectiveness of production increases (which is a good thing, because less time and resources go to waste). technological progress is at odds with having enough work for everyone.
work is not an end in itself, and you are right in that people dont seem to realize it and some, depending on where you are from, even disagree with it.
even barack obama does. listen to what he says at 2:23.
"too many economies' demand for goods and services is still too weak."
isnt it strange? i always thought that we are consuming too much, carelessly, and thats why our planet turns to shit. yet very powerful people whos primary concern should not be to make money (ie politicians, as opposed to ceos of huge companies) hold positions like this.
On July 03 2010 22:13 exeexe wrote: Are we really so confined in our mind that the only things we can do with our time are work, sleep and clean up the house we live in? Thats just wrong in so many ways, but i feel im the only one who can see it.
Thanks for enlightening the rest of the flock You're deluded to think these ideas are new and original.
Try telling a scientist or an artist that he can't work more than 8 hours a day. Or the enterpreneur working on his life's dream. Or just anyone who actually loves what he does.
Yes, a lot of people work too much, believing that they need more money to be happy, when the stress and lack of free time actually makes them miserable. I wish they realized it and worked less but ultimately it's their choice (if it isn't then I agree it's terrible).
I thought working more than an 8 hour day (sometimes over 8 hours but not always, depends on what the company your working for is doing/deadlines) was pretty standard for most high paying jobs. Although i think for most jobs, at least in America can't really say about the rest of the world, any extra hours you do outside of your annual salary get put into your vacation days. so i guess its not as bad as it seems.
On July 03 2010 22:48 JohannesH wrote: Yeah, it makes no sense that despite all the technological advancements in past years/decades, that doesnt really give people more free time at all...
There will always be something new to work on. All of these new technologies mean nothing except possibly to give us more ambition to work harder.
On July 03 2010 22:13 exeexe wrote: Are we really so confined in our mind that the only things we can do with our time are work, sleep and clean up the house we live in? Thats just wrong in so many ways, but i feel im the only one who can see it.
Thanks for enlightening the rest of the flock You're deluded to think these ideas are new and original.
Lol
On July 03 2010 22:13 exeexe wrote: Why would you get a higher salary per hour, if this also means that you are gonna work for more hours? I mean dont people give credits to the sheer fact that they can do whatever they want once their workday is over?
Simply put, when people get paid for the amount of work done, and not the pay, they tend to do things that are worse for companies overall. Firstly they produce lower quality work, as their primary goal is to just get the work done as quickly as possible to make the most money. Secondly they feel their employment is unfair. Eg. Rob gets paid 20$ to set up the network for the company and it takes him ten hours. Janet answers the phone three times and gets paid 20$. Rob will feel like he is being cheated. Anyone who's read the Prince knows that people don't like to be cheated of their money.
Incentive based pay only exists in the sales industry as only here is profit directly tied to a measurable quality of work of a salesperson.
I know in engineering there are deadlines, but why put those deadlines so tight? And i know prolonging a deadline will decrease the competitiveness of the company, but what if all nations could come together and say no one should work 12 hours per day, or even more than 8?
The company can not just increase the duration of a project because it means that they will make a smaller profit margin. Paying the employees is hard enough as it is. A company that does this will be unable to compete with its rivals.
All nations will never agree to make a law saying that people can only work for 8 hours. Nation's politics are in a survival of the fittest condition, where the countries that have an inferior way of making money, generally lose out to the ones that have a good way of making money.
Even if one could magically wish for it to be done, expect people to work more than 8 hours of their own volition illegally.
This blog does raise an interesting question for me. I want to know how, if I were a boss, I would get the most out of my employees.
From What I understand, employees will goof off whenever possible, it's only natural to conserve energy as our ancestors did it to survive. I can't pay by the amount of work done, because then the employees will think I am cheating them. Therefore I would have to be able to watch my employees to make sure that they were working, and to set reasonable deadlines(when people are paid by the hour they have no incentive to finish work sooner). I would have to randomly pick out some of their work to review to make sure that they were doing it properly.
Why shouldn't someone be allowed to sell 12 hours of their labor a day? Some people actually like their jobs.
It is extremely competitive in places like India and China and that's what you have to do if you want a decent job. Young engineers in China make a fraction of what they would in the US and work a heck of a lot more. I'm just glad that people like us have won the genetic lottery so we get better opportunities. Like actually having the option to make a living without working 12 hours a day.
"Also working less means parents will have more time with their children... ...there would be less crime in our society." Crime is most prevalent in people under the poverty line.
I don't think you realize how important deadlines matter. How often does your house lose electricity? You can thank all the planners who spent the last year organizing, the maintenance engineers who spent months decided what parts needed and ordering parts half a year to a year ahead of time, and the technicians working around the clock during the 2 week to month long maintenance outage to keep the plant running. They HAVE to finish their maintenance in that time. The companies delivering the millions of dollars in parts HAVE to meet their delivery dates. Otherwise, people go without electricity for extended periods of time and electricity sure as heck makes everyone's life easier.
Apply that to pretty much any industry and then you realize why everything runs so smoothly in first-world countries. And of course all of this is market-driven. If people don't care about having power 24/7, then power plants would be making a lot less money, spending less money on their employees, be down more often, etc.
even if there was a rule that limited a work day to 8 hours, those workers who want to go the extra mile (for a promotion, to meet a deadline, etc) will take their work home. how can you regulate what people do at home?
On July 03 2010 23:30 hypercube wrote: Try telling a scientist or an artist that he can't work more than 8 hours a day. Or the enterpreneur working on his life's dream. Or just anyone who actually loves what he does.
Yes, a lot of people work too much, believing that they need more money to be happy, when the stress and lack of free time actually makes them miserable. I wish they realized it and worked less but ultimately it's their choice (if it isn't then I agree it's terrible).
With 8 hours per day at work there will be more scientists and enterpreneurs ready to do work for the company. The long workday scares a lot of people away. Like if 100/120 students starts at the university only 40/50 will make it through. Think of it as in 120 who had the dream of being an engineer and 70 dreams that got destroyed. Its a big waste right there.
KK
So with more people avialable for the engineering jobs there can be shifts. Engineer A arrives at 0700 goes home 1500 and Engineer B comes at 1500 and go home at 2300. thats 16 hours of work, and thats possible because there will be more engineers, and thats possible because there will be robots doing the manual jobs which only requirre none or low education.
To put it with some graphics:
M = a man R = robots
old times: low skilled jobs: MMMMMMMMMMM = 11*8 hours = 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MM = 2*12 hours = 24 manhours
Now with 8 hour work day: low skilled jobs: RRRRRRMMMMMM = proberbly even more than 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MMMMMMM = 7*8 hours = 56 manhours
Now with 12 hour work day: low skilled jobs: RRRRRRMMMMMM = proberbly even more than 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MM = 2*12 hours = 24 manhours Unemployed: MMMMMM = waste
However following this doesnt solve the environment problem though.
I choose to work 10 hours a day minimum as opposed to 8 because quite frankly those 2 extra hours per day are considered overtime (time and a half) and typically adds another $700 to my pay biweekly. I don't know about you but working for a measly 2 hours more leads to $1400 extra per month that I can use to entertain myself much more than only working 8hours and being bored at home.
On July 03 2010 22:48 JohannesH wrote: Yeah, it makes no sense that despite all the technological advancements in past years/decades, that doesnt really give people more free time at all...
There will always be something new to work on. All of these new technologies mean nothing except possibly to give us more ambition to work harder.
So it seems that technology does not really improve the quality of life of people in any way other than making them live longer. Whether this improves overall happiness is questionable.
People work just as much as before. However no one has to say that working less would necessarily decrease the quality of life of certain people.
I work very little and love waking up everyday. It requires a lot of self motivation to not let your life go to shit, but it looks like things are on the up and up : )
On July 03 2010 22:50 seppolevne wrote: I'm pretty sure the planet is going to be alright.
And who are you to say what life is about? Why is the pursuit/acquiring wealth such a bad thing? Why is working a bad thing? Why is progress a bad thing? Why are clean streets and new computers and better pharmaceuticals and better satellites and everything else that takes more then 8 hours a day to accomplish well a bad thing?
Lol so if we all worked 8 hours per day we couldnt invent things? Is that what you are saying? comon you can do better than that.
I'm saying that these things require people to work more then 8 hours a day. Shit would obviously get done, please don't insult me.
And it takes a lot more then "dreams" to become an engineer. The work hours are hardly why people drop out of college.
well, you can work a lot and be perfectly happy though i'd prefer to have plenty of time to sort my mind out
anyways mankind doesn't need to be working this much. it's set up that way so that the ruling class reap the benefits. we do where they direct us
yeah i know im always going on about that but it's true, do you guys know how much money 50 billion is. my sister bought a dozen mangos in thailand for 50 cents.
my dad works 12+ hours each day at the hospital. of course he's incredibly specialized, but damn..he doesn't get paid enough. if you have a job which ruins your life and health you should at least get paid for it. he could be getting so much more if he'd just do a little negotiation. tellin him this for 7 years and hes finally starting to agree with me
Well, as you probably have figured out yourself, the problem is that we are just too damn many people on this planet, competing with each other.
Now, if we were just about 1/6 of the total population things would look much better I am sure. I haven't thought about the environmental impact of 5/6 of humanity vanishing yet, but it's worth a thought isn't it.
On July 05 2010 17:52 zatic wrote: Well, as you probably have figured out yourself, the problem is that we are just too damn many people on this planet, competing with each other.
Now, if we were just about 1/6 of the total population things would look much better I am sure. I haven't thought about the environmental impact of 5/6 of humanity vanishing yet, but it's worth a thought isn't it.
Agreed. I'm not saying we are overpopulated, but competition will always lead us to strive for more. Simply wishing for an 8-hour work day is as absurd as hoping for a utopia to succeed. As Bioshock has taught me, if you let people have even some sort of temptation, they will take it without hesitation. In other words, if everyone took 8-hour days, how do we separate those who work for success and those who work out of necessity.
Doesn't many countries already have 8 hours a day at max? I know that here in Sweden, you're not allowed to work more than 48 hours a week, with a few exceptions like doctors and lawyers...
Most of you guys are talking as if it's some unrealistic utopia when it already exists and works well.
On July 05 2010 17:52 zatic wrote: Well, as you probably have figured out yourself, the problem is that we are just too damn many people on this planet, competing with each other.
Now, if we were just about 1/6 of the total population things would look much better I am sure. I haven't thought about the environmental impact of 5/6 of humanity vanishing yet, but it's worth a thought isn't it.
lotsa fertilizer
btw we'd need to get rid of welfare states in the western world first (ughhh yes plz)
i work more because i want to be the best. Unless you are super smart, chances are, working 8 hours you wont be able to do as much as working 12 hours. I also believe in meritocracy. If i work hard, I'll get rewarded in the future.
People have a tendency to exaggerate their working hours (because unconsciously they want to work harder). For example, i leave my house at 7am and im back at 6 pm but it does not mean i work 11 hours per day because i spend some time going to work (and then back) and 1 hours is a lunch hour. So it is the same 8 hours working day. Sometimes i do something work related at home but only if i am interested in it and it is not obligatory and cant be considered as work. Im not even sure it is physically possible to work for 12 hours every day (i mean really work all the time without long breaks), even before exams i could not study more than 10 hours because my brain just stopped working.
Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
On July 06 2010 01:42 Hawk wrote: Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
On July 05 2010 21:04 BlackJack wrote: Why 8 hours a day when France is going with 7? Or why not 6? Your decision to choose 8 isn't any less arbitrary than any other number.
No it isnt arbitrary, 8 hours are the 1/3 of a day. 24 hours / 3 = 8 hours, that gives 8 hours of sleep 8 hours of work 8 hours of sparetime
Wow @ that link. Thats lame, i didnt knew that. I dont like that idea.
And for the other guy who said workday starts at leaving house thus counting traveltime into workhours, no thats not what i mean with workhours. Workhours are from you enter the workplace till you leave it.
So you do shopping on your way back from work, and you will count that as workhours too? no .. kk
On July 06 2010 01:42 Hawk wrote: Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
We had christianity, and with that comes holidays. Now we have almost removed christianity but we kept the holidays or should i say holydays.
On July 05 2010 20:51 Shauni wrote: Doesn't many countries already have 8 hours a day at max? I know that here in Sweden, you're not allowed to work more than 48 hours a week, with a few exceptions like doctors and lawyers...
But hey maybe i should move to Sweden, sounds like they have brains ! ^^
On July 06 2010 01:42 Hawk wrote: Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
SHIT I MUST MOVE TO EUROPE!
siesta
who the hell gets a two hour nap break in their work day?? Jeeeeeez.
On July 06 2010 01:42 Hawk wrote: Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
SHIT I MUST MOVE TO EUROPE!
lol my brain still can't comprehend how the US can consider 1-2 weeks of holidays per year standard. I mean COME ON, you have to get out once in a while.
I'm on vacation this whole week, holla. Really though 8hours is fine and to work more is to get overtime (most US jobs I'm speaking) not everyone always wants to, but like factory jobs and such where people need all the time they can get people love to get that OT and to work weekends and holidays.
On July 03 2010 23:30 hypercube wrote: Try telling a scientist or an artist that he can't work more than 8 hours a day. Or the enterpreneur working on his life's dream. Or just anyone who actually loves what he does.
Yes, a lot of people work too much, believing that they need more money to be happy, when the stress and lack of free time actually makes them miserable. I wish they realized it and worked less but ultimately it's their choice (if it isn't then I agree it's terrible).
With 8 hours per day at work there will be more scientists and enterpreneurs ready to do work for the company. The long workday scares a lot of people away. Like if 100/120 students starts at the university only 40/50 will make it through. Think of it as in 120 who had the dream of being an engineer and 70 dreams that got destroyed. Its a big waste right there.
KK
So with more people avialable for the engineering jobs there can be shifts. Engineer A arrives at 0700 goes home 1500 and Engineer B comes at 1500 and go home at 2300. thats 16 hours of work, and thats possible because there will be more engineers, and thats possible because there will be robots doing the manual jobs which only requirre none or low education.
To put it with some graphics:
M = a man R = robots
old times: low skilled jobs: MMMMMMMMMMM = 11*8 hours = 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MM = 2*12 hours = 24 manhours
Now with 8 hour work day: low skilled jobs: RRRRRRMMMMMM = proberbly even more than 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MMMMMMM = 7*8 hours = 56 manhours
Now with 12 hour work day: low skilled jobs: RRRRRRMMMMMM = proberbly even more than 88 manhours high skilled jobs: MM = 2*12 hours = 24 manhours Unemployed: MMMMMM = waste
However following this doesnt solve the environment problem though.
I'm working in a factory right now, and from what I've seen, each robot eliminates 4 low-skill jobs. Not 6.
But you're forgetting something.....
Those robots, while reducing the number of people needed by generally around 4, create extra work for the operators and the technicians who setup/maintain it, generating more high skilled jobs. It also requires engineers to design the device, and more technicians to install it. It also creates accounting jobs because they have to keep track of more transactions between businesses, etc..... There are also salespeople who are needed to sell the robots.....
It doesn't eliminate 4 jobs, it eliminates 4 low-skill jobs and adds probably 1-2 high-skill jobs somewhere else. While that is not a good trend, it's not as bad as you make it seem.
Also, I'm working continental shifts (12 hrs). Officially, I'm scheduled for 3 days one week, 4 the next, adding up to 84 hours in 2 weeks (4 hrs more than a standard 8 hr a day, 5 day a week schedule). It also increases possibility for overtime (more days off that I can be called in, among other things). If I don't go in for extra shifts, I have 3 or 4 days off each week, yet I earn more than I would with a 5 day week at 8 hrs a day. I like it this way.
My priority is to make a lot of cash this summer, as much as possible. I worked 6 shifts last week (I had Canada day off). If my priority was to relax, or whatever, I would have been able to turn down the additional shifts, and worked only 4 shifts, giving me 3 days off.
It also means that the machines can be run by 4 people, on a 24/7 basis. That is good for the company because their production is maximized. It is much harder to do with an 8-hr a day schedule.
8 hr a day is stupid in a lot of cases. As much as I am in agreement that people need to slow down, you can be slowed down while still working more than 8 hours in a day.....
On July 06 2010 03:54 Impervious wrote: plus there is a legal requirement in Canada to have 24 consecutive hours off work each week.
Are you sure about this? I'm legitimately curious because it affects my job scheduling contractors.
The two rules I've heard (and followed) in Alberta are: - A worker cannot be scheduled for more than 12 hours a day, including travel time [if it is paid travel time]. If an emergency strikes he can work more, but it cannot be pre-planned work. - A worker cannot work more than 21 consecutive days. We often schedule 21 12-hour days in a row during construction. I forget the amount of time you have to give after that, I believe it's 4 days.
It could be a provincial thing, I'm not sure, but I'd like to know the law.
Yea. I can't remember the exact wording of it, but it's in the employment standards. Actually, it might only be for Ontario..... Gimme a few minutes, I'll look it up and find out for sure.
Oh, the 10-on 4-off is allowable in Ontario too. If no 24 hr period per week is given, a 48 hr period every 2 weeks is needed.
ESA 2000 (updated 2004) - 18.4 (a and b)
Somewhere further down it mentions that it can be overwritten in several cases, mostly revolving around the continuation of essential services, or if the employee/employer agree verbally/in writing to do it differently. Etc.....
Okay, interesting. Maybe I'll read about that sometime. I bet it's different for contracted services too... There's too many codes and standards to know about :\
With 8 hours per day at work there will be more scientists and enterpreneurs ready to do work for the company. The long workday scares a lot of people away. Like if 100/120 students starts at the university only 40/50 will make it through. Think of it as in 120 who had the dream of being an engineer and 70 dreams that got destroyed. Its a big waste right there.
Even if your argument was valid it wouldn't justify banning people from working more than 8 hours. Why not just say that everyone who wants to work more can but also make it possible to work only 8hours a day.
On a more abstract level I'd rather try to defend my interests against possible employers myself rather than rely on the government to do it for me.
I looked up the Employment Standards Act of Alberta (most recent one I could find was updated 2009).
ESA Alberta
Days of rest
19(1) Every employer must allow each employee at least (a) one day of rest in each work week, (b) 2 consecutive days of rest in each period of 2 consecutive work weeks, (c) 3 consecutive days of rest in each period of 3 consecutive work weeks, or (d) 4 consecutive days of rest in each period of 4 consecutive work weeks. (2) Every employer must allow each employee at least 4 consecutive days of rest after each 24 consecutive work days.
It's similar to the Ontario standards, in that respect. Although, Ontario only requires 11 consecutive hours off each day, with only 8 inbetween shifts :/
And contractual work can be different as well.....
On July 03 2010 22:31 Baksteen wrote: If everyone worked less the whole world would make less money meaning things would cost less meaning we would buy the same amount of stuff as we do now.
And how would you apply that everyone only works 8 hours a day? There is no way to regulate that.
For alot of people work is also a way of earning their self esteem. They feel good about the work they do. From there on it's a given they want to do their work correct, and put in more hours if needed.
It is important to not work to much though, you are right about that. But there is no way you could make it happen. There will always be people who will want to work more and will do so.
This actually makes a lot of sense. How did we go from 2 hours of hunting and gathering to 12 hours of work?
With 8 hours per day at work there will be more scientists and enterpreneurs ready to do work for the company. The long workday scares a lot of people away. Like if 100/120 students starts at the university only 40/50 will make it through. Think of it as in 120 who had the dream of being an engineer and 70 dreams that got destroyed. Its a big waste right there.
Even if your argument was valid it wouldn't justify banning people from working more than 8 hours. Why not just say that everyone who wants to work more can but also make it possible to work only 8hours a day.
On a more abstract level I'd rather try to defend my interests against possible employers myself rather than rely on the government to do it for me.
Because there would be competition between the drunk 12 hours working random dudes and the we-have-a-life 8 hour working human beings.
On July 06 2010 01:42 Hawk wrote: Europeans are on vacation so fucking much they hardly work. What's the average over there now, like 4-6weeks of paid vacation per year?? That's insane. You commies are doing something right
SHIT I MUST MOVE TO EUROPE!
lol my brain still can't comprehend how the US can consider 1-2 weeks of holidays per year standard. I mean COME ON, you have to get out once in a while.
It really is crazy how the mentality is different.
what tonight said is true, certain jobs pay veeeeery well for working overtime. My old job at a liquor store paid me like fucking 19$/hr on sundays/OT. Unfortunately, I am now salary at my job, so I get boned whether I work 40 or 60hrs a week.
some jobs need it. Investment bankers work 14-15 hours a day. Why? Because its high stress, high risk, big reward. You can easily start 55k or so, and then get a 40-50k performance bonus at the end of the year in an entry position. Management consulting...same thing. 10-12 hours, probably starts 50-55k, performance bonus 20-30k. These are the upper echelon jobs ppl want to do (if you have mind for it). The environment is competitive. There are hundreds of analysts but only a few positions to move up. The reward, if you get promoted is huge. How do you stay at the top? You can't control how smart you are, but you can control how hard you work.
That mentality goes the same everwhere. How do you get a promotion? Beat everyone else. If you aren't smart enough to do 12 hours of work in 8 hours, then you have to put in the 12 hours. Say you can do 12 hours of work in 8 hours. You'll be able to do 18 hours of work in 12 hours! Then you'll get the promotion for sure!
If you arent competitive, or your job doesn't have that sort of promotion reward, and you are working 12 hours a day with no merit, i think you should change jobs to something less challenging.
On July 06 2010 23:00 TunaFishyMe wrote: some jobs need it. Investment bankers work 14-15 hours a week. Why? Because its high stress, high risk, big reward. You can easily start 55k or so, and then get a 40-50k performance bonus at the end of the year in an entry position. Management consulting...same thing. 10-12 hours, probably starts 50-55k, performance bonus 20-30k. These are the upper echelon jobs ppl want to do (if you have mind for it). The environment is competitive. There are hundreds of analysts but only a few positions to move up. The reward, if you get promoted is huge. How do you stay at the top? You can't control how smart you are, but you can control how hard you work.
That mentality goes the same everwhere. How do you get a promotion? Beat everyone else. If you aren't smart enough to do 12 hours of work in 8 hours, then you have to put in the 12 hours. Say you can do 12 hours of work in 8 hours. You'll be able to do 18 hours of work in 12 hours! Then you'll get the promotion for sure!
If you arent competitive, or your job doesn't have that sort of promotion reward, and you are working 12 hours a day with no merit, i think you should change jobs to something less challenging.
Many entry level ibankers work over 16 hrs a day with no weekends off (averaging ~110-120 hrs a week). The base salary + performance bonus averages about $10/hr if you count anything over 40hrs/week as overtime. Good deal? I think not.
On July 06 2010 23:00 TunaFishyMe wrote: some jobs need it. Investment bankers work 14-15 hours a week. Why? Because its high stress, high risk, big reward. You can easily start 55k or so, and then get a 40-50k performance bonus at the end of the year in an entry position. Management consulting...same thing. 10-12 hours, probably starts 50-55k, performance bonus 20-30k. These are the upper echelon jobs ppl want to do (if you have mind for it). The environment is competitive. There are hundreds of analysts but only a few positions to move up. The reward, if you get promoted is huge. How do you stay at the top? You can't control how smart you are, but you can control how hard you work.
That mentality goes the same everwhere. How do you get a promotion? Beat everyone else. If you aren't smart enough to do 12 hours of work in 8 hours, then you have to put in the 12 hours. Say you can do 12 hours of work in 8 hours. You'll be able to do 18 hours of work in 12 hours! Then you'll get the promotion for sure!
If you arent competitive, or your job doesn't have that sort of promotion reward, and you are working 12 hours a day with no merit, i think you should change jobs to something less challenging.
Many entry level ibankers work over 16 hrs a day with no weekends off (averaging ~110-120 hrs a week). The base salary + performance bonus averages about $10/hr if you count anything over 40hrs/week as overtime. Good deal? I think not.
It's a great deal. Why? Because your salary increases exponentially as you progress through the company instead of the measely 2% to beat inflation. You have to pay your dues. In Management Consulting, if you make partner (lower level partner) you can easily pull in 400-500k a year. Higher partners pull in a lot more. Obviously, its tough to get there, but you can see why ppl work so hard. Are there any jobs out where you work 8 hours a day that can match this? I'm not sure what the numbers are in IB but its higher than MC. People who are willing to work hard aren't look at what their job can give them currently, but what their job can give them in the future.
On July 06 2010 23:44 Hawk wrote: Guess it's a matter of priorities. $100k/yr don't mean shit if you're logging 90+hours at the office. When the hell are you gonna spend it??
haha... There are always way to spend money. But you could always retire faster or something. I don't know. It is a matter of priorities. For me, I rather have money than not.
On July 06 2010 23:00 TunaFishyMe wrote: some jobs need it. Investment bankers work 14-15 hours a week. Why? Because its high stress, high risk, big reward. You can easily start 55k or so, and then get a 40-50k performance bonus at the end of the year in an entry position. Management consulting...same thing. 10-12 hours, probably starts 50-55k, performance bonus 20-30k. These are the upper echelon jobs ppl want to do (if you have mind for it). The environment is competitive. There are hundreds of analysts but only a few positions to move up. The reward, if you get promoted is huge. How do you stay at the top? You can't control how smart you are, but you can control how hard you work.
That mentality goes the same everwhere. How do you get a promotion? Beat everyone else. If you aren't smart enough to do 12 hours of work in 8 hours, then you have to put in the 12 hours. Say you can do 12 hours of work in 8 hours. You'll be able to do 18 hours of work in 12 hours! Then you'll get the promotion for sure!
If you arent competitive, or your job doesn't have that sort of promotion reward, and you are working 12 hours a day with no merit, i think you should change jobs to something less challenging.
Many entry level ibankers work over 16 hrs a day with no weekends off (averaging ~110-120 hrs a week). The base salary + performance bonus averages about $10/hr if you count anything over 40hrs/week as overtime. Good deal? I think not.
It's a great deal. Why? Because your salary increases exponentially as you progress through the company instead of the measely 2% to beat inflation. You have to pay your dues. In Management Consulting, if you make partner (lower level partner) you can easily pull in 400-500k a year. Higher partners pull in a lot more. Obviously, its tough to get there, but you can see why ppl work so hard. Are there any jobs out where you work 8 hours a day that can match this? I'm not sure what the numbers are in IB but its higher than MC. People who are willing to work hard aren't look at what their job can give them currently, but what their job can give them in the future.
Well I personally won't last long enough before getting burned out (i'm pretty sure over half the people are out before they get to the exponential growth in pay). At the end of the day, you can only take so many 17 hr days in a row... Not to mention the sacrifice of health and personal life... I agree with you if you can survive it for more than a few years it will pay off, but for most people that will not be the case.
On July 06 2010 23:00 TunaFishyMe wrote: some jobs need it. Investment bankers work 14-15 hours a week. Why? Because its high stress, high risk, big reward. You can easily start 55k or so, and then get a 40-50k performance bonus at the end of the year in an entry position. Management consulting...same thing. 10-12 hours, probably starts 50-55k, performance bonus 20-30k. These are the upper echelon jobs ppl want to do (if you have mind for it). The environment is competitive. There are hundreds of analysts but only a few positions to move up. The reward, if you get promoted is huge. How do you stay at the top? You can't control how smart you are, but you can control how hard you work.
That mentality goes the same everwhere. How do you get a promotion? Beat everyone else. If you aren't smart enough to do 12 hours of work in 8 hours, then you have to put in the 12 hours. Say you can do 12 hours of work in 8 hours. You'll be able to do 18 hours of work in 12 hours! Then you'll get the promotion for sure!
If you arent competitive, or your job doesn't have that sort of promotion reward, and you are working 12 hours a day with no merit, i think you should change jobs to something less challenging.
It's a great deal. Why? Because your salary increases exponentially as you progress through the company instead of the measely 2% to beat inflation. You have to pay your dues. In Management Consulting, if you make partner (lower level partner) you can easily pull in 400-500k a year. Higher partners pull in a lot more. Obviously, its tough to get there, but you can see why ppl work so hard. Are there any jobs out where you work 8 hours a day that can match this? I'm not sure what the numbers are in IB but its higher than MC. People who are willing to work hard aren't look at what their job can give them currently, but what their job can give them in the future.
Well I personally won't last long enough before getting burned out (i'm pretty sure over half the people are out before they get to the exponential growth in pay). At the end of the day, you can only take so many 17 hr days in a row... Not to mention the sacrifice of health and personal life... I agree with you if you can survive it for more than a few years it will pay off, but for most people that will not be the case.
yea its a up our out mentality. Most people are out after 2 years cuz they are just burnt out. However, the exit opportunities are great and you can take the skills elsewhere. If you worked for big MC/IB companies, people will respect that and youll more opportunities
Many entry level ibankers work over 16 hrs a day with no weekends off (averaging ~110-120 hrs a week). The base salary + performance bonus averages about $10/hr if you count anything over 40hrs/week as overtime. Good deal? I think not.
On July 06 2010 23:44 Hawk wrote: Guess it's a matter of priorities. $100k/yr don't mean shit if you're logging 90+hours at the office. When the hell are you gonna spend it??
haha... There are always way to spend money. But you could always retire faster or something. I don't know. It is a matter of priorities. For me, I rather have money than not.
If you're working 12+hr days + Sat, that's not much free time. And you won't neccessarily retire early. If you're used to a 200$k lifestyle, it's dropping significantly when you retire, no matter how much you save.
That's why if you make 200k, you live 100k lifestyle. And you make sure your money continuously makes money for you through properties etc etc. You don't necessary retire earlier but you are in the position to call it quits whenever you want and dont have to worry about money. Whereas most of world have ppl who are 50, approaching retirement but have barely saved up anything. But thats a different topic itself. I believe in a competitive environment because chances are, in the future, youll be in a better position than if you just do whatever to get by.
People are subject to fatigue. I've seen it working overnights, and have felt it just the same. I've done more in a 8 hour shift at a warehouse when we're having a steady day than I have on a 12 hour shift with a flow team. Factoring in the diminishing returns and brainburn of a long shift, those 12 hour shifts probably have about as much work done as 8-10 fresh hours.
I think if it's OK in some cases. That is: 1) The work justifies the hours 2) you dont (honestly)mind putting that time in. I suspect a majority of people dont satisfy those conditions though. It just becomes this pattern that everyone goes into because thats just how its done.
I've been thinking a lot about this topic lately too. You should check out Tim Ferris' book 4-Hour Work Week. His blog has some decent articles too on that topic as well as time management/productivity stuff etc.
Some of his stuff is a bit extreme, but a lot of interesting stuff to think about.
On July 05 2010 12:23 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: So it seems that technology does not really improve the quality of life of people in any way other than making them live longer. Whether this improves overall happiness is questionable.
How do you not realize this is ludicrous while you were typing it on a machine that is currently allowing us to communicate vast distances with minimal effort nearly instantaneously tbh
btw about the topic...People overwork and always will, but I don't really think that's a problem. Only when it becomes expected of you to overwork to be even marginally successful does it become ridiculous. Which is happening in many fields unfortunately, but as others have said in this thread this is mostly because of how many people exist on this planet atm. The more people there are...the more competitive it will be ofc so it's not so unexpected to see workload increase simply because our population has grown this much. It may suck, but then think of how many of your luxuries wouldn't be here without the competition that's being debated.
On July 05 2010 12:23 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: So it seems that technology does not really improve the quality of life of people in any way other than making them live longer. Whether this improves overall happiness is questionable.
How do you not realize this is ludicrous while you were typing it on a machine that is currently allowing us to communicate vast distances with minimal effort nearly instantaneously tbh
On July 05 2010 12:23 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: So it seems that technology does not really improve the quality of life of people in any way other than making them live longer. Whether this improves overall happiness is questionable.
How do you not realize this is ludicrous while you were typing it on a machine that is currently allowing us to communicate vast distances with minimal effort nearly instantaneously tbh
btw about the topic...People overwork and always will, but I don't really think that's a problem. Only when it becomes expected of you to overwork to be even marginally successful does it become ridiculous. Which is happening in many fields unfortunately, but as others have said in this thread this is mostly because of how many people exist on this planet atm. The more people there are...the more competitive it will be ofc so it's not so unexpected to see workload increase simply because our population has grown this much. It may suck, but then think of how many of your luxuries wouldn't be here without the competition that's being debated.
I'm sure people got along just fine even before the computer was invented. It may even be reasonable to argue that they were just as happy back then without it.
You say yourself some people overwork in certain majors nowadays. That's what sucks, that they have to work instead of relaxing.
On July 05 2010 12:23 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: So it seems that technology does not really improve the quality of life of people in any way other than making them live longer. Whether this improves overall happiness is questionable.
How do you not realize this is ludicrous while you were typing it on a machine that is currently allowing us to communicate vast distances with minimal effort nearly instantaneously tbh
btw about the topic...People overwork and always will, but I don't really think that's a problem. Only when it becomes expected of you to overwork to be even marginally successful does it become ridiculous. Which is happening in many fields unfortunately, but as others have said in this thread this is mostly because of how many people exist on this planet atm. The more people there are...the more competitive it will be ofc so it's not so unexpected to see workload increase simply because our population has grown this much. It may suck, but then think of how many of your luxuries wouldn't be here without the competition that's being debated.
I'm sure people got along just fine even before the computer was invented. It may even be reasonable to argue that they were just as happy back then without it.
You say yourself some people overwork in certain majors nowadays. That's what sucks, that they have to work instead of relaxing.
Umm no dude you're wrong tbh. I'm not a historian etc, but I've heard of some crazy shit that has happened in passed generations. Pretty pos life was way worse than it is now even if you are choosing to overwork yourself in today's society. If you need examples just pm me or just watch Monty Python and the Holy Grail it depicts what life was like in the passed very well.
like dude i can take a fucking vaccine today and cure something that coulda killed an entire fucking civilization lol pretty sure technology has made life way better without a doubt
EPT
You're deluded to think these ideas are new and original.
