Slashdot Mirror


Workaholism In America Is Hurting the Economy

An anonymous reader writes Work/life balance is a constant problem in the tech industry. Even though experienced and mature engineers have been vocal in fighting it, every new generation buys into the American cultural identity of excessive work being a virtue. Each generation suffers for it, and the economy does, too. This article backs up that wisdom with hard numbers: "The 40-hour workweek is mostly a thing of the past. Ninety-four percent of professional workers put in 50 or more hours, and nearly half work 65 or above. All workers have managed to cut down on our time on the job by 112 hours over the last 40 years, but we're far behind other countries: The French cut down by 491 hours, the Dutch by 425, and Canadians by 215 in the same time period. ... This overwork shows up in our sleep. Out of five developed peers, four other countries sleep more than us. That has again worsened over the years. In 1942, more than 80 percent of Americans slept seven hours a night or more. Today, 40 percent sleep six hours or less. A lack of sleep makes us poorer workers: People who sleep less than seven hours a night have a much harder time concentrating and getting work done."

710 comments

  1. I can stop any time!!! by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just need to finish this one thing...

    1. Re:I can stop any time!!! by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what's up with this "In 1942, more than 80 percent of Americans slept seven hours a night or more. Today, 40 percent sleep six hours or less" part?

      I had to do some mental math to convert those equilvent comparisons 20% got less than 7 hours in 1942, and today 40% get less than 6.

      Why would they make me do mental math when they know I probably didn't get enough sleep last night?

    2. Re:I can stop any time!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you account for inflation?

    3. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1942 all the women were housewives, and only the men worked. Are these stats controlled for gender?

    4. Re:I can stop any time!!! by umafuckit · · Score: 2

      Just one more turn...

    5. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Lotana · · Score: 1

      Really?!

      In 1942 men were busy shooting each other. The women were working their asses off in the factories supplying those men with whatever they needed to keep shooting! And were taking care of home and kids at the same time. All between running to the shelters when the bombers were dropping their ordinance.

      I have no idea how they got their 7 hours of sleep...

      Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".

    6. Re: I can stop any time!!! by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      What shelters? What bombers? The two times USA has been bombed during the WW2 were the Pearl Harbor incident and the bombing of Fort Stevens. And only a minority of the US population has served in the military during the war - about 10% of the population.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Lotana · · Score: 2

      Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.

      US was very fortunate to escape the ravages of war. Majority of the rest of the world had it much tougher.

    8. Re:I can stop any time!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, I wish I could do that with hydrocodone.

    9. Re: I can stop any time!!! by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      That is the reason for American Strength.
      WWII Ended.
      The US was one of the few major countries not ravaged by wars.
      Having a monopoly on nuclear weapons, we were not in threat of retaliation for an other war.
      The Men came back and with the GI bill many of them went to college.
      After dealing with the Great Depression and WWII the population was starving to take advantage of the modern age, Cars, Radio, TV, a Home of their own.
      As part of the great depression a lot of public works projects and infrastructure paid off. As well with the war effort manufacturing became optimized.

      So we had all this stuff while the rest of the world is trying to rebuild. So the 1950's and 1960's was America's golden age. By the Mid 60's the rest of the world has been rebuilt and are in the process of getting back on track.

      American dominance is less about how much better people we are, but more about being lucky enough to get a head start after WWII
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re: I can stop any time!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      He was talking about bombers dropping ordinance. I assume that "bombers" is a colloquial term for obnoxious municipal officials.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re: I can stop any time!!! by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.

      I know that the word "Americans" in the summary could technically mean anyone from North or South America, but when "Canadians" are also specifically referenced, that should be enough of a clue that the article is about the United States. Even without that, "Americans" pretty much universally means people in the US...USians hasn't ever caught on.

      And, no significant part of North or South America was bombed in World War II. So, how did you see "Americans" and treat that as "Europeans" or "Japan, East Asia and the Pacific dwellers"?

    12. Re: I can stop any time!!! by mwehle · · Score: 1

      Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".

      Tom Brokaw's feelings of guilt and inferiority?

      The two times USA has been bombed during the WW2 were the Pearl Harbor incident and the bombing of Fort Stevens.

      Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959, and Fort Stevens was shelled, rather than bombed.

      --
      Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
    13. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Talderas · · Score: 1

      In the US the draft during world war 2 was 18-36 with voluntary enlistment suspended. They drafted 10 million over the course of the war. So it was approximately 7.5% of the 1942 population.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    14. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had well over one hundred ships get blown up along the eastern coast in the early years.

    15. Re: I can stop any time!!! by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

      Nice and concise, the US was lucky in WW2 in that we did not exit with ravaged infrastructure. jellomizer wrote a nice summary.

      --
      "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
    16. Re: I can stop any time!!! by davydagger · · Score: 1

      10% of the population was in uniform, but the entire country was at war.

      that 10% was pretty high when you consider it was mostly healthy men ages 18-40.

    17. Re:I can stop any time!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      20% got less than 7 hours in 1942, and today 40% get less than 6.

      Why would they make me do mental math when they know I probably didn't get enough sleep last night?

      Careful, today, 40% get "six or less", not "less than six".

    18. Re: I can stop any time!!! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Read your history. There was a reason why it was called the "Greatest Generation".

      Tom Brokaw's feelings of guilt and inferiority?

      Absolutely true.

      The two times USA has been bombed during the WW2 were the Pearl Harbor incident and the bombing of Fort Stevens.

      Hawaii didn't become a state until 1959

      It was still US soil in 1941, an unincorporated territory.

  2. Re:work life balance is a myth by TigerPlish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You say that now.

    Get back to us 20 years from now.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  3. the work-week is a thing of the past by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    it's all in the past. adapt or do something else.

    1. Re:the work-week is a thing of the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OMG , you look like the problems in this context.

  4. Sleep Collects Neural Garbage by Baldrson · · Score: 5, Informative

    They've finally figured out why sleep deprivation kills you -- and its also why it makes you make stupid mistakes.

    Sleep Drives Metabolite Clearance from the Adult Brain

    Problem is it is mainly during slow wave sleep that the cleaning crew works on the CSF, and as people age they their slow wave sleep diminishes.

    1. Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage by zijus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hi there. IMO this is to be linked to the cult of "work hard play hard". The problem is... always over-driving one's life, leads faster to problems. Playing too hard also leads to problems. Hopping to balance one's over-work by some over-play is - maybe counter-intuitively for some - not a sollution. In french it is named "sur-régime" : if you always drive a car with the engine spinning well beyond what's necessary, well you may go faster, but you will certainly die earlier. Over-performing, over-working, and so on, has a cost. Ciao.

    2. Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wish someone would invent a device to turn my conscious brain off and let me get some quality sleep every night. Preferably one that isn't just a big ice-cream scoop lobotomizer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage by praxis · · Score: 1

      I wish someone would invent a device to turn my conscious brain off and let me get some quality sleep every night. Preferably one that isn't just a big ice-cream scoop lobotomizer.

      It's possible that if you teach yourself to meditate for a few minutes a day, after a couple of weeks you'll find your mind able to rest more peacefully when it is time to rest.

    4. Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is do everything half ass?

  5. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I love having a roof over my head and some food, hard to be picky when the "job creators" hold all the cards. But hey, maybe less regulations, lower taxes and more h1b visa's will make things better! /s

  6. Corporate Brianwashed Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not seeing the outside of an office for most of your adult life is considered as a virtue only by fools. Sadly many will post here supporting this form of modern day slavery.

    The wtf moment of missing what life is all about will come when it is too late.

    1. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by MrL0G1C · · Score: 2

      lol at you got modded as interesting rather than insightful, slashdot mods are properly brainwashed and think overtime is good.

      The people I really can't understand are the ones who do overtime for free - these people are robbing unemployed people of work and aren't even getting paid for it.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    2. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The people I really can't understand are the ones who do overtime for free - these people are robbing unemployed people of work and aren't even getting paid for it.

      "Real nice job you have here. Be a shame if anything happens to it. You don't mind doing this little thing after work, right? Be a team player, don't bother telling accounting."

      Strong unions could put a stop to that, but everyone is too busy ensuring Joe Slacker gets no unearned benefit to ensure they get their earned ones. It's classic divide and conquer, helped along with everyone thinking they're not only above average but such special snowlakes they can write their own ticket as soon as someone notices their talents - any day now. Of course the resulting economic collapse is taking the employers with them as well, but it's one thing to release the beast and another to put it back into the cage.

      American economy is a self-imposed Hell where the only real goal anyone has is to escape from the looming specter of poverty. That's why get-rich-quick schemes never fail to find victims there. And that's also why it works worse and worse over time, as increasingly desperate people find short-term gambits more and more attractive as long-term plans yield less and less realistic chances of improving your situation or even maintaining it.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      Maybe they don't see it as robbing an unemployed person of a potential job. Maybe they see it as a way to keep their job, which for many, it probably is.

    5. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by dywolf · · Score: 1

      That's why we need more mandatory paid time off, like almost every other developed nation.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    6. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Sometimes unpaid overtime is an unspoken job requirement for a promotion (which could be done in a manner that benefits everyone). For example, if there's a busy season and a group of employees regularly get overtime of varying lengths, it can be hell on the books. Rather than deal with the fact that these employees could make anywhere from 2-4k extra during that busy time, giving them a promotion to "management" and an annual raise of 5k both gets them more money and distributes that extra payment evenly over the course of the year.

    7. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Exempt employees do not have to be paid overtime. If the job atmosphere pushes you into it, you will work it or be replaced by someone who will.

      So these people, at least in one large country, and states can change the rules too. http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/f...

    8. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Be a team player

      That is among the most hypocritical phrases commonly used in the workplace today, ranking up there with "show your commitment". Most of the time it's management trying to whitewash that they've just demanded something unfair or illegal of a worker, and threatened their job over it. You should buy a new car, show your commitment (and, uh, set yourself up so that if you lose yoru job you can't pay your car note and will lose it too). Of course they can't say that, so they turn to hinting. And a few times, they honestly mean be a team player, in a good way. They have to mean it sometimes, or the phrase wouldn't work as well. Be a team player, yeah!

      Joe Slacker

      That's another huge problem. This mentality that people are naturally lazy and have to be forced to work is wrong, but so few people believe that anymore. They accept a whipping for being a slacker as for their own good. I wonder if we'll have to fight the US Civil War over again someday, stop the new slavery.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    9. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      ~20% of the population is getting ahead in this economy. I'll work however much unpaid overtime I need to in order to stay in that 20%. If I get really lucky I might even be able to save enough to retire some day.

      Robbing unemployed people of jobs ... lol. Someone may have told you life was fair. They lied.

    10. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feel free to hand 15% of your paycheck over to Joe Slacker.

    11. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Feel free to hand 15% of your paycheck over to Joe Slacker.

      You really shouldn't talk about your grandfather that way.

    12. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      This concern for 'The Economy' is a massive part of the brain-washing, there will always be an 'economy' it is not something that anyone other than the richest 1% should be concerned about.

      Currently in Europe we have unelected politicians (The Commission) Jointly writing the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with corporate lawyers. This TTIP contains SOPA and 'investor-state dispute settlement' And god know what else, it is democracy destroying. The reasons we're told we should accept this agreement are 'free trade' and 'the economy', we're told it would help GDP by 0.5% or whatever and they say it will create jobs (Like NAFTA did!!).

      The point is when we are told something will be good for the economy and good for jobs, it is typically wrong and nowadays an outright lie.

      Good for the economy means more money for the 0.1%.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    13. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      right, anyone on the unemployment line can do job that require years of systems admin and software development experience

    14. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      This should be rated informative at least.

    15. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      It's classic divide and conquer, helped along with everyone thinking they're not only above average but such special snowlakes they can write their own ticket as soon as someone notices their talents - any day now.

      I never thought about it that way, but perhaps this is the result of the ideal in many schools/communities that everyone is completely equal no matter what they do. "Okay, you all played kick ball, so everyone gets a blue ribbon, yay!" "Oh, you won the championship kick ball game? Good job, here's your blue participation ribbon!"

      The result being that when you grow up you think you're on the same level as everyone, regardless of actually being better or worse in any particular area, so you don't see the point in unions because "everyone is the same, they can just go to management and talk it out!" because they think management is also the same. And then management, who grew up in a different generation and/or knows better, takes full advantage of this.

    16. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      If the jobs are so essential and there are no unemployed people that can do the job then there shouldn't be a problem paying the staff the overtime.

      If the company can't afford to pay the staff then the company has no place existing, some other company would be glad to step in and take the work I'm sure.

      This argument is complete, there is no reason why staff should not be compensated for the hours they work.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    17. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Exempt employees do not have to be paid overtime. If the job atmosphere pushes you into it, you will work it or be replaced by someone who will.

      If your employer is an arsehole sure, but in Europe they'd better be prepared to pay the employee a years extra wages for unfair dismissal + big lawyers fees if they decide to fight the case.

      If I was being paid 3+ times the minimum wage were I live then I wouldn't be bothered about doing unpaid OT, as long as it wasn't a regular occurrence.

      But I have never had a company ask or expect me to work unpaid OT, I have done plenty of OT though, most at double time - Sundays and it was quiet / easy work.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    18. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      most salaried jobs don't have overtime in this country, people are hired from a budget and there is no negotiating overtime outside that budget

      you lose the argument, reality trumps your land of unicorns and colored ponies

    19. Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      This is why I will never move to the USA, the majority don't understand that if you don't stick up for yourself then you get trampled on. USA is in a fight to the bottom with regards to workers rights, wages etc, it's no wonder the average American is no better off now than 30 years ago.

      Overtime is common in the UK, getting paid for that overtime (at 150% hourly rate) is the norm.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  7. Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    totally people are addicted to working longer hours. Not, maybe, and this is just a shot in the dark here, the proles are being taken advantage of by the bourgeoisie, business as usual.

    1. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the fact we are in an intentionally shit economy keeps everyone on edge.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no. Certain industry group keeps spouting the myth the economy is in bad shape. Looking at the numbers, are are far from shit these days.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We will always be in a shit economy, because many businesses have found out how much they can slim their staff numbers by while retaining the same levels of production, thus reducing their costs. With the larger unemployed base in the First World nations, they can also offer lower remuneration for the bulk of jobs and - with the ridiculous unemployment support conditions around the world - you have to take what you're first offered.

    4. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by ruir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Most [incompetent] people are betting that the competitiveness of a country is based on having low salaries, call it modern slavery, to attract foreign investors. Or put it bluntly, the war in the middle class is raging on. Coincidentally or not, I have seen this week the first news China is starting to outsource USA employees...

    5. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      The only "businesses" that benefit from paltry economic growth and inadequation between the qualifications of the potential workforce on one side, and the qualificatio nrequirements of the installed industry on the other side, are the "businesses" that can compel you to "buy" their products, by law. Lots of unemployed, low-qualification adults mean an ample supply of cannon fodder for the army. Low economic growth mean low treasury bond interests which mean they get to print and spend all the money they need.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    6. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with it is, looking at the above results, that that actually hurts the bourgeoisie, at least when looking at the company earnings.

    7. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the average American you talk to loves the current system. That is, money is more important than anything else in life. It defines success and defines you as a person.

      Personally, I decided to do freelance programming after quitting my last job 7 years ago. I now only work about 10 hours a week (maybe up to 30 during big crunch times) and make about as much as if I worked 20 for a company. I have enough to live comfortably, just not to buy the newest iPhone every year.

    8. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by colin_faber · · Score: 1

      What numbers are you looking at? As of today, -2.9% GDP and getting worse.

    9. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      What numbers? The ~13 million extra unemployed adults since 2001? The lowest workforce participation rate since the 60s? Average wages that have actually gone down over the last 20 years. Those numbers?

    10. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      The numbers that actually matter to the average worker are quite clear - the economy is shit right now. No, "the market" is not a useful index for that. Not by a long shot.

    11. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      -2.9% growth

    12. Re:Oh yeah it's "workaholism" by silent-listener · · Score: 1

      Are they addicted to working longer hours, or long hours at work. ? Longer present is no guaranty for more production. A healthy and stress free person can do more. In beginning 1900 in Europe industrialist as Lever Brothers and Philips Brothers start building villages to provide there workers with the housing, services and entertainment. This with the goal to get more productive workers. Long hours at work is sometimes also to show the managers 'I am always busy'

  8. What choice do we have? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice. Companies are demanding we do more with less. If you don't like it there's not much you can do. The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better. Off-shoring and abundant work Visas guarantee that. You're given X amount of work to do and Y amount of time and if you don't do X you're fired, so you put in extra hours. Again and again and again. Heck, it's even worse for the Visa holders. They're practically indentured serfs. If they don't put the hours in it's back to where they came from with a black mark to boot. And those are the guys we're competing with for jobs....

    Heck, is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the workers? Maybe it's because the capitalists own the media... Heck, I don't know.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Blame the workers is easy. This was going on in the 1990s when the economy was shit then, blaming the lazy Americans compared to the Japanese who would work 100+ hours/week and come back for more.

      Now, Americans work more hours than the Japanese, and now they are considered "lazy and entitled" compared to the H-1Bs now.

    2. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice.

      Calling it "Workaholism" actually implies we are addicted to "wrokahol", and the notable feature about addiction is the lack of choice. Maybe some would argue that alcoholics can decide not to be addicted as hard as this may be. I would also argue that workers can decide not to accept jobs that overwork them.

      If you don't like it there's not much you can do. The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better. Off-shoring and abundant work Visas guarantee that. You're given X amount of work to do and Y amount of time and if you don't do X you're fired, so you put in extra hours. Again and again and again. Heck, it's even worse for the Visa holders. They're practically indentured serfs. If they don't put the hours in it's back to where they came from with a black mark to boot. And those are the guys we're competing with for jobs....

      Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer. You can hire people for essentially nothing, and rake in huge profits for doing very little work.

      Heck, is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the workers? Maybe it's because the capitalists own the media... Heck, I don't know.

      I don't really see anyone blaming the workers. I do see people suggesting that workers take appropriate steps to protect their interests. Maybe workers should learn skills that indentured serfs don't have. Maybe workers should take advantage of a world with cheap unskilled labor rather than being a part of the unskilled labor force and therefore causing a higher supply to demand ratio of unskilled labor (as I implied earlier). Maybe workers should actually vote. Workers clearly have an electoral advantage. They, however, continue to vote for republicans and democrats that are selling them out to corporations (or simply don't vote at all).

      Is it "blaming the workers" to point out the actions that workers could do to achieve their goals? Is it "blaming the workers" to tell them that no one is going to fight for them if they won't fight for themselves?

      If you want something, you need to fight for it. No one is going to just give it to you. If you're strategy is "complaining" about it, then it had better be at a level that causes politicians to be voted out of office, because what is happening right now isn't doing anything.

      "In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve." --possibly Alexis de Toqueville or Joseph de Maistre

    3. Re:What choice do we have? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

      I think the difference is we either pity or look down on alcoholics, where as people that kill themselves

      And nobody has the goal to be the worlds greatest middle manager. You're goal something else. Buy your kid braces, keep your car running just a little longer, pay for your Grandma's doctor's visits.

      And again, I'll ask why we're racing to the bottom? There's a difference between fighting for something you want just trying to survive one more day. A man swimming the English Channel is fighting for something, a man drowning is just a man drowning. It's OK to pull him up for air you know?

      And Toqueville was a rich entitled prick. Not the sort I want to base public policy on. But nice quote.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    4. Re:What choice do we have? by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      whoops, forgot to finish editing my post :). that was suppose to read "where as people that kill themselves working are idolized", but I'm pretty sure you get the idea :).

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    5. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. In America, at the moment, if you make more than 30k, you do not qualify for assistance. If you do not make more than 30k it's also really hard to get by. Even with 40k, you're hurting in most areas of the country. If you do not make about 60k, you aren't comfortable. If you have kids this gets worse.

      I'm a sysadmin and I work 12 hour days. I typically work 4 days a week, and if something goes wrong, it's more than that. The same is true of DBAs, programmers, etc... the pay is dropping, the hours are going up, the cost of living is going up.

      WHERE DO YOU LIVE THAT YOU MAGICALLY GET FUCK TONS OF MONEY FOR THE SAME WORK OTHER PEOPLE DO?

      Oh wait. The way you talk, you're probably a boomer.

      PS: In a democracy, the majority gets what they want, the rest are just exploited.

    6. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You may not have a choice at the office. You do have a choice at the ballot box. Americans have a remarkable tendency of voting for anti-labor politicians. THAT is the difference between work-yourself-to-death-and-be-proud-of-it U.S.A. and work-sane-hours-and-enjoy-living Europe.

    7. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And with most US workers having drunk the capitalist koolaid, Forming unions or even mentioning the word 'socialism' to attempt to increase working conditions is taboo.

      In the meantime, in most of Europe worker actually enjoy paid holiday, usually more than 24 days (excluding public holidays), which they are able to use when ever they like.

      Why do workers keep voting in people who don't represent their interest (though US workers don't have much of a choice).

    8. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And again, I'll ask why we're racing to the bottom? There's a difference between fighting for something you want just trying to survive one more day. A man swimming the English Channel is fighting for something, a man drowning is just a man drowning. It's OK to pull him up for air you know?

      Yeah it's actually good to save the man that is drowning. What should the man do if no one is going to save him? What if there are more drowning people than people willing to save drowning people? It doesn't matter that it's not fair that he is drowning.

      And Toqueville was a rich entitled prick. Not the sort I want to base public policy on. But nice quote.

      It is actually not proven to be said by de Toqueville, but even if it was, what you said is an ad hominem (attacking an idea based on who proposed it). Furthermore it is not referring simply to public policy. It is much broader than that. A democracy is the pretty much the best circumstance a common man can find himself in, especially given his circumstances throughout the vast majority of human history. He doesn't even have to fight (i.e. risk his life) to achieve the change that his ancestors did. All he has to do is care enough to vote in an informed way. If he can't put forth this relatively small effort compared to the price others paid for freedom, then he doesn't deserve freedom.

      Maybe this is a bit harsh, but if you are waiting for the people in positions of privilege to voluntarily give up what they have, you're going to be waiting a very long time. In reality, fairness is not free. You have to fight for it. It's not fair that you have to fight for fairness. Life is not fair.

    9. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a choice. I work 40 hours a week, sometimes less. I have 5 weeks of vacation a year. I don't check emails or answer phone outside work hours. I get 'exceeds expectations' performance reviews and I *know* they are concerned I will be poached by competition. And I work in a private sector in America.
       
      How? Well, I make 30% less than my peers with equal qualifications and I work in a field with nearly 0% unemployment. This still puts me into top 10%, so why do I really need more money if I don't get a chance to spend it?
       
      I was upfront about what I wanted when I was negotiating my compensation package and got all of this in writing.

    10. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is actually not proven to be said by de Toqueville, but even if it was, what you said is an ad hominem (attacking an idea based on who proposed it).

      Actually, if you look deeper than an attempt to prove your argument correct, you'll discover that "entitled rich prick" isn't an ad hominem but a description of a personal view, which in turn tells us something about the motivations behind the comment.

    11. Re:What choice do we have? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, much like a mobster telling you you cando what they want, or you can die.

      Quite a dilema.Isn't it?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anybody "blaming" anybody. It's a pretty simple transaction: you set the terms under which you offer your labor and businesses either buy from you or they buy from someone else. No blame involved, and nothing personal.

      No blame involved? Are you sure?

      I keep hearing how if someone only worked harder, or tried harder, or took better opportunity of the circumstances, they wouldn't be unemployed so it's their own fault.

      That's blaming, and that's the state of the nation.

      But that's not all that you've described - you've nicely covered a "race to the bottom" where nobody gets more than minimum wage (or less) because everyone needs work.

      PhD in Physics, running the CERN supercollider? Minimum wage thanks, otherwise this guy over here will do it cheaper.

      10 years experience in networking? Minimum wage and no breaks, or this guy over here - who was 3 years experience - will take the job.

      See how that works?

      There's plenty of blame to go around.

    13. Re:What choice do we have? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      when I walk down the hallways of typical silicon valley software companies, I can walk for the length of a long hallway and not see a single american face there. when I walk thru the hallways, I often don't even hear english spoken at work anymore!

      americans are squeezed out. if you want to have a chance at getting a job, you have to slave yourself to the bossman. else, well, I won't even have a hallway to walk thru.

      its NOT my choice to work long and hard. its forced on us and we have no say in the matter.

      this won't end well. I expect that in a few more years, you won't find a single US born person working at the tech companies.

      I'm not even sure where the americans went to. what jobs did they end up with? certainly not at the bay area software or hardware places.

      greedy ceo's deserve all the blame. when the revolution comes, I hope I have a ticket to their hangings. they are truly destroying our country and they could not care less! they are insulated and not affected by this.

      and if the ceo's are not put up against the wall, I do expect to see people going postal ('going software' might be the new phrase) when they are completely squeezed out and they feel they have nothing left to lose but go on a killing spree.

      I feel sorry for our society. its melting down before our very eyes and no one is doing a thing about it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    14. Re:What choice do we have? by msauve · · Score: 0

      Shhh. You're upsetting his worldview, where he's entitled to being taken care of.

      The counterpoint is that (at least in the US), the government makes it nearly impossible to subsist without participating in the government economy. You can't just grow subsistence crops on open land, you can't own land without participating in the $ economy to pay property taxes. You can't live a natural life if you wanted to. And if you try to be independant, they'll kill you.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    15. Re:What choice do we have? by rainmaestro · · Score: 2

      If you can take a pay cut, you can find better alternatives. Even though I'm exempt like most of IT, I never work over 40 hours outside of emergencies (only three times in five years with this company). On those rare times, I was paid for them. This was something I negotiated from the beginning: no overtime unless I'm paid.

      My pay is about 15% below market average, but this was the tradeoff I was willing to make in order to have a less stressful work life (and my lifestyle is such that I could afford the cut). If you've got a huge mortgage, three kids, five cars and a mountain of student debt and credit card debt, yeah, you're pretty well fucked.

      My parents quit their jobs when they moved about 10 years ago and became self-employed. They make half of what they did before, but only work about 30 hours a week. They've both said they will never go back to working for somebody else. The freedom was worth the reduced pay to them as well.

    16. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 0

      No dilemma at all, and a false analogy.

      The mobster threatens you with violence if you don't give him what he wants.

      A business simply offers you a job and a salary. If you don't like the offer, pass on it. No threats, no obligation, no coercion involved.

    17. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do not make about 60k, you aren't comfortable. If you have kids this gets worse.

      What? Wow. In what parts of the country is this? Many people live on less than $20,000 and have cable, Internet, and other luxuries (although the Internet isn't always a luxury)... and they raise families on this income. Hell, I live on $20,000, but I make more than that. I just choose not to be a "Consumer" and live so that I can save a huge portion of my income, make the right and safe investments, and I'll be retiring far earlier than most people.

      You can be comfortable with much less than 60k, unless you've been brainwashed into buying shit you don't need, or you're living in an absurdly expensive city.

    18. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A business simply offers you a job and a salary. If you don't like the offer, pass on it. No threats, no obligation, no coercion involved.

      Unless businesses collude with each other or the government to suppress wages.

    19. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we're retarded and we keep believing that "important" things have to do with presidential past drug use, various bouts of infidelity, terrorism, and other "unimportant" issues.

      Standards for work conditions? Permanently on the back burner...we have more important shit to do. Apparently.

    20. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and work-sane-hours-and-enjoy-living Europe.

      Bonjour Laziness

    21. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      10 years experience in networking? Minimum wage and no breaks, or this guy over here - who was 3 years experience - will take the job. See how that works?

      Yes, that is the way it's supposed to work. If one car repair shop charges you $200/h and another $100/h, and you know they both get the job done, which one are you going to take your car to? Are you willing to pay extra if the $200/h shop's mechanic has a Ph.D. in English literature?

      I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.

    22. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The irony, of course, is that a lot of those restrictions are really just rooted in middle class greed and selfishness; all that progressive talk about social responsibility and equality is just window dressing, and many of the "social programs" just funnel money and benefits in the hands of the educated middle class. The same people who pretend they want to help the poor look down their noses at Walmart, rednecks, and NASCAR.

    23. Re:What choice do we have? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      when I walk down the hallways of typical silicon valley software companies, I can walk for the length of a long hallway and not see a single american face there. when I walk thru the hallways, I often don't even hear english spoken at work anymore!

      No wonder they suck and fail at such high rates.

      its NOT my choice to work long and hard. its forced on us and we have no say in the matter.

      If you're going to work long and hard, be a consultant not an employee. Job security is an illusion now anyway so you might as well formalize the short term relationship and get paid higher rates for the work that you do.

      this won't end well. I expect that in a few more years, you won't find a single US born person working at the tech companies.

      Probably not, but historically speaking it never has anyway.

      I'm not even sure where the americans went to. what jobs did they end up with? certainly not at the bay area software or hardware places.

      They simply dropped out of the labor force, which means that by the government's logic they're no longer unemployed. The June labor force participation rate of 62.8% is the lowest in 36 years.

      greedy ceo's deserve all the blame. when the revolution comes, I hope I have a ticket to their hangings. they are truly destroying our country and they could not care less! they are insulated and not affected by this.

      I'm sure that the French nobility of 1789 also thought that they were insulated from the people's anger, until it turned out that they weren't.

      and if the ceo's are not put up against the wall, I do expect to see people going postal ('going software' might be the new phrase) when they are completely squeezed out and they feel they have nothing left to lose but go on a killing spree.

      On the plus side this is America so getting a gun is no problem. You don't even need to be sane, all you need is $100 dollars or less and you too can have your very own Saturday Night Special.

      I feel sorry for our society. its melting down before our very eyes and no one is doing a thing about it.

      Society doesn't care, it's getting exactly what it deserves.

    24. Re:What choice do we have? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The irony of the whole thing is that it's a death spiral. By asking employees to do more with less and get less sleep, their health suffers which is a negative on the company in MANY ways. First, tired workers simply are less productive, period. It's very possible that the 10, 12 hour days they're putting in they're simply not going to be as productive than if you forced them to go home after 8 and let them have a good rest, ready to take on the challenge tomorrow.

      Second, there are health issues.First, weakened immune systems mean workers get sicker easier. And sick employees almost always come to work (a term we call "presenteeism", the opposite of absenteeism). Well, you have a sniffling, sneezing, coughing worker spreading their germs to everyone. What's THAT going to do for productivity?

      Third, safety and quality. A tired worker just isn't safe, period. Accidents in the workplace, increased workplace compensation costs. Quality goes down because workers are less attentive and less likely to spot flaws.

      Of course, short term crunches do work. In the short term. Once they become chronic, well, the whole workplace suffers and you end up at some middling level of productivity caused by sick employees, tired less productive employees, and the lack of safety and quality in the final product.

      Perhaps the phrase "they don't make 'em like they used to" might actually be true - workers end up producing crap because they're too tired to take pride in their work and to do a good job!

      The other problem is cultural - who hasn't heard the old brag "I work hard! I did 100 hours last week!" as if working long days at the office was something to be proud of?

      Finally, we're not Japanese. The Japanese get away with overwork because companies generally care about their employees - they get hired from university or high school and work until retirement where their every need is taken care of, including family. Here you're lucky to even get a email on your birthday or anniversary.

      But I suppose that's what happens when you boil everything down to numbers.

      Small anecdote - there was a company that bought a bunch of coconuts for their ship's provisions. They usually bought 100 coconuts a day, at around $1 a coconut. They asked how much it would be if they increased their order to 200 coconuts a day. The price rose to $2 a coconut! (you'd expect what, 75 cents or so, right?). The reason is that the coconut gatherer would have to work that much harder to collect their 200 coconuts, the increase in stress and longer working hours meant in effect the guy had to do a lot more, and earn less on it, and that's bad for business when your employees have to work their butts off just to be in the same place.

    25. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we DO have a choice. But a lot of people do not realize this or think that they're expected to work over 40 hours even without any direct orders from the boss (which would be illegal anyway). For instance I argue with my cubicle neighbor who is absolutely an workaholic. He goes home on time but then logs in and keeps working until midnight, next day complaining about his wife complaining about his work habits. But I don't do that. I refuse absolutely to do any work on the weekend, unless there is some emergency (which must by necessity be rare, otherwise they are not longer emergencies but standard procedures). Then I show up on monday and find a tons of email from all the workaholics. When I go home from work I do no further work: home is my home and I will never tarnish it with work from the office. But this does not get me into trouble, it does not get me fired, and I'm making more money than I have ever made before.

      Yes there are times when I do work more than 40. Often actually I am at office longer than that but I also am not working at 100% during the day but spend time reading news, chatting with coworkers, hanging out in the break room for lunch, and other non work activities. Occasionally there are some stretches when I am working more than normal, such as yesterday with nearly all day of meetings, which is rare for me, so then after wasting time with fluff I feel I have to at least put in a solid two hours of honest work. (meetings are **not** work)

      I also show up for work late. It's the only way to beat the commute. If I show up at normal times and leave at normal times then I will be spending over 2 hours a day commuting. If I show up late and leave late then I can cut this down to just one hour. Of course it means no opportunity for car pooling but I also prefer a loose and relaxed schedule than to be constantly stressed by an upcoming deadline to catch a ride or train. And I've done this most of my life as well. This does not mean every single day is the same amount of work; it can go up and down, some weeks I need to do a lot more, but on other weeks if there's not much to do then I'll take a short day.

      So... workers do indeed have a choice. They just need to exercise that choice. NEVER start a job with the assumption that you must be there 60-80 hours. If you are asked to do that then leave as soon as possible and find another job. Yes it is true that employers will try to cheat here and imply that you need to be around longer, and they will often throw out more and more assignments to test everyone's limits and determine how many hours they will slave for without complaining. So the employee needs to push back. Demand and insist on personal time. By law the US employers can not insist that anyone work longer than 40 hours without being paid overtime, and this includes exempt workers. If someone has a family then it is IMPOSSIBLE to work an 80 hour week and maintain a quality of life with the family.

    26. Re:What choice do we have? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I was listening to talk radio last year and there was a 59 year old man-- about to lose his unemployment benefits-- and as a result of that, his house- he thought his wife as well, and -- get this-- he was railing against people who were trying to extend his unemployment benefits.

      That's how screwed up things are. People who listen to radio and television which is paid for by the wealthy (and I include MSNBC and CNN) are being brainwashed to slit their own throats because -- maybe --- someday-- (including the 59 year old above) they -might- become wealthy.

      It's crazy.

      ---

      * if you listen to msnbc you can hear them drop in pro wealthy comments a couple times an hour- or they set a foundation like "but of course we can't raise taxes on the wealthy because that would destroy jobs" .

      The problem coming is the wealthy are going to own and preside over automated factories which provide no middle class jobs. I don't know where they think they'll get their customers from once there are no workers with decent incomes left.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    27. Re:What choice do we have? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on the job. I've heard that IT tends to be bad, but that's mostly because there are so many workers with the same set of certificates all scrambling for the same low tier jobs that they feel they must be the wage slave just to survive. Especially if it's the worst of the worst jobs that require employees to be "on call". But in many programming, computing, and engineering jobs this is not true at all.

      Most of all of this is entirely workers driven. It's not blaming the workers per se, except maybe blaming workers for not suing employers when they break the law.

    28. Re:What choice do we have? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      How do they force you? If anyone is fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours then they can sue since this is breaking the laws of most states in the US. Yes it is true that some immigrants will work longer than this, the slaves to the greencards (meaning if laid off they may be deported, so they will put up with all sorts of illegal employer practices). Plus we also have immigrant managers as well who just do not know the law.

      The "legal" but immoral way to get workers to stay longer is to just give them more and more work to do with deadlines. If this happens too often though the employee can document everything and try to build up evidence for a lawsuit. Also helps to learn to say "no", because I've seen too many employees who seem to scared to do that (as in I see them saying "yes" over and over until the manager is out of sight at which point they start saying things like "I can't believe I'm being forced to do all these tasks at once!").

      It's also helpful to just be willing to accept slightly less money at raise time. It's a decision to make: more health and a better quality of life, versus a little bit larger paycheck.

      Helps to have bosses down at the lower level who will help out with the push back; every boss I've had has been someone who also has to do the day to day development and engineering work, so they're in exactly the same boat as everyone else only with more meetings.

    29. Re:What choice do we have? by ruir · · Score: 1

      Here we have the government in a twenty or more year program mandanting wages down quite overtly.

    30. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      20K will get you cheap chinese trinkets that you call luxuries. Compare the prices of smartphones over the past 5 years compared to the price of groceries. Guess which is steeply going going down in price and which is steeply going up. Too bad you can't eat your smartphone. 20K won't get you very far in terms health care, a retirement account, decent housing, or enough surplus money to build assets. It is not enough money to raise a family with. At 20K, you can only afford to feed them junk food every day, forget about things preventative healthcare. You'd be living hand to mouth and any setback in life like loss of a job or illness would always threaten to wipe you out. Making 40K and spending 20K is not the same as only making 20K.

      Some jackass might see your $40/mo MetroPCS phone which is your sole telephone and internet connection and claim you have "luxuries". But poor people have refrigerators, color TVs (as opposed to black and white), and Microwave ovens so they are not truly poor, right.

    31. Re:What choice do we have? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A business simply offers you a job and a salary. If you don't like the offer, pass on it. No threats, no obligation, no coercion involved.

      Yep. It's not like you have to eat, make rent, pay medical bills or any of that.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    32. Re:What choice do we have? by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better. Off-shoring and abundant work Visas guarantee that.

      ...and the fact that Americans are doing the work of two or three people now. Why hire four IT workers to cover 24 hour days when we can hire one guy and just make him on call 24 hours a day?

    33. Re:What choice do we have? by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      Most of all of this is entirely workers driven. It's not blaming the workers per se, except maybe blaming workers for not suing employers when they break the law.

      Yeah, that's the problem. If you confront them at hire time, you won't get hired, so instead you end up working 50+ hour weeks, keeping secretive timecards, then trying to sue after you leave. If you succeed, you get a lump sum that puts you into a higher tax bracket that year, meaning you've lost more of it to taxes. If you fail, you get nothing and maybe have to pay lawyers for their time. Either way, you've now damaged relations with your new employer by taking time off during your first month of employment and eliminated any chance of reemployment with your old employer.

      The real solution is specific plain-English rules sent to every employer by the labor board about who is really exempt and who isn't, followed by regular audits and massive fines for non-compliance.

    34. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... Not the sort I want to base public policy on.

      I have not read his work, but I doubt poor people had the time or the standing to record the world around them and demand change. While it was less common in the 1800s, the ideas for legal/political/social improvement always came from rich pricks asking "who loses" under the current legal/political/social structures. With crime, disease and random violence at simmering levels, rich pricks could use the 'rising tide' metaphor to the sincere benefit of everybody.

    35. Re:What choice do we have? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      You can always change vocations and not want as many things.

    36. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiots.

      First, do you even understand that this is not a Democracy?

      "rich entitled prick"

      You mean like, say, Ted Kennedy? Harry Reed? Chuck Schumer? Rich and prick describe them to a T.

      "And Toqueville was a rich entitled prick. Not the sort I want to base public policy on."

      Ever hear this one? I've little doubt that you haven't a clue why this is relevant today. But you will learn son, count on it.

      “Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
        Alexis de Tocqueville

    37. Re:What choice do we have? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's actually good to save the man that is drowning. What should the man do if no one is going to save him?

      What does it matter what he "should" do? He's drowning. If no one saves him, he dies.

      Real life isn't heroic fantasy where willpower trumps physical reality, you know.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    38. Re:What choice do we have? by ultranova · · Score: 2

      That's how screwed up things are. People who listen to radio and television which is paid for by the wealthy (and I include MSNBC and CNN) are being brainwashed to slit their own throats because -- maybe --- someday-- (including the 59 year old above) they -might- become wealthy.

      Of course, the only reason the 59-year old is vulnerable to being tricked into slitting his own throat is that he's willing to slit a throat to go from rich to richer. So the problem goes deeper than just having unrealistic expectations about your financial future.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    39. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice. Companies are demanding we do more with less. If you don't like it there's not much you can do. The job market sucks, and it's never going to get any better.

      The job market sucks because companies are employing four people to do the work of five, thus decreasing employment by 20%.

      It's not going to get any better because all of the knowledge workers believe they can negotiate better compensation individually, based on their unique talents, than as part of a faceless class of employees. It turns out that individuals are generally shit at negotiating, especially when the employer can simply threaten to hire some other faceless cog for less. It's not going to get any better until people stop talking about the Prisoner's Dilemma and start cooperating. Except that unions are bad.

    40. Re:What choice do we have? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You can always change vocations and not want as many things.

      You do realize that the luxuries you'd give up with a pay cut increasingly include food and shelter, right? Or do you suggest everyone do what Wal-Mart employees need to: get food stamps since their pay is not enough to live on?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.

      Except that A, they want to get more qualifications than they actually want to pay for and B, what they need today isn't necessarily what they'll need tomorrow. The consumer equivalent of that is buying liver-destroying Chinese pet treats from Wal-Mart because they're cheaper and the pet eats them as eagerly as safer but more expensive products.

      One of the biggest failings of the current business model is that it wants 110% input 110% of the time. There's no reserve capacity for when things get hairy. Because that would be "inefficient".

    42. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING?

      http://apple.slashdot.org/story/14/03/29/2125238/apple-google-go-on-trial-for-wage-fixing-on-may-27

      "PandoDaily's Mark Ames reports that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has denied the final attempt by Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe to have the class action lawsuit over hiring collusion practices tossed. The wage fixing trial is slated to begin on May 27. 'It's clearly in the defendants' interests to have this case shut down before more damaging revelations come out,' writes Ames. (Pixar, Intuit and LucasFilm have already settled.) The wage fixing cartel, which allegedly involved dozens of companies and affected one million employees, also reportedly affected innovation. 'One the most interesting misconceptions I've heard about the "Techtopus" conspiracy,' writes Ames of Google's agreement to cancel plans for an engineering center in Paris after Jobs expressed disapproval, 'is that, while these secret deals to fix recruiting were bad (and illegal), they were also needed to protect innovation by keeping teams together while avoiding spiraling costs.' Ames adds, 'In a field as critical and competitive as smartphones, Google's R&D strategy was being dictated, not by the company's board, or by its shareholders, but by a desire not to anger the CEO of a rival company.'"

    43. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling it "Workaholism" actually implies we are addicted to "workaholic"

      the actual linguistic problem is that the suffixes ism and ic don't normally mean addiction. So when the constructed word wants to borrow the addiction connotation it has to also borrow some of the noun.

    44. Re:What choice do we have? by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      You're given X amount of work to do and Y amount of time and if you don't do X you're fired, so you put in extra hours. Again and again and again.

      Except that the studies show that when Y goes over 40 hours a week, the total amount of work you actually get done goes down. Not the average, not the work per hour, you get less work done in total than you did at 40 hours a week. So it is actually very much an "ism" - people repeating the same completely counterproductive action over and over in the hope that somehow they'll be more productive when they won't be.

      Just be "that guy" at work that packs up and leaves at 8 hours that day. You'll get more done. Whenever you get flak, point back to these studies, and hammer home over and over again that you are getting the work done. In time the company culture will adjust and everyone there will be happier, including the bosses because more is being done with happier workers. Or you discover that you're working for a pathological employer who doesn't care about actual results but about appearances, but then you should leave anyway before you kill yourself working.

    45. Re:What choice do we have? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      My pay is about 15% below market average, but this was the tradeoff I was willing to make in order to have a less stressful work life (and my lifestyle is such that I could afford the cut).

      Bravo to you, sir. Seriously. Not many people are willing to stand up for themselves in this way, and that is precisely why the current overworked situation continues to exist.

      Numerous studies have shown that people who are "on the job" for ridiculous hours every week without ever taking a vacation do not perform as efficiently as those who are well-rested. But management at most companies is stupid -- and, well, mostly consists of the particular type of stupid person who thinks that long hours is always the cure for any problem and the way to get ahead.

      Also, more specifically to your point, most people have no actual sense of how their needs/wants are "calibrated" to their income. People who live on $100k salaries simply can't imagine living on $50k, and people who live on $50k can't imagine living on $30k, etc. But there are all sorts of ways to reduce consumption if you want to. These are the same type of people (i.e., most people) who have to be forced to sock away X% of their income for retirement by having it directly removed from their pay, otherwise they'd likely just spend their bank account until the balance is $0 that month.

      Unless you're near the bottom of the middle-class or lower, chances are that lots of people manage to live perfectly happy and respectable lives earning much less money than you do. (And people who work fewer hours are generally happier as well.) It's just that people look at their income, and they figure out what they can afford with that income, and then they basically tailor their purchases to use up most of that income... whatever it is. It isn't that they COULDN'T live on signficantly less (and perhaps be just as happy), it's that they don't need to figure out how, so they don't.

      So it comes down to: what makes you most happy? Having free time and time off from work, or competing in the "rat race" just to earn an extra few thousand to buy whatever random crap you won't have time to enjoy because you're always at work?

      I like my job, and I don't mind putting in some extra hours when I need to. But if you're not eager to do so, it's often not a good trade.

    46. Re:What choice do we have? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      My pay is about 15% below market average

      If you only work 40 hours per week, your hourly rate is the same as someone who works 47 hours per week.

      That's the way I look at my work time...how much am I getting per hour. I have no problem working extra when needed, even if that happens far more often than your once every year or so. But, if I was required to work 50 hours every week, I'd guess that most of my fellow employees were in the same bind, and we'd definitely have a talk with management about hiring more people to meet the demand.

    47. Re:What choice do we have? by Metabolife · · Score: 1

      Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer. You can hire people for essentially nothing, and rake in huge profits for doing very little work.

      This is essentially the problem. Your only primary path to success is a downward spiral where you become the scumbag taking advantage of the misfortunes of your fellow man.

    48. Re:What choice do we have? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is the way it's supposed to work. If one car repair shop charges you $200/h and another $100/h, and you know they both get the job done, which one are you going to take your car to?

      It depends -- what do you mean by "get the job done"? If the cheaper shop will do the minimum possible and do it so fast that they will make errors, maybe the savings will end up costing me in the long run. Or, if the more expensive shop takes additional time to look over other aspects of the car and notices something the other didn't, maybe that could save me money in the long run.

      Most people want the lowest price for a competent job, not just the lowest price. If I have to pay a premium to ensure the job is done well, I might. ($200/hour sounds a little extreme, but some premium might be worth it.)

      Are you willing to pay extra if the $200/h shop's mechanic has a Ph.D. in English literature?

      Is he a better mechanic? Is he more likely to take care of my car so that it will save me maintenance costs down the line? If so, maybe. I don't care what his credentials are, though, as long as he's a good mechanic.

      I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.

      Most people learn at some point in their lives that cheapness often comes with significant costs. I know we live in a "disposable" society, but I generally prefer equipment that is durable and will last me a long time to something where I have to go buy a replacement every few years. That means it costs more.

      Same thing with service. I've learned from experience that hiring maintenance people, for example, solely on the basis of price is usually a bad move. Sometimes you get a "good deal," but sometimes they ruin your stuff, or they do such a bad job that you end up redoing half of it yourself.

      Of course, one can also pay more and still end up with incompetence. Paying more is not necessarily a guarantee for good work, but paying the least possible is likely to get you subpar work a significant part of the time.

      So, you're right -- an employer pays as much as he thinks he needs to "get the job done" to his standards. If he wants to raise the standards, it might be worth raising the wage and the qualifications necessary for the job.

    49. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's not like you have to eat, make rent, pay medical bills or any of that.

      Yes, and it is your responsibility to learn something that people actually want to pay you good money for. If you go to college, then become a network engineer, and then there is no demand for network engineers anymore, that's your responsibility, just as if you go to college, learn art history, and then don't get a job as an art historian.

      You seem to think that "business" (really, the rest of the world) owes you a good living just because you learned something you thought would be a marketable skill. That's not just stupid, it's greedy and offensive.

      Note that, no matter how dumb and greedy your personal choices are, you don't have to starve in the US.

    50. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      I think it depends on the job. I've heard that IT tends to be bad, but that's mostly because there are so many workers with the same set of certificates all scrambling for the same low tier jobs that they feel they must be the wage slave just to survive.

      Yes, we have an oversupply of some kinds of IT personnel, and people have inflated expectations. The solution is for people to suck it up, deal with the fact that they spent money and time on a worthless certificate, and then go do something different.

    51. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      The real solution is specific plain-English rules sent to every employer by the labor board

      No, the real solution is for people to get out of fields where there is an oversupply of labor that lets employers get away with this b.s., because employers in fields where supply and demand are in balance don't behave this way. In fields where labor is scarce, employers will go out of their way to make your life good and retain you, and those are the fields you want to be in. Of course, those kinds of fields also require more skill and dedication that a network engineering certificate.

      Forcing businesses to overpay for labor just means that your entire job category becomes a candidate for automation, or even outsourcing, either to contracting firms, or straight overseas.

    52. Re:What choice do we have? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Re: anecdote
      Bulk prices go down if the good is market priced, and has built in efficiency. You can still earn a profit but make slightly less.

      Resource scarcity can make the goods harder to acquire, I.e. more locations have to be visited.

      At a minimum, I would expect the price not to change downward unless coconut guy already had them picked. You should reevaluate your expectations on this one.

    53. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      It depends -- what do you mean by "get the job done"? If the cheaper shop will do the minimum possible and do it so fast...

      Well, and that's what the people who hire at a business go through as well: "Is 3 years experience sufficient, or do we need the guy with 10 years? Can we save some money here or is it better to hire the more expensive guy?" AC is complaining about the fact that business make those kinds of tradeoffs.

      Most people learn at some point in their lives that cheapness often comes with significant costs

      Most people buy overpriced "luxury" crap that's made in the same Chinese factories as the cheap stuff. Most people buy stuff that is way too expensive for their income(*). Most people have little retirement savings and lots of credit card debt. Many people overpaid for their houses and mortgages. Most Americans are careless with money and don't understand business.

      So, you're right -- an employer pays as much as he thinks he needs to "get the job done" to his standards. If he wants to raise the standards, it might be worth raising the wage and the qualifications necessary for the job.

      That's his decision to make. You'd be surprised how good businesses are at making those kinds of decisions. And if the cheap employee doesn't work out, they'll fire him and hire someone more qualified.

      Businesses are also very good at figuring out how to get rid of your job entirely if it gets too expensive: they'll eliminate it by buying more expensive equipment or just outsource it to a service provider, possibly overseas. That's what usually happens when government tries to keep the wrong people in jobs.

      (*) See whether you're driving a car you can afford: http://www.financialsamurai.co...

    54. Re:What choice do we have? by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      Oh, there have been more than three times where I could have gone over, but since my boss has to pay me for that extra time, he doesn't want me going over 40 (outside of emergencies, like when a RAID-5 VM host lost two drives in under an hour on a Saturday morning and had to be rebuilt). If I end up staying late two hours because a meeting runs long, I leave two hours early on Friday. If I spend Saturday doing out-of-hours maintenance on a mail server, I take a day off the next week to balance out the hours.

      Funny thing happens when you negotiate for overtime pay: they stop asking you work late :)

    55. Re:What choice do we have? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      You seem to think that "business" (really, the rest of the world) owes you a good living just because you learned something you thought would be a marketable skill. That's not just stupid, it's greedy and offensive.

      Do you enjoy just making up stuff about what people say, just so you can then get offended and hurl invective?

      By the way, if you actually read the grandparent post (for god's sake man, it's yours! that should not be hard!) and understand how it is a reply to what you wrote, you won't actually loose your right wing-nut credentials. Nor will that make you a filthy eurohippy commie-liberal, or anything nasty and icky like that.

      A clue: if you make coherent arguments, people are more likely to listen to you than if you rant at the moon.

      This is why I have roman_mir on my list of "friends" (i.e. automatically up-mod posts for me) whereas I think you're a nutcase.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    56. Re:What choice do we have? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      I'm a libertarian, yet I agree. In a society without a frontier workers born without significant capital often have little choice other than to sell their labor to live. A major power imbalance between parties significantly impacts what are supposedly voluntary contracts.

    57. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really see anyone blaming the workers. I do see people suggesting that workers take appropriate steps to protect their interests. Maybe workers should learn skills that indentured serfs don't have. Maybe workers should take advantage of a world with cheap unskilled labor rather than being a part of the unskilled labor force and therefore causing a higher supply to demand ratio of unskilled labor (as I implied earlier). Maybe workers should actually vote. Workers clearly have an electoral advantage. They, however, continue to vote for republicans and democrats that are selling them out to corporations (or simply don't vote at all).

      That's because if there's one thing Americans (esp. tech workers) hate more than republicans or democrats, it's the concept of workers doing anything other than work harder.

      Organize to petition worker interests? Voting a certain way? Striking? Why that's unionizing! Ewwwww!

      The American worker is Boxer.

    58. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you enjoy just making up stuff about what people say, just so you can then get offended and hurl invective?

      I'm not "making things up", that's what your response obviously meant. If you meant to say something different, you need to be clearer.

      This is why I have roman_mir on my list of "friends" (i.e. automatically up-mod posts for me) whereas I think you're a nutcase.

      Yes, and I have you downmodded automatically because, for the most part, you don't have anything of value to say. Funny how that works.

    59. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A clue: if you make coherent arguments, people are more likely to listen to you than if you rant at the moon.

      This is why I have roman_mir

      I disagree, roman_mir rants at the moon more than stenvar. He can take almost any topic and find an angle to be about government. He embodies the statement "a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"

      Roman_mir is consistent in his anti-government message, but that's not the same as being coherent. Even the unabomber had a consistent message.

      Unlike stenvar, people have gone reverse Gandhi on roman: they first tried to fight him, then just they laugh at him, and now for the most part they just ignore him in perma -1

    60. Re:What choice do we have? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I don't see what you think is wrong with businesses choosing cheap labor and paying only for qualifications they actually need: you do the same thing in your daily life.

      It's because there is a massive power imbalance between the employer and employee. Generally speaking, the employee needs a job more than the employer needs the employee. The employer probably has hundreds of applications for a given position, while the prospective employee is struggling to get interviews, let alone offers.

      Price competition does not work in the same way as salary competition, because the actors are on different sides of the equation. If shop A is asking too much for a good or service, I can easily go to shop B to see if it is cheaper there because I am the purchaser. If shop A wants my business they need to either lower their prices or add value to their offering to justify the higher price. In the salary competition scenario, the employee is like the shop. He is selling his labor to the employer. So the employer is the one who can shop around, and the employee has to either lower his wages or add value to justify higher wages. The difference between the two scenarios is the power imbalance. There is not a huge power imbalance in the price competition scenario like there is in the salary competition scenario.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    61. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of all of this is entirely workers driven. It's not blaming the workers per se, except maybe blaming workers for not suing employers when they break the law.

      Go ahead and sue your employer. See how easy it is to get another job after you've done that.

    62. Re:What choice do we have? by praxis · · Score: 1

      Calling it "Workaholism" implies we have a choice.

      We do have a choice. Convincing yourself that you can't do anything about it is just fatalism and depressing. With that kind of mindset you are unlikely to choose something for yourself that's not corporate serfdom. The powers that benefit from corporate serfs spend a lot of time and money convincing the populace that their way is the best way. They don't want you to think about creative ways to live your life; they rather you feel like you're getting a great deal from them.

    63. Re:What choice do we have? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      How do they force you? If anyone is fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours then they can sue since this is breaking the laws of most states in the US.

      Fired for what now? Many states are "at will" states, meaning the employee is there at the will of themselves and their employer. If either party decides they don't like the arrangement, they can terminate the employment. So you can be fired because they just don't want you working there anymore. They didn't say it was for working only 40 hours, or because you're gay, or really what it was for. So good luck gathering evidence that you were fired for working only 40 hours, or because you got pregnant or whatever. The evidence doesn't exist. Besides, where is your unemployed ass getting the money for a lawyer? Suing isn't free, you know. You have to pay lawyers, and maybe you'll get it repaid on the back end if you happen to win. But even then you usually need to foot the bill yourself until such time comes, if it does.

      That's how they force you.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    64. Re:What choice do we have? by praxis · · Score: 1

      How do they force you? If anyone is fired for refusing to work more than 40 hours then they can sue since this is breaking the laws of most states in the US.

      I assume you mean forty hours a week and not forty hours in toto. Can you point to a law that prevents an employer from firing an employee for refusing to work more than forty hours a week?

      Most knowledge workers are exempt employees which means employers need not track their hours or pay them overtime for any time worked beyond forty per week. Nonexempt employees may work more than forty hours per week but must be paid overtime.

    65. Re:What choice do we have? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I forget to add, good luck getting your next job when you sued the pants off your last employer.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    66. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always change vocations and not want as many things.

      You do realize that the luxuries you'd give up with a pay cut increasingly include food and shelter, right? Or do you suggest everyone do what Wal-Mart employees need to: get food stamps since their pay is not enough to live on?

      You do realize that most Americans have been convinced they need all sorts of things they don't? Food and shelter is achievable for a *lot* less than most American's think. I live in a major metropolitan area and my food and shelter expenses are under $1000 a month and I live in a downtown apartment and eat good wholesome food for every meal.

    67. Re:What choice do we have? by clam666 · · Score: 1
      The irony of the whole thing is that it's a death spiral. By asking employees to do more with less and get less sleep, their health suffers which is a negative on the company in MANY ways. First, tired workers simply are less productive, period. It's very possible that the 10, 12 hour days they're putting in they're simply not going to be as productive than if you forced them to go home after 8 and let them have a good rest, ready to take on the challenge tomorrow.

      This happens where I am all the time. It's always another case of "We'll need extended hours support tonight until 9pm because the developers just made a change to...." or some such nonsense. Pair that with complete lack of leadership. It used to be once or twice, now its pretty much 30% chance per day that someone will screw up, and instead of pushing it until the next day, it's us using what dregs of energy is left at the end of the day, from getting no sleep the night before.

      My problem is I'm nocturnal, always have been. School was hard, work is hard, I just can't sleep until about 0400, then I have to coffee achieve the week until I can crash 15 hours on the weekend. Unfortunately I'm paid too much to go get some night job as a bartender where the hours would be acceptable

      Second, there are health issues.First, weakened immune systems mean workers get sicker easier. And sick employees almost always come to work (a term we call "presenteeism", the opposite of absenteeism). Well, you have a sniffling, sneezing, coughing worker spreading their germs to everyone. What's THAT going to do for productivity?

      I'm that guy. I come into the office no matter what trail of blood I'm leaving behind me. I simply can't blow the sick time, which is the only vacation you can get since vacations get cancelled because of deployment schedule changes. I actively spread contagion on management to punish them these days.

      Of course, short term crunches do work. In the short term. Once they become chronic, well, the whole workplace suffers and you end up at some middling level of productivity caused by sick employees, tired less productive employees, and the lack of safety and quality in the final product.

      What's interesting is that its now an indirect effect instead of a direct effect. Maybe it falls under the heading or "morale", but productivity suffers. But not because of lack of sleep directly. We're all tired and fed up, so we are actively sabotaging things. It's become more of a quiet revolution than just making coding errors, back check ins, inefficient coding, whatever. People intentionally lower their IQ. What I love about this job is that, to your average manager, they can't differentiate between Einstein, and someone ten times smarter than Einstein. Sure I could make an API call to do that, but why take 5 minutes when 5 days is a better option? Does fixing that bug take a day or a week? Maybe the lack of sleep just causes people to not care anymore and become dull, but it certainly has made a number of people I work with now actively become unproductive. On purpose. As punishment for piss poor management.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    68. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Startups are the problem for IT folks. They have built a legend of get rich quick by working long hours, other companies now tell their employees "we need to be nimble, think and act like a start up".

      So the get the ball rolling phase of a startup, working long hours to create something, has moved over to the mature businesses, who use this Think Like a Start Up philosophy to justify destroying people's health, personal, and family lives.

    69. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does it matter what he "should" do? He's drowning. If no one saves him, he dies.

      Some people would try to, I dunno, save themselves?

    70. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What does it matter what he "should" do? He's drowning. If no one saves him, he dies.

      Whether he is going to die or not, he should still try to survive. He shouldn't stop trying under the assumption that the only thing that can save him is benevolence of extremely wealthy people.

      Real life isn't heroic fantasy where willpower trumps physical reality, you know.

      I never said willpower trumps reality. I am saying that the reality is that it is probable that no one will save you, so you'd better try to save yourself.

    71. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But poor people have refrigerators, color TVs (as opposed to black and white), and Microwave ovens so they are not truly poor, right.

      Not compared to starving Africans, they aren't.

    72. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      This is essentially the problem. Your only primary path to success is a downward spiral where you become the scumbag taking advantage of the misfortunes of your fellow man.

      And if enough people do this, it will create larger demand for and a smaller supply of workers raising their market value.

      By not becoming a "scumbag", you are actually helping to perpetuate the problem.

      By becoming a "scumbag" you are actually giving workers more options, making them more valuable, and a better bargaining position.

      If the labor market really is so lop-sided, you could become an employer, pay higher wages than everyone else, and still make a profit (i.e. not be a scumbag), but then you couldn't hire as many people as you otherwise would have (i.e. you can help some people more or help more people less)

    73. Re:What choice do we have? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      At-will means that they don't have to give a reason for firing you. However if you discover the reason and that reason was not legal then at-will doesn't mean anything. Ie, at-will states can not fire someone merely for being in the wrong political party.

      Yes it is true that companies can break the law with impunity because they know most employees will suck it up and that they can settle out of court or with arbitration the one or two who do push back. However there are a lot of employees and managers who do not know that there are laws in this regard and just assume that "permanent crunch time" is perfectly normal and allowed.

      I have noticed that often it's the single people who get the most work, because the managers will look around and think "who can I get to work this weekend who does not have other plans". So they're trying to find the path of least resistance, and someone who pushes back will get leeway. Those workers who aren't working the long hours STILL get the raises and promotions.

    74. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it "blaming the workers" to point out the actions that workers could do to achieve their goals?

      Perhaps. Emmanel Kant came up with this awesome test: if everyone did it, does it still work? If your claim is that if everyone "learned skills", retroactively went back in time and gave up that cheeseburger and put those two bucks into a nest egg that could be put towards starting a company and vote, then every American can be gainfully employed, then it comes down to a question of whether the existing gap between the number of open jobs and the number of unemployed people can be fixed by all of the unemployed people getting skills and starting their own companies, then no, it's a perfectly fine Moral Imperative that everyone learn skills and start their own company.

      On the other hand, if everyone learns skills and starts their company and the gap exists because there is not enough work for everyone then telling the workers to do these things (at great personal expense, typically) is an asshole move.

    75. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you realized, but I was in fact referring to the clear derivation of workaholism from alcoholism (and it's implication of addiction), and not of the ism suffix in general.

    76. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The idea of "not enough work for everyone" is actually a good thing, not a bad thing. It means that we have enough wealth that not everyone is required to work full time in order to provide for everyone. If people are starving, then is work that still needs to be done. Maybe in the worst case scenario, that work is subsistence agriculture or scavenging to keep from starving. The goal is to have an efficient economy that generates the most wealth for the least effort.

      If you start your own company, you "create" jobs for people. Or to look at it another way, you are offering to buy someone's labor. You are also taking on the risk that you can turn that person's labor into profit and removing risk (i.e. granting stability) to your employee.

      Furthermore the naive application of Kant's test fails trivially, because it is not god for everyone to be employers (with no employees) nor for everyone to be employees (with no employer), for the same reason that groups with 100% leaders or 100% followers don't work well.

      Clearly there is an optimal balance between employers and employees. When there is an imbalance, the natural mechanism to fix this is to incentivize people to switch. When labor is cheap, there is an incentive to become an employer. When labor is expensive, there is an incentive to sell your company (and the associated risk) and become an employee.

      Or we can use "modern" financial devices and everyone can be both employers and employees, by being employees but owning stock in their own company or in other companies.

    77. Re:What choice do we have? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      It's because there is a massive power imbalance between the employer and employee. Generally speaking, the employee needs a job more than the employer needs the employee.

      If the employer doesn't get the employees he needs with the skill he needs to get the job done, he goes out of business and gets no money, often very quickly.

      As an employee, you have lots of choices and options: you can work for many different employers, you can choose to live off your savings, you can change fields, and you can even go on welfare. All of that gives you a lot of power to negotiate.

      Of course, if you don't have any savings, aren't flexible, and don't have a good resume, your options are very limited and you may have to take the first job that's offered to you. But that's like saying that when you max out your credit cards, there is a power imbalance between you and the bank. True, there is, but why should anybody care?

    78. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that A, they want to get more qualifications than they actually want to pay

      They make you an offer. If you don't think it's fair, you pass. If they needed you, they are in trouble. If they didn't need you that badly, there is no reason to offer you more.

      B, what they need today isn't necessarily what they'll need tomorrow

      And of course you think they never thought of that, right?

      One of the biggest failings of the current business model is that it wants 110% input 110% of the time. There's no reserve capacity for when things get hairy. Because that would be "inefficient".

      You're full of it. Businesses are acutely aware of the costs of finding skilled employees and will retain employees even if they don't need the capacity.

    79. Re:What choice do we have? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you know it!

      one lawsuit (which is public record) and you're now PERMANENTLY unemployable, even at places like los pollos hermanos.

      if you sue, you better be sure you will win and land enough to retire from.

      they have us. they made the rules, they stacked the deck and we have no power.

      THIS IS WHY WE NEED UNIONS BACK. software is a sweatshop and its not going to improve unless we fight back.

      immigrants have no idea what a union is and they are too happy to have a job, so they are the last people to rock the boat. this is yet another reason why employers want only immigrants. they will take any abuse and never sue and never fight back. ideal pawns.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    80. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nobody has the goal to be the worlds greatest middle manager. You're goal something else. Buy your kid braces, keep your car running just a little longer, pay for your Grandma's doctor's visits.

      Come work at my last gig.

      I had equity.

      The asshole hired over me who told me I wasn't "agile" enough had no equity. He was two levels of management over me. When I said I was willing to try doing shit his way because it might get the company profitable enough that it could be sold, he chuckled and said he wasn't interested in equity.

      I quit a few months later.

      They're losing money now.

      But the fucking agilistas have their careers.

      And anybody with equity and talent left.

      Because the fucking founder was such a fucking egomaniac he still thinks everything is fine. Because of course he does - he hired careerists and managers to rape the company's finances and push away anybody who actually had a stake in the outcome. But they tell him his shit doesn't stink. So once again everyone gets fucked except the founder (who took enough out that his lifestyle won't be impacted when the company dies) and the fucking managers he hired (who don't give a fuck, suck it dry and on to the next company), and the people who got fucked hardest were those of us who built his piece of shit company.

      What, me, bitter? :)

      Anyways. Where was I.

      Oh yeah. The customers, shareholders suffer, the founder doesn't know he's being fucked out of millions. Perfect enivronment if you have a passion for middle management, but if you just wanted to make money, get the fuck out. Fuck people who have a passion for middle management. The last thing you want is people who actually have the goal of being the world's greatest middle manager.

    81. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that its now an indirect effect instead of a direct effect. Maybe it falls under the heading or "morale", but productivity suffers. But not because of lack of sleep directly. We're all tired and fed up, so we are actively sabotaging things. It's become more of a quiet revolution than just making coding errors, back check ins, inefficient coding, whatever. People intentionally lower their IQ. What I love about this job is that, to your average manager, they can't differentiate between Einstein, and someone ten times smarter than Einstein. Sure I could make an API call to do that, but why take 5 minutes when 5 days is a better option? Does fixing that bug take a day or a week? Maybe the lack of sleep just causes people to not care anymore and become dull, but it certainly has made a number of people I work with now actively become unproductive. On purpose. As punishment for piss poor management.

      The Midget, whose name was Markoff Chaney, was no relative of the famous Chaneys of Hollywood, but people did keep making jokes about that. It was bad enough to be, by the standards of the gigantic and stupid majority, a freak; how much worse to be so named as to remind these big oversized clods of the cinema's two most famous portrayers of monstro-freaks; by the time the Midget was fifteen, he had built up a detestation for ordinary mankind that dwarfed (he hated that word) the relative misanthropies of Paul of Tarsus, Clement of Alexandria, Swift of Dublin and even Robert Putney Drake. Revenge, for sure, he would have. He would have revenge.

      It was in college (Antioch, Yellow Springs, 1962) that Markoff Chaney discovered another hidden joke in his name, and the circumstances wereâ"considering that he was to become the worst headache the Illuminati ever encounteredâ"appropriately synchronistic. It was in a math class, and, since this was Antioch, the two students directly behind the Midget were ignoring the professor and discussing their own intellectual interests; since this was Antioch, they were a good six years ahead of intellectual fads elsewhere. They were discussing ethology.

      "So we keep the same instincts as our primate ancestors," one student (he was from Chicago, his name was Moon, and he was crazy even for Antioch) was saying. "But we superimpose culture and law on top of this. So we get split in two, dig? You might say," Moon's voice betrayed pride in the aphorism he was about to unleash, "mankind is a statutory ape."

      ". . . and," the professor, old Fred "Fidgets" Digits, said at just that moment, "when such a related series appears in a random process, we have what is known as a Markoff Chain. I hope Mr. Chaney won't be tormented by jokes about this for the rest of the term, even if the related series of his appearances in class do seem part of a notably random process." The class roared; another ton of bile was entered in the Midget's shit ledger, the list of people who were going to eat turd before he died.

      In fact, his cuts were numerous, both in math and in other classes. There were tunes when he could not bear to be with the giants, but hid in his room, Playboy gatefold open, masturbating and dreaming of millions and millions of nubile young women built like Playmates. Today, however, Playboy would avail him not; he needed something raunchier. Ignoring his next class, Physical Anthropology (always good for a few humiliating moments), he hurried across David Street, pass-big Atlanta Hope without noticing her, and slammed into his room, chain-bolting the door behind him.

      Damn old Fidgets Digits, and damn the science of mathematics itself, the line, the square, the average, the whole measurable world that pronounced him a bizarre random factor. Once and for all, beyond fantasy, in the depth of his soul he declared war on the statutory ape, on law and order, on predictability, on negative entropy. He would be a random factor in every equation; from this day forward, unto death, it would be civil war

    82. Re:What choice do we have? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I don't really see anyone blaming the workers. I do see people suggesting that workers take appropriate steps to protect their interests. Maybe workers should learn skills that indentured serfs don't have. Maybe workers should take advantage of a world with cheap unskilled labor rather than being a part of the unskilled labor force and therefore causing a higher supply to demand ratio of unskilled labor (as I implied earlier).

      America has one of the most highly skilled work forces in the world, both in terms of the number of skilled workers per capita and the extent of their skills.

      And so what. Get a master's degree in your field, your resumé gets discarded by HR: overqualified. Have 20 years of experience in the field, your resumé gets discarded by HR: overqualified. Fail to have 10 years of experience in 5 year old technology, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified. Fail to have the right school on your resume, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified: Fail to claim you can walk on water and fly solely by grabbing your bootstraps and yanking, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified. Goldilocks was never so picky. Why? Because they're desperate for any criteria they can use to dig themselves out from under the absolutely monstrous deluge of resumés they received for the job posting they only posted because the law required it and they've already got the H1B lined up they're going to put in that slot.

      Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer.

      Right. Obviously. Because it's not like all of the existing markets haven't already been divvied up among the giant entrenched players who have not only rigged the laws and regulations against startups but have piled up tens of thousands of bogus patents that guarantee they can exort a ruinous sum from literally any venture if they so choose, and the only choice is over whether they kill your venture aborning or wait until it's slightly valuable, then extort payment that will only kill your venture a little bit later. Nevermind the fact that if you haven't already Gotten Yours, you can't even afford to hire a dog walker, let alone one of those literally millions of unemployed skilled potential workers, let alone the 20 it would take to get something really useful accomplished.

      dot

      dot

      dot

      Now that I've gotten the scathing sarcasm off my chest...

      If we couple your assertion with the guy several hundred posts up who says he's up to his ass in one-off contract offers he can't fulfill after booking $170k in a year doing evenings-and-weekends work, we can come to a conclusion: this Brave New Tech Economy scares people and that fright is disastrously self-destructive.

      Let me lay out the pieces.

      Once upon a time, not too very long ago, small business was the majority type of employer in the United States. Despite gargantuan headcounts at a few multinationals, they were still outnumbered by literally millions of small businesses. But small business headcounts have been steadily shrinking, because they've been increasing automation. They had to, because there were millions of them, and they had to increase efficiency, because everybody else was and if they didn't, they couldn't compete and they'd go out of business, so they did, so everybody else had to too, so they did and here we are twenty years later and they find they've backed themselves into a corner.

      They don't understand what they have. They bought a complicated tool, that they absolutely must have to stay competitive, but they don't understand it.

      It's called a computer.

      They don't know how it works, they don't know what makes it go, they actively dislike the damn thing if they don't outright hate it, but by and large it allows them to do things that simply aren't possible with their current headcount unl

    83. Re:What choice do we have? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Your post is full of idealism. Very little of which is going to work in the real world in practice.

      There is no way that enough workers could become employers to cause a shortage in workers, thereby raising demand for workers. It is an interesting text book thought experiment, but that has never happened in the history of the world, nor will it in the future.

    84. Re:What choice do we have? by clam666 · · Score: 1

      The really odd thing about this is I'm programming some hidden markov models right now.

      Poorly.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    85. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      America has one of the most highly skilled work forces in the world, both in terms of the number of skilled workers per capita and the extent of their skills.

      I will start out by saying that I think this depends on your definition of "skilled". College degrees don't necessarily imply any *useful* skills. Unfortunately we have been sold this idea that a college education is worthwhile regardless of the cost and regardless of what you actually learned. We are now just starting to realize that this is really not the case.

      And so what. Get a master's degree in your field, your resumé gets discarded by HR: overqualified. Have 20 years of experience in the field, your resumé gets discarded by HR: overqualified. Fail to have 10 years of experience in 5 year old technology, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified. Fail to have the right school on your resume, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified: Fail to claim you can walk on water and fly solely by grabbing your bootstraps and yanking, your resumé gets discarded by HR: underqualified. Goldilocks was never so picky. Why? Because they're desperate for any criteria they can use to dig themselves out from under the absolutely monstrous deluge of resumés they received for the job posting they only posted because the law required it and they've already got the H1B lined up they're going to put in that slot.

      So let me ask you this. Let's say you're a perfectly competent person in India trying to get an H1B job in the USA. You are willing to work for 2/3of whatever the "normal" salary for that job is, because it's still higher than what you would get in India. What is the rationale for hiring the American worker over you who can do the job for less money?

      I am not talking about from a capitalist perspective. I am talking about from a human perspective. For the price of giving 2 American workers jobs, you can give 3 Indian workers jobs and have 50% more productivity. What good is served by denying these jobs to the most competitive applicants?

      Maybe it's hard to imagine yourself as an Indian. Lets look at pilots. People love flying and because of that we have a lot of people who are pilots. We have more pilots than jobs for them. There are a few experienced pilots who score really good jobs at big airlines making good salaraies. All the other pilots are stuck earning $20K/year at regional airlines, sharing apartments with 9 other pilots. In this example the highly paid pilots have more experience. Lets say they didn't. Let's say all pilots had the exact same skills. What should we do? Should we just keep paying a few pilots $200K per year and let the rest live in poverty?

      If there is a high supply and relatively low demand for pilots, the market solution is to pay pilots less. Is it fair? I don't know that there exists a universally "fair" solution to this problem. It's not fair that some pilots can't do what they love and make a decent living. It's not fair to tax payers if we subsidize pilots with tax money, to artificially keep them living comfortably (and incentivize even more people to become pilots).

      Maybe the market solution is not fair. I am arguing that no solution is fair, but at least the market solution will incentivize people to make the right decisions in the future. Maybe if pilots make less money then less people will decide to become a pilot and instead learn some skill that's high in demand.

      Maybe I'm not responding to the part of your post you would have liked, but you basically wrote a short story, and I don't really know where to start.

    86. Re:What choice do we have? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      ...Maybe it's because the capitalists own the media... Heck, I don't know.

      Yes you do.

    87. Re:What choice do we have? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      To fight for it you need Capital thanks to barriers to entry created by...drum roll please, the Capitalists who control Capital.
      Wow!
      PERPETUAL MOTION DOWNWARD for the slaves, what a GREAT idea!!
      Till the Tumbrills and heads roll that is.

    88. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they care if you get burned out? There is an ample supply of unemployed workers who will take your spot, thanks largely to the willingness of the current workforce to go above and beyond, ensuring that the unemployment rate is kept artificially high. They will work you to the bone, and when you finally collapse, you'll be discarded for a newer model, likely at a cost savings, given the depressing effect that high unemployment has on income rates.

    89. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      There is no way that enough workers could become employers to cause a shortage in workers, thereby raising demand for workers.

      Not in the extreme case, but less extreme cases have happened in cycles. We have boom cycles when the economy is good, and more people feel confident that they can succeed in starting their own business, the money is flowing to people who want to invest, and employers are forced to pay people more in order to compete for workers. There is a lot of work being done, but there is a risk that some bad investments are being made that will catch up to us in the next bust cycle.

      The opposite extreme is also possible. There are bust cycles when nobody wants to assume risk. Everyone just wants a steady job and guaranteed income, and are willing to trade higher profit potential for stability, and the number of available "jobs" drops as there is a larger supply of workers. I put "jobs" in quotes, because there is certainly things that still need to be done, but the economy is simply not efficiently making these opportunities for productivity easily accessible. There is very little risk of making bad investments, but growth is slow or can even be negative in more extreme cases.

      The extremes don't happen because the more extreme the situation gets, the more pressure there is pushing it back to an equilibrium point. But if an extreme actually does happen, the way to fix it is usually pretty clear. If we don't see this pressure to correct the extreme, then maybe it's not really an extreme.

    90. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just how rich are you? You're not even attempting to hide the fact that you're an apologist for the upper class. Let's all just quit our jobs in protest of shit working conditions. We may starve but at least we're sticking it to the man. Then we can all become employers ourselves somehow even though we have no startup capital.

    91. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Or voting....

    92. Re:What choice do we have? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      What happens when all demand is met but 20% of the population is still unemployed? Not that many skilled people are needed and now many people only have enough money for basic needs. I just hope enough of you keep working so I can get my SS check.

    93. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What happens when all demand is met but 20% of the population is still unemployed?

      When all the demand is met? You mean like when all our problems are solved?

      Not that many skilled people are needed and now many people only have enough money for basic needs.

      Sounds like there is some stuff that still needs working on

      I just hope enough of you keep working so I can get my SS check.

      The government can issue checks even when it has no money. It can print more. The way to prevent our society from falling apart is to make sure that people keep generating wealth, like for example creating all the things you might actually use your SS check on.

    94. Re:What choice do we have? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Eighteen hundred dollars doesn't go far in a American economy. I drive 15 year old cars, eat cheap food. My home is paid for and in good repair. If it wasn't for my wife driving 50 mile round trips four or five times a week to care for her parents I wouldn't use much gas either. There are skilled people getting several hundred thousand dollars a year keeping her mother alive but medical care for the elderly is a drag on the economy. For me a few cheap pills are all I need. I have never spent the night in a hospital my entire life.

    95. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I guess I don't see what your point is. It seems like there is lots of room for improvement. We can work on technology for producing better quality food on less resources (like raw materials, energy, and human labor). We can work on producing better cars for less resources. We can work on improving medical technology to make people healthier for less resources. In short there is plenty to be done in the pursuit of making eighteen hundred dollars go further in our society. Those are all jobs that need to be done by skilled people.

      Medical care for the elderly is not a drag on the economy. It is a luxury we can afford when our economy is good (e.g. like fancy cars and restaurants). The point of our economy is to produce more wealth for less energy, so that we can live as long as possible and in as much comfort as possible (including when we are elderly). The reason we make money is to spend it one things that make our lives better (like houses, medical care, cars, entertainment, etc). Even when we spend money on investments like mutual funds or an education, it is to make more money later which we will eventually spend on stuff we want.

    96. Re:What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I did. And I was explaining why.

    97. Re:What choice do we have? by pepty · · Score: 1

      Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer. You can hire people for essentially nothing, and rake in huge profits for doing very little work.

      Now you know who the actual "workahol" addict is. I.e., not the worker.

    98. Re:What choice do we have? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I should point out that really enjoying alcohol is different than being addicted to alcohol, although there is often overlap. A person can love alcohol and still not be an addict. Another person may want very badly to not drink alcohol, but simply can not overcome the compulsion to drink.

      I am not suggesting that workers enjoy working very hard at tedious soul crushing jobs. I am not blaming them for the situation they are in, nor am I blaming alcoholics for the situation they are in.

      In the same way that it would be good if alcoholics could find a way to kick their habit. It would be good if the unskilled could find a way to develop a more profitable skill. I'm not saying it's not hard. It clearly is. But it is the only good solution. And that;s not to say that we can't help them. We can provide recovery programs as well as educational programs, but we can't make them take advantage of those programs, before they are willing.

    99. Re:What choice do we have? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      From a DS9 episode. [Bashir has suggested to Rom to form a bargaining association to prevent exploitation] Rom: You don't understand. Ferengi workers don't want to stop the exploitation, we want to find a way to become the exploiters.

  9. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Finding a job is not as easy as it once was in today's job market. If you don't like your job then recommend you suck it up and keep it, because mobility isn't always present.

  10. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is very true. Loved computers growing up, got into programming and IT desktop, severs and infrastructure and after 20 years I can't stand doing it anymore. I am trying to figure out a career change that I can get enthusiastic about but not financially devastate me. It hasn't been an easy experience.

  11. I do not do it because I want to by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    I do not do it because I want to as a direct desire.

    I do it because I love my family, and they depend on my income, so I try to make sure, like running away from zombies and not being slowest..., that I am not the least productive worker, m'kay?

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
    1. Re:I do not do it because I want to by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if you're the slowest
      http://www.snorgtees.com/if-zo...

    2. Re:I do not do it because I want to by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh that's cute. You think hours = productivity.

      That's what's killing the American worker. And the sad thing is, this was known to be false 100+ years ago.

    3. Re:I do not do it because I want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's not so much what he thinks as what his boss thinks. If his boss cares more about butts in chairs than the quality of the work (which is always going to be trickier to manage) then he has to stick around at least for appearance's sake.

    4. Re:I do not do it because I want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea why this isn't taught in public school. I quit my last job cause this presenteeism crap got out of hand.

      They were kicking the dog(employees) cause the company wasn't making profit, but the primary reason we were loosing money was lack of investment in process improvement! The whole company was burnt out and making dumb decisions cause they couldn't think clearly, and all attempts to correct the problem were just making it worse with disciplinarian BS.

      Without places like that to set straight, I never would have heard the name "W. Edwards Deming".

    5. Re:I do not do it because I want to by sjames · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the geniuses in management.

    6. Re:I do not do it because I want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people work too hard to escape from their family or what ever else ails them. I think that might be a definition of a workaholic.
      Somebody who works to hard to support their family is just unfortunate, underpaid, dedicated, or whatever.

    7. Re:I do not do it because I want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but if they can actually get that much done in 50% of the time, why don't we get them to just work that hard for twice as long?" /bonuses and cheers for everyone on the board!

    8. Re:I do not do it because I want to by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Oh that's cute. You think hours = productivity.

      That's kinda mean. Sounds more like the GP is just trying not to be "righsized" or whatever for getting noticed by management for not working 65 hours per week or something.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:I do not do it because I want to by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually this maybe changing for some programing shops. In the Agile training I took one of the rules was do not work more the 40 hours a week. Sure for a crunch now and then you may have to go over but if you do more than two weeks at over 40 something is wrong.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  12. the french by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People complain about the French... but maybe that's the way we should be going.

    1. Re:the french by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Of course we should. But the oligarchs who run this country don't want anyone getting that idea.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  13. job security by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what were we talking about? sorry tired. Hey, my 80 hour work-weeks are what kept me employed during the recession. They couldn't fire me -- I was doing too much work for next to no pay. Yeah, I made a few mistakes. But I fixed 'em. Sure, my salary history will work against me when I go apply for another job. At least I stayed employed in my field. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need some more coffee before I pass out at my desk.

    1. Re:job security by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      The point is that past a couple of weeks 80-hour work weeks are useless not just for you but for your employer as well. You are providing LESS productivity so it would really be in your employers interest to stop.

    2. Re:job security by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss the point. That was sarcasm. And, for what it's worth, the employer didn't see it that way -- they insisted I work to a project completion schedule and on-call schedule that required 80 hour work weeks. Either I got the work done or they wrote me up for missing deadlines. I would have left but I had no other job to leave to (there was a recession, remember). As soon as an opportunity presented itself, I was out of there.

    3. Re:job security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now show me an employer who doesn't look favorably on working crazy hours. The science may be right but perception is reality, and that is the reality that many have to deal with.

  14. Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously. Try getting by on $30-35K a year. Now try doing it WITH KIDS.

    Cost of living alone is insane. Let alone other things, like an apartment/house, utilities, etc.

    Now have a bad month or two. Or get sick, or injure yourself in a way that prevents you from working. Rent/mortgage don't pay itself!

    Most people in this country aren't working +40 hours because they WANT to, or because they LIKE it.

    They're doing it as a buffer to stay ahead of instantaneous bankruptcy and poverty in case they cannot work for some reason.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did just fine by myself in a small (slightly overpriced) studio apartment @25k/yr for two years. That's with my only recuring bills being car insurance, electricity, internet, food and weekly laundry.

      I had just enough where I was above the line of living paycheck to paycheck. I could even save my money when I needed to AND I had a recurring martial arts fee of $65/month. This was all on 42hrs/wk.

      It's not hard to do (depending on where you live).

    2. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      *BOOM* Headshot!!!

      So, ignore Chas. It's all Regan propaganda bullshit. Only the Democratic party can save you. If only you dumb fucks could see the light of day and realize that socialism is the answer. The rich will never go away, so taxing the middle-class is how we pay for the poor and their little brood-lings.

      Sorry Chas, your realistic answer is far too dangerous for the ministry of truth to allow!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economy is fine and was for last couple years. With unemployment to per-recession lows (maybe not in your area) the only thing keeping you down is FUD (and maybe your mortgage). Move to a cheaper area, where there are better paying jobs. Move to Texas if you have to.

    4. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      25k a year? That's like 2k a month?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of american are you? buy a new phone month, get married, have some kids, eat out every night, maybe lease a luxury car or house you cant afford. you can still catch up to everyone else, soon that comfortable $25k/yr salary will be a noose around your neck and you'll finally be a real american

    6. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      most people dont want to move, they want to live in squalor and complain within 50miles of where they were born

    7. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been living off slightly less than that (after taxes) for the past year or so. Around 1840 a month. I'm not sure what the nominal tax rate in that tax bracket is, but one could look it up and I assume it's not much. 20% for sure as I'm in a higher bracket and my nominal tax rate isn't much more than 20. So let just say it's 33% including state sales or income tax. That'd put me at about $30k a year before taxes. With that money I haven't been able to save much, but I have been paying a monthly payment on a 15 yr mortgage(3 br, 2 bath) as well as keep up on a $450+/month car payment and have enough left over to live on every month while seeing my checking account grow slightly. With kids it would be much harder, but for a single person it's quite doable.

      For the last couple months I've been renting out a room @ 550 and that small additional income has made things go from tight on 1840 to holy crap I have quite a bit of money to do whatever I want with every month. I've been limiting myself to this amount for 3 reasons:

      a) I wanted to see what it's like to live on that kind of income as an adult rather than as a kid out of college, etc.. I found it's doable, but would not be pleasant as reality because I don't have a 6 month-emergency fund living this way, which would cause me a lot of additional stress. I could have one if I made a few more sacrifices, but since realistically I have a large chunk of change hidden from myself elsewhere that isn't part of this experiment I didn't feel it necessary to make those sacrifices in reality.
      b) I was ramping up an employer stock match plan that gives me a 25% match so it's a good investment. Now that it's rolling I should just be able to buy and sell equivalent amounts to fulfill the required holding period, effectively making my annual income higher with minimal capital risk. If things work out for 2 years and then everything went right to 0 the capital I lose would be the amount additional I had gained for a net wash since I'd been selling off along the way. If things go well longer than that, there isn't anyway I could lose money on the deal.
      c) for 2014 I'll be able to make the max Roth 401k contribution of 17,500, which is pretty awesome. In a Roth 401k..so it'll grow tax free. On top of that 5500 into a Roth IRA.

      So I'll actually be putting more into retirement accounts this year during this experiment than I actually lived off of. Do that a few years and build up some cash outside of accounts I can't touch before my 60's and there is a decent shot at not working unless I feel like it if I decide I'm comfortable living a less extravagant lifestyle than I could if I chose.

    8. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $25K in India is not $25K in Dubai or Singapore. Comparing salary without context of cost of living is Apples vs. Oranges and derails effective discussion. I recommend median salary within 45 mile radius of house(maximum practical commute).

    9. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      If that 80 hours means two full time jobs, then I'd agree with you. But in most states no employer can demand you work more than 40 hours. If you document everything that is forcing you to work longer then you should have good ammunition to use in a lawsuit if they decide to fire you. Unless you're at a shitty tiny company where everyone higher up the ladder is related to each other then you should be able to head to HR department and have a discussion employment laws in this area, bring up complaints if you're being forced to work 80 hours, and so forth.

    10. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's amusing, implying the Democrats are socialist. You guys in the US have this big boogeyman in the socialist policy (still stuck in cold war thinking perhaps?), but you haven't even seen what it actually is like. Your left-wing parties and ideas are every other country's right-wing.

    11. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try getting seriously sick, then having to meet your 2,500 dollar deductible, then 20% copay afterwards. Don't say it can't happen to you. What if you lost your job? Living hand to mouth and being one minor setback away for being financially wiped out is not doing fine. Life's roulette wheel decided to spare you.

    12. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting because most Americans will tell you they want good public schools, but that state-funded education is not socialist. They'll tell you not to touch their Medicare, but that state-funded healthcare is a disaster, apparently believing that Medicare is some kind of insurance policy that they spent their working years building up an account.

      Americans love the little bit of socialism they get, at the same time as they hate on socialism. I mean, there's definitely the extremists who think that anything with a government stamp on it is evil, but even Ayn Rand took Social Security and Medicare.

    13. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Chas · · Score: 1

      And it's before taxes. So figure $1200 a month.

      Rent in this area is between $700-1200 unless your drive is REALLY long, or you're living in an absolute shithole.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    14. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Chas · · Score: 1

      If that 80 hours means two full time jobs, then I'd agree with you. But in most states no employer can demand you work more than 40 hours

      Which is why people aren't doubling up at their main jobs. They're holding two separate jobs.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    15. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not amusing; It's sad. What we call socialism (in the US) is nothing more than totalitarianism and indentured servitude to the government (debt never gets paid off and forever dependent on one political party) under the guise of socialism. That's why you guys in Europe are perplexed about this. Our "socialism" not like the socialism in Europe. I'm not in favor of either, but ours is fucked up in orders of magnitude regardless.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      I've been living quite well on <$30k. I wonder what kind of area you live in, or what kind of extra amenities you can't live without, that make it so difficult for you.

      I will grant that it would be much more difficult with kids, buts that's to be expected.

    17. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is too true, the upper classes in America have brainwashed everyone else into thinking universal healthcare is bad, mandated vacation time is bad, paid parental leave is bad, paid medical leave is bad, and that working 80+ hour weeks is good. Can you Americans seriously not see how fucked your system is?

    18. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      And it's before taxes. So figure $1200 a month.

      No, people making $25K per year are NOT paying 40% of their income in taxes.

      Even with no dependents, and no standard deduction (you're being treated as a dependent on someone else's return), you're not not paying more than 20% taxes, unless you live in a State with a truly colossal State Income Tax.

      Note that with a standard deduction for yourself, you're going to be paying less than 15% taxes (again, unless you live in a State with a colossal State Income Tax).

      And yes, I'm including SSA and Medicare taxes in that estimate.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems most posts here are from big metropolitan areas. I live in a rural area in New Mexico. You have no idea how hard is to hire someone around here.

      Love what I do, however, I have difficulty keeping the 40h/w at bay.That's because we can't hire competent help.

      Apparently not every one can live where there isn't a mall. We have had an opening for the past 6 months!!

    20. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon because I am using mod points.

      BS! HR is useless. I worked for Atos (NA) and averaged over 80 hour weeks.

      I was told that if I refused to work more than 40 hours I would be laid off. I did complain to HR and they were good enough to send an e-mail to my manager asking why I put in so many hours. My managers response was to tell me to only report 40 hours a week. When I refused, I was laid off.

      The best part is that managers never send that type of stuff in e-mail, they always tell you face to face or over the phone. They are not stupid. So your statement of "If you document everything that is forcing you to work longer then you should have good ammunition to use in a lawsuit" does not exactly work when you can not exactly document the verbal conversations. Ill also add that everyone I know who has sued the company they worked for, has always ended up being unable to find a new job. Seems they companies do background checks and as soon as they see that they make sure you are not hired.

    21. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'd be very careful with that, even in a larger company. Many employees hold the misguided view that HR is there to help them, when in fact they're not. HR supports the business first and foremost.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by sjames · · Score: 1

      So as long as all you want in life is to be alone, that's fine. Of course, you'd have been toast had you gotten injured and out of work for a month.

    23. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live with a girlfriend in a major American city for $30,000 a year. We splurge a little in that we have a 1000 sq ft flat (much too big for us), own a car (not really necessary we use it on weekends to drive to state/national parks. If we wanted to cut our costs we could get a smaller place and ditch the car but our incomes allow us this flexibility. It is true we don't have children yet (we're going to move out of the US before we do that, this does not seem the right place to raise children) but we could certainly afford it.

      When I asked my parents what their secret to financial success has been they had a simple answer: "spend less money than you earn". We then paid off our debts, passed on buying a flat and try to keep our expenses low (they're 15% of our income).

      Most people in this country work 40+ ours because they want to keep up with the Jones's or they want to live in posh suburbs that cost 10x more to live in than dense cities or they have debts far beyond their means or the like having a lot of "stuff" in their lives (cars, TVs, etc).

      The first step to breaking out of the broken system is admitting that there are *choices* in life and not being fatalistic and buying into the capitalistic keep up with the Jonses's system and then pretending it is the only way to live.

    24. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by praxis · · Score: 1

      But in most states no employer can demand you work more than 40 hours.

      I assume you mean forty hours per week not total. Of course they cannot demand it, you can always walk away. Or you can refuse and be fired. That's pretty much almost "demand" in spirit. Or is there some law that I'm not aware of?

    25. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by praxis · · Score: 1

      And it's before taxes. So figure $1200 a month.

      Rent in this area is between $700-1200 unless your drive is REALLY long, or you're living in an absolute shithole.

      Where I live many people that cannot afford to rent a flat on their own will share a flat with another family or a roommate. It can cut your housing costs a lot. Especially if you choose a two-bedroom place in the city and split it and not have to drive to work. Plus being able to walk to the market means no gym membership!

    26. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The unemployment rate is bullshit. You know that, right?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    27. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is calling anything in the U.S. "socialism" except the shills on faux news and right-wing-nut radio?
      There are few examples of socialism in the U.S. besides the V.A. hospital system and national parks.

    28. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, about the V.A. That's working out soooo well (not!).

    29. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I've been living quite well on <$30k.

      mom doesn't charge rent for the basement?

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    30. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try doing that in the northeast, 30K isn't very reasonable when an apartment costs 10k a year, heal insurance 3k a year, a car 2.4k a year not including gas or taxes, and a $400 to $600 college loan, and your actual take home is 26k. Having 6k for food, clothing, utilities isn't exactly leaving a lot of room for anything else.

    31. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did just fine by myself in a small (slightly overpriced) studio apartment @25k/yr for two years. That's with my only recuring bills being car insurance, electricity, internet, food and weekly laundry.

      See this motherfucker? He gets it.

      I did the same as he did for 20 years.

      When I'd had enough shit from the day job, I retired at 45. I never got "fuck you" money (despite being fully vested :), but I got "fuck this" money, which was good enough.

      /congratulations to the co-worker who jumped to GoPro several years before I quit the industry. Her company actually made a successful exit!

    32. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      2-bedroom apt, no roommate in years. In a fairly large city, too. Are some cities just that expensive that I would need an extra $10k+ just for rent/etc?

    33. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Minimum wage is about 20k in seattle at the moment. it will be 31k in about 3 years due to the new rules.

      With that said my wife made 35k before she got laid off due to cuts in NSF funding(medical researcher) her new job put her at 26k she managed. But she was room sharing before we got married took one vacation in 5 years no kids or dependents at all.

      She is going back to school since it seems with her biochemistry master options are limited at the moment since we are not really investing in the sciences.

    34. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      "Debt never gets paid off"---do tell that to Reagan who tripled the Debt, Bush who doubled that and Bush who doubled THAT all in time of peace.
      If Obama spent at the same RATE as Bush we'd already be 24 trillion in the hole...but we're not.
      The fact is, too LITTLE Socialism is why our schools suck, our kids won't provide a secure national future and why we have to import brains via the H1-B.

    35. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Try getting by on $30-35K a year. Now try doing it WITH STUDENT LOANS.

      Adjusted to my situations. Thanks to believing the lies/myth that if I go to college and get a degree I'll get out with, at worst, a moderately paying job and those loans will be no biggy.

      So, being a white male that did almost no extracurricular activities in high school, I had almost no scholarships and just put in for massive loans each year to also help cover room & board. It didn't help that I chose to go to an expensive, out of state, private university. (In fact, Yahoo! Finance did a piece recently on university costs, using my alma matter as a central example. Apparently it's now about $37K/yr there; when I was a freshman a decade ago it was about $30K.) And so I graduated, right after the Great Recession started, with approx. $150,000 in student loan debt. Unable to get a job, I did a stint in the military and took part in their Loan Repayment Program; between that and regular, minimum payments of $900/mo I'm down to $111,000.

      I'm able to pay it with my current job (roughly $38K take home), but I live paycheck to paycheck and with such a massive debt over my head as I near 30 I don't even consider things like relationships, hobbies, or getting a place of my own.

    36. Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, the first time I heard "Get your government hands off my Medicare!," I was aghast that *anyone* was that stupid.

  15. Re: Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why, because the US is the most socialist country in the West? What planet are you on?

  16. I sleep less. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I don't work any more than 40 hours a week (in fact doing so requires management approval... but that's another story).

    i sleep less because I help out around the home. I help my wife raise our children.

    Gone are the days when a father would be in the pub while his children is born, celebrating the birth with his mates.
    Men have the expectation of a much larger commitment when it comes to family these days. The cost for that is time.

    1. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because a minority group of women decided that working was preferable. Now we need two full time incomes to really get anywhere and even then its touch and go. My fiance would love to be a housewife and she'd stay busy with the ten thousand different projects she wishes she had time for around the house. I'd love it if I could afford her that on my job alone.

      Imagine how much happier life would be to come home to woman that wants to see and is in a good mood because she didn't have to deal with going to work every darn day. I know when either my fiance or myself takes a stay-home vacation that we are both happier because their is overall less stress in the relationship.

      Oh well, back to work everyone.

    2. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A true alpha male (tm) would be able to provide that for her.

    3. Re:I sleep less. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Unlikely. If my high school and college years are any indicator, the true alpha males (tm) lack the brain power to get jobs that could provide enough money.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My partner just told me that I wasn't allowed to apply for a $60k/year job in a city with more opportunities, because she would need to find a new job and she refused to move and *cry* and *bully* and *threaten*.

      So I didn't apply for it.

      72 hours after the closing time for applications, she, her mother, and her father, all started on me to find a full time job in a town that prides itself on being 60% part-time minimum wage employment (and those employers demand more hours than they'll pay for).

    5. Re:I sleep less. by slew · · Score: 1

      Unlikely. If my high school and college years are any indicator, the true alpha males (tm) lack the brain power to get jobs that could provide enough money.

      You seem to be equating brain power with earning power. This is a common mistake made by folks who believe they likely have more than average brain power (tm) and that scarcity of those with brain power (tm) somehow improves earning power.

      Today, earning power is most correlated with the amount of capital that your employment responsibilities have associated with. It may or may not be fair, but it is generally true. Historically, people could count on scarcity, but we're in the cusp of a post-scarcity employment environment (in many fields, there won't be enough work for everyone to be fully employed).

      The best hope to earn an above average amount of money in a job is to find a company that has enough excess capital to pour some on their employees (e.g., work for a social media company, a hedge fund company, a natural resource processing company like an oil or rare-earth metals, etc.) or simply just work for yourself (start your own company). Although some positions in those companies might require brain power (tm), competition will be tough for those slots, and it's quite possible that it your "true-alpha-male" leader-type might find an easier way into such an excess capital situation (or say start a construction company and make plenty of money that way)...

    6. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You yourself said that you're in an abusive ("bully", "threaten") relationship. Grow a pair or die already.

    7. Re:I sleep less. by EvilJoker · · Score: 2

      Something a lot of people forget is that with a 2-income home, we get a 2-income lifestyle. You could probably still do what they did in the 50s, but you would have to give up a lot of what we value more.

      You and your (soon to be) wife would have to share a car. Dining out would be extremely rare. No cable, internet, cell phone, etc. You would mend clothes, rather than buy new ones. You would have a smaller, simpler house. You would not have anywhere near as many gadgets, of any type. A lot of kitchen gadgets arose from the idea of having extra, disposable income.

      This is all on top of a sense of fulfillment. Most women I know would not be satisfied with just being a housewife. Those vacations are nice, but I bet that if you were to do it more long-term (say 3 months+), you would suffer from boredom and depression.

    8. Re:I sleep less. by russotto · · Score: 1

      My partner just told me that I wasn't allowed to apply for a $60k/year job in a city with more opportunities, because she would need to find a new job and she refused to move and *cry* and *bully* and *threaten*.

      So I didn't apply for it.

      72 hours after the closing time for applications, she, her mother, and her father, all started on me to find a full time job in a town that prides itself on being 60% part-time minimum wage employment (and those employers demand more hours than they'll pay for).

      So you told her parents to fuck off and filed for divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty, right?

    9. Re:I sleep less. by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Women in the workplace has lowered your standard of life?

      I despise feminism as much as anybody, but holy shit man think about what you are saying, you sound like an idiot.

      Think about the amenities people lacked back in your 1950's golden years. Now some people might say that the pre-technology era was indeed better, and I wont argue that they don't have a point... But most of those people would not be willing to give up their computer, modern car, modern home, modern television.

      Shit, you are complaining you want to go back to the 50's on THE INTERNET. A thing that just would not happen without our modern economy.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:I sleep less. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "partner" isn't the correct term for someone who cries, bullies, and threatens. Maybe it's time for you to find a real one.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:I sleep less. by deadboy2000 · · Score: 1

      Oblig. Everybody Loves Raymond: "Your father will be much nicer when he retires . . . "

    12. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine how much happier life would be to come home to woman that wants to see and is in a good mood because she didn't have to deal with going to work every darn day.

      My wife has been a SAHM for 4 years, but I still have to imagine it.

    13. Re:I sleep less. by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Something a lot of people forget is that with a 2-income home, we get a 2-income lifestyle. You could probably still do what they did in the 50s, but you would have to give up a lot of what we value more.

      My wife quit working 12 years ago. Financially, we're doing better than we did while she was working -- spending less on commuting, clothing, food (dining out is a treat, not something you have to do because no one has time to cook), laundry (they actually sell these machines that enable you to do it yourself instead of paying someone else to do it; all it takes is time) and not having to hire a house cleaning service, and avoiding the "marriage income tax penalty" imposed on the second income, we actually have more disposable income than we did when she had a paying job. We don't have small kids at home, but if we did we'd be saving even more, on child care.

      Then there are the emotional benefits. A lot of people need a career to feel fulfilled. My wife liked her job, but she truly despised getting up in the morning and going to work. She likes taking care of the household, and she's a lot happier when I come home in the evening than she used to be. The saying, "Happy Wife; Happy Life" has a lot of truth to it.

      I'm not suggesting that this is a successful strategy for everyone. As I said, some people need a career to feel fulfilled. Some couples won't save any money on some of the items I listed above, because even with two incomes they can't afford to eat out often or pay for laundry and house cleaning services. But it's worth sitting down and running the budget numbers to see if it can work.

    14. Re:I sleep less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same deal here. We have a kid, and homeschool, so the economic benefit is even higher.

      Quality of life is off the chart. My parents both woirked, and I wanted my kid to not experience that. I listened to a radio program (Oregon's Think out loud) dealing w/ the issue of stay-at-home parents. One woman told of hearing the phrase "you're going to pay someone else to raise your kid???" regarding infant child-care, and decided to quit her job and raise her child. I imagine a lot of listeners felt pretty darn unconfortable at that.

      What are people looking for when they have kids? Are they checking off some box? For those where both parents work, and kids (infants!) are farmed off to daycare, I have to suspect so. I couldn't imagine handing over my kid to the State. I read _Brave New World_ and I think we're there now. The indoctrincation is staggering, but 75% seem to accept it unquestioningly.

  17. Where is the tie to the economy? by joeflies · · Score: 1

    With a title like that, maybe the summary could point to the amount of damage and evidence on the harm to the economy without having the reader to deduce it on their own?

    1. Re:Where is the tie to the economy? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Fewer workers need to be hired if they're all willing to be slaves. Employers have figured out they can hire fewer people as long as the work seems to be getting done. They're also shutting their eyes to all the violations of labor laws, so as long as they're not explicitly asking workers to stay longer and there's no manager that they consciously know is beating the workers, they think they're ok. Manager asks for more workers then the execs say "but why, you're getting all the work done and we're making sales, in fact you got so much done and hit all the deadlines that we're actually taking one worker away from you."

    2. Re:Where is the tie to the economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SEEMS to be getting done, seems is the word actually. And sales people actually "work"? Best joke of the year.

  18. Do more with less! by Prien715 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear team,

    After coming back from my vacation in Aruba, I've decided that in these times of trouble we need to do more with less. We're in a troubled economy -- do you realize how much yacht gas has gone up in the past year? In addition, the Affordable Care Act has made it cost ineffective for our FTNE (Full Time Non-Employee) initiative to continue.

    Moving forward, we'll need to tighten our belts and take on other responsibilities. Some of you will work longer hours than usual. My performance bonus is based on how much money we can save, so I'm simply going to let go anyone who refuses to comply with this iniative -- I'm sure I can find someone to replace you.

    Cheers!
    PHB

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:Do more with less! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Dear PHB,

      Your plea for money saving has warmed our heart. In the spirit of helping you out we're going to bring you the utmost sacrifice we can bring.

      We wish you all the best and hope you can find replacements and train them (though we'd love to find out who you plan to use to train them) before upper management notices the lack of production in your department and fires your ass.

      Your (ex)team

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Do more with less! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      P.S. Just kidding. We know there are three job-seekers to every position in the USA, and many of those are not even intended to be filled. We'll be in bright and early on Monday.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Do more with less! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And this is why PHBs get to treat us like crap. Because we let them.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Do more with less! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And this is why PHBs get to treat us like crap. Because we let them.

      Well, I like to think that the reason we can't have nice things isn't so much that we "let" them, but that they're employing force to keep us from stopping them. Every now and again I find myself agreeing with the libertarians, right up until it gets to the point of abandoning people- but I digress. (For example, did I tell you about the time...) It is all but illegal to be homeless, and in some cases and places, it basically is that. If you're working two jobs to support your family, how much energy do you have to expend finding a good one, especially when there's almost certainly at least two other people applying for each one to which you apply, and there are literally thousands for some? And if we should attempt to simply not play their little game, they tend to employ force to keep us at it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Do more with less! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      P.P.S. just kidding, you won't see us again. Good luck finding people who can understand your product and systems and get up to speed before you lose all customers.

    6. Re:Do more with less! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the saying: America's poor think of themselves as temporarily inconvenienced millionaires. Somebody has convinced people that unions are bad for them. Keep up the hard work.

    7. Re:Do more with less! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Somebody has convinced people that unions are bad for them.

      It's an inside job. The place I've seen it do the most damage is in education. Guess who keeps those administrators' salaries stratospheric?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Do more with less! by Prien715 · · Score: 1

      Dear Upper Management,

      One of our primary focuses this quarter has been "right-sizing" our teams to fit within the new budget constraints. As you'll be pleased to note, I've achieved a 30% reduction in expenses -- well under our target of 25% -- while actually increasing the size of our engineering team. Moving forward, we have a much stronger team with a better attitude to complete the goals that lie before us.

      My success has not gone unnoticed -- Bain Capital (Gotham City) has offered me a senior position in their M&A department where I will lead efforts to cut costs while maintaining an efficient workforce.

      It was an honor working with you,
      PHB

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
  19. Re: Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Socialism? We don't actually practice socialism in this country, assuming you're talking about The USA. Why is it that the supply side crowd always says socialism isn't working when it's trickle down BS that's driving us into the ground?

  20. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or make enough money that it outweighs the negatives of the job

  21. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I get 10 unpaid compulsory holidays a year. If I do come in to work on those days, I don't get paid any extra.

  22. I constantly remind myself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that while I only make 50k+solid medical, dental, vision, pension and 401k, I only work 40 hours a week and am RARELY asked to work overtime because they just don't want to pay me that much for the work. I also get paid personal holidays, paid vacation and sick days, all cashed out if not used in the allotted year. Union job but I'm at the top of the pay scale and its kind of not keeping up with inflation or minimum wage increases. Oh I also get incentive pay on Sunday and on worked holidays. I'm essentially paid 44 hours for 40 hours of work if I work a full 8 on Sunday. It's not a glamorous job but its doing okay.

    That this article says nearly half of all professionals work 50-65 hours a week. I really hope all those professionals are clearing 70k

    40h*50w=2000 hours worked with two weeks vacation. $50,000 / 2000 hours = $25 per hour
    50h*50w=2500 hours worked with two weeks vacation. $60,000 / 2500 hours = $24 per hour
    60h*50w=3000 hours worked with two weeks vacation. $70,000 / 3000 hours = $23.34 per hour

    Needless to say, my direct bosses that make in the above two ranges after my $50k are at about those pay scales. If this is true for most other professions I truly hope all these people are living it up in those spare hours and the extra money at their disposal.

    Still, I'm also going back to school to hopefully allow myself to pickup some side work and ideally start making investments on a monthly basis as alternative income streams, regardless of how trivial they initially may be.

    Cheers

  23. Re: work life balance is a myth by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your mileage may vary I suppose. I've been working in IS/IT for over twenty years now. I've programmed, done tech support, went into server and network infrastructure, then operations and project management for some years, now I'm back in an engineering role doing security work. I love my job. I look forward to it almost each and every day (I say almost because we *all* have bad days at work and in life). I guess I'm lucky for that. I really love my job, the company I work for, and my peers. The pay is awesome as well. Sure sometimes the hours get long and sometimes there are frustrations, but all in all I can't imagine being happier with a career path, realistically speaking.

  24. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I first heard it a long time ago, and granted I'm still pretty young but it still holds true to me:

    "Live to work, or work to live."

    I've known many people of each type, and while I won't say one is better than the other, I will say that one will give you a much greater risk of dying from a heart attack ;-)

  25. Re:work life balance is a myth by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The intersection between stuff I'd love to do and the stuff people would pay me to do = Ø, particularly if I got paid to do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with my job (37.5 hour work week, decent pay with overtime, 5 weeks vacation, interesting and meaningful work) but I don't love it and it's not something I'd do without the paycheck. If you can't really think of anything else to do than work, you must have a very gimped imagination. I'm sorry.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  26. 40 and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a veteran Engineer when I hit my 40 I leave, my work can go fuck itself if they want more. Jobs are a dime a dozen.

    1. Re:40 and done by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

      Agreed but for me it is a fairly recent thing. Only for the last year or so. That's after years of 60 plus a week. No more.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    2. Re:40 and done by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 0

      Please make sure not to apply for a job where I work OK? We have enough people working the bare minimum as it is. I try to keep them off my team but it's a never ending battle ...

      I enjoy working with people who have a desire to do good work and like what they do enough to work more than 40 hours if that's what's called for, when that's what's called for. People who walk out the door when there is still work to be done because jobs are "a dime a dozen" are not people I want to work with.

      I also enjoy working with people who prioritize work appropriately and have lives out of work. And those people typically are reasonable and realize that sometimes more than 40 is part of the job, just as the rest of us are reasonable and realize that working excessive hours on a continual basis is not cool either.

      But people who only want to do the minimum necessary just to get paid? They can stay away. Far away.

    3. Re:40 and done by Gogo0 · · Score: 2

      working 40 is not the "bare minimum", it's what most people are hired for -usually in a contract.
      doing good work during business hours and sacrificing time from your real life have nothing to do with each other in most cases

    4. Re:40 and done by Iamthecheese · · Score: 3

      Anyone who doesn't work unreasonable hours is a slacker? Fuck you.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    5. Re:40 and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who insists that their coworkers and employees regularly work excess hours is enabling corporate evil and worker abuse, so yeah, fuck that guy.

      Criticising people for working the hours they're supposed to work in exchange for the pay they're supposed to get is kinda funny, but then I guess "holding to contracts" and "not scamming one side" isn't necessary when one side's labour and the other side's capital.

    6. Re:40 and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kill yourself. Anything over full time and you damn well better be paying overtime.

    7. Re:40 and done by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually thanks in part to people that think just like you, 40 is the bare minimum

      It used to be that there was work that needed to be done, workers did that work until it was done, and then there was no work to be done.

      Now there is work that needs to be done, but workers work until they hit their time quota rather than until the work is done. Sometimes they finish the work before the time quota is satisfied, and sometimes they dont finish the work.

      All the negatives you can think of stem from time quotas having been forced upon the various industries that do not naturally have time-based workloads.

      Factories for instance make money per unit of product manufactured, but are forced by-and-large to pay their workers per unit of time T (per hour, per day, etc..). The ramifications of this is that a factory owner is now faced with optimizing a completely artificial situation. They can sell X units per day, but instead of simply making sure that they have enough workers P to produce X units per day, they also must now try to have the amount of workers P that produces X in exactly time T.

      This fucks up everyones incentives. The factory owner now has fucked up incentives, but also the workers too now have fucked up incentives.

      Paid just enough not to quit while working just hard enough not to get fired.

      There is work where the availability of the worker is part of the job, and it is really only these where it isnt completely fucked incentive-wise to pay per unit time.

      Fucked up incentives lead to inefficiency, and not just for the employer. Everyone is hurt.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:40 and done by Bruinwar · · Score: 2

      OK will do! Stay far away that is. Yep, I work with people like you. Likely start late, long lunch, then wonder usually quite loudly, why others want to leave on time. I start quite early, get things done before the interruptions start. Leaving on time is my goal. You want me to work late, pay me. I'm sick of unpaid OT. It never got me anywhere.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    9. Re:40 and done by dywolf · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is, I should give your something extra for free....how about no.
      "the minimum to get paid" ... thats called economics. free trade, etc.
      You want fair days work from me? You better pay me a fair days wage.

      History. You should learn it sometime: There's a reason we instituted the 40 hours work week, and basically every other workplace/worker protection.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:40 and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do the bare minimum. If that's not enough for my employer, then the "bare minimum" needs to be redefined in my contract.

      That's the purpose of a contract. "The bare minimum" should be defined there, along with the amount of hours, and agreed upon by employer and employee, so that an employee may do the bare minimum and everyone is happy. As far as I'm concerned it's unreasonable to expect me to do more than my employer and I agreed to.

      I have been fired over this before, but in the end - good riddance! Fuck them for not having the balls to tell me what the job actually was during the interview and in the contract.

      If overtime becomes routine something is wrong. Could be overly optimistic time estimates from developers, but in my experience it's mostly because of poor planning. If managers just think "Shit, didn't think of that. No worries though, I'll just have the grunts put in some overtime.", and people like you actually take pride in cleaning up after their mistakes the problem will continue, and your life will pass you by. At least you will be remembered as a good employee by your co-workers.

      As a side note, IT-workers are notoriously afraid of conflicts and have a hard time saying "no". It's come to the point where managers think we work around the clock regardless, so giving us extra work or asking us to put in hours during the weekend is not big deal.

      Please, for the sake of the entire field, work on saying no and setting boundaries. Trust me, it's a valuable skill. You'll be better off, trust me.

    11. Re:40 and done by verucabong · · Score: 0

      I'll give you 100% for the time I'm at work, which is 40 hours, and I know that my 100% is a *lot* better than others' 100%. No, I'm not working overtime. Your failure to plan appropriately does not mean my requirement to work longer, missing out on time with my family and friends and doing what I want to do. I work to live, not live to work. I've spotted your type a mile away in interviews and your attitude is often the reason I give when I turn down the job offer.

    12. Re:40 and done by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Your examples only apply to people being paid hourly. Work until the job is done, you get paid until the job is done. People on salary really should get the fuck up and leave when the time is up. How is it my problem if the company is too cheap to hire enough workers to get the job done in the time allotted?

      Many salary have things like on call and emergency times that they do not get paid for. In return their salary is compensated, bonuses paid, or other amenities to keep the employee happy. If the company does not compensate properly... the employees walk... usually to their competitors.

      In your scenario, the company is rewarded for squeezing their employees and having them stick around "until the job is done", since the get free labor.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    13. Re:40 and done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with working until the job is done is that, for me at least, the job is never done.
      If I finish one part there is always the next step there, waiting to get done.
      Your example also makes no sense.
      If a company can sell X units per day, they should have enough workers to produce X units per day.
      Simply replace T with (work) day and the two situations you describe are identical.
      Or should factory workers just keep working until they drop dead, since the machines will keep on going forever?
      40 hours per week is what I get payed for. If you want more, hire a second person or pay me overtime.

    14. Re:40 and done by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The problem with working until the job is done is that, for me at least, the job is never done.
      If I finish one part there is always the next step there, waiting to get done.

      Then your company has gotten pretty close to optimizing P * QUOTA * Productivity = X , but why are they optimizing that?

      If a company can sell X units per day, they should have enough workers to produce X units per day.

      Of course, they should never every have have enough workers to produce 2X units per day. That would be preposterous, right? Gotta fire some people, maybe replace some of the more efficient people with less efficient people too... /sarcasm

      See the problem with your circular argument yet? You have forced the time quota into both sides of the argument.

      Simply replace T with (work) day and the two situations you describe are identical.

      See, there you are forcing it in. Why not T = half day? T must after all be a full day!! Thats the essence of the your argument, and its the flaw of it. Can't possibly pay anyone $200 for 4 hours of their time.. must pay them $200 for 8 hours of their time....

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  27. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The work part isn't that bad, in fact it is actually better than 20 years ago. Whats bad is the people you have to deal with in order to keep doing that job, they have gotten much worse over 20 years. I would change jobs, but those people are everywhere now.

  28. Re:work life balance is a myth by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Actually I do enjoy my work. It's great fun and I look forward to going to work a majority of the time.

    Started working in 1976. Got into computers in 1980. Part time job programming in 1984. Full time job programming in 1986. Currently a Sr Unix Admin and still do programming for my own stuff.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  29. Re:Baloney by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    Muricans that don't get enough sleep aren't not sleeping because they work too much. They're not sleeping because they're playing any one of a couple hundred MMOs and watching exabytes of Netflix videos in 20 hour Soprano's marathons and .....................

    Bingo. Lots of wasted time after the whistle blows, but also during the work day. Commuting times have a bigger impact, IMO. Many jobs have always required extensive hours... jobs like restaurant ownership & management for example. It is no different today. Besides, with all the time saving and work saving devices we have, we should be able to work a bit more.

  30. Re:work life balance is a myth by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is, even if you have a job that you love (and I do), that doesn't mean that you want to (or that it's healthy to) spend every waking moment doing it. Variety is important for a healthy life.

  31. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Well it depends on what you negotiate with the company. I currently have 5 paid weeks a year and generally have another week in the bank just in case. One company I worked for a few years ago, I negotiated a weeks more vacation for slightly less salary, in part because I know I'd get increases. I'm just that good :D

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  32. And guess how many vacation days we Americans get? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then shut up and change your job. Or are you not skilled enough to find another?

  33. Re:Socialism is not working by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Uhh, you realise that the other countries highlighted, where this is going better, are more socialist than the US, right?

  34. Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To see how workaholism saps productivity and rarely leads to better results, look at Japan. Overtime is sacrosanct in Japan, at the company I worked at previously it was a badge of honor that the average amount of overtime was 60 hours a month. Japan has the lowest per-hour output in the G7, and it's a small wonder why. Managers will often times not buy hardware that can increase productivity because hey, you can simply make the workers work longer hours for free, whereas hardware costs money. The result is a populace that is unhappy, unhealthy, and well dying. The low birth rate is well known, what is less well known is that the Japanese have the least amount of sex in the developed world. The technology industry that everyone once thought would rule the world has come to be dominated by the west because managers have very little incentive to innovate, to increase productivity. And as the cherry on the shit sundae, the low productivity means that wages in Japan are lower, i.e. longer hours for less money. Trust me, you don't want to go down this route.

    1. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Want to? We already did.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Managers will often times not buy hardware that can increase productivity because hey, you can simply make the workers work longer hours for free, whereas hardware costs money.

      Dunedin, New Zealand, is very much the same. My current employer uses that to oust people he feels he's paying too much, too.

    3. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > least amount of sex in the developed world.

      Absolutely no way it's less than Seattle. I have twenty-two direct reports and eighty-something more guys under them. That's over a hundred guys, and not a one of them is married. In Japan, at least the guys would be married. Out of that group, I only had one not show-up for work last Saturday until midnight and on Sunday until 9pm when we were all working to finish a release. Only one of the guys had a commitment, and that was for a concert with several male friends. As far as I know in the five years I've been here, not a single one of my employees has had a date. I haven't heard that mentioned having one ever. Not once. Japan can't beat zero! Outside of work, no male friend is married or has been on a date in the fifteen years since I moved to the Seattle area. Again, Japan can't beat zero!

    4. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      That's over a hundred guys, and not a one of them is married.

      You think that there is a _positive_ correlation between "being married" and "having sex"?

    5. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Nimey · · Score: 1

      How many of those guys under you would be married if they had a normal 40-hour job? Pretty hard to meet a MOTAS if all your time is spent working.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

      I think the low birth rate in Japan is due to the toxic effect of kombini lunches.

      I work for a Japanese company but I am not pressured to work unnecessary overtime. If there was a serious drama happening I would stay late to fix it because I want the company to succeed. Otherwise I work the hours for which I am paid and feel pretty relaxed about that.

    7. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'm betting that you're single since you appear to believe that getting married involves having any sex whatsoever.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    8. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      > least amount of sex in the developed world.

      Absolutely no way it's less than Seattle. I have twenty-two direct reports and eighty-something more guys under them. That's over a hundred guys, and not a one of them is married. In Japan, at least the guys would be married. Out of that group, I only had one not show-up for work last Saturday until midnight and on Sunday until 9pm when we were all working to finish a release. Only one of the guys had a commitment, and that was for a concert with several male friends. As far as I know in the five years I've been here, not a single one of my employees has had a date. I haven't heard that mentioned having one ever. Not once. Japan can't beat zero! Outside of work, no male friend is married or has been on a date in the fifteen years since I moved to the Seattle area. Again, Japan can't beat zero!

      Interesting. I read an article recently about how there are no good men is Seattle. Basically, all the new tech workers who have moved there are douchebags and the women don't want to date them. It seems your guys may need to step up their game, ask women about themselves, listen to the answers and not just talk about work all the time.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by dj245 · · Score: 2

      To see how workaholism saps productivity and rarely leads to better results, look at Japan. Overtime is sacrosanct in Japan, at the company I worked at previously it was a badge of honor that the average amount of overtime was 60 hours a month. Japan has the lowest per-hour output in the G7, and it's a small wonder why. Managers will often times not buy hardware that can increase productivity because hey, you can simply make the workers work longer hours for free, whereas hardware costs money. The result is a populace that is unhappy, unhealthy, and well dying. The low birth rate is well known, what is less well known is that the Japanese have the least amount of sex in the developed world. The technology industry that everyone once thought would rule the world has come to be dominated by the west because managers have very little incentive to innovate, to increase productivity. And as the cherry on the shit sundae, the low productivity means that wages in Japan are lower, i.e. longer hours for less money. Trust me, you don't want to go down this route.

      You've got the overall picture, but this isn't pushed down by the companies. It's the unions. There are numerous unions, including for things which are not unionized in other countries, like Engineers. Everybody could work 8 hours a day if they wanted, but there is pressure to stretch out the work. If you aren't booking a similar level of overtime as the other workers, you might get a visit from the union guy. Companies are hesitant to increase wages to eliminate the need for overtime, because there is no guarantee that employees wouldn't just soak up as much overtime as before.

      One other odd thing about Japan is that in many professions, the salary curve is an upside down "U" shape. Straight out of college they pay low salaries, mid-career the employee has received salary increases and promotions and so are making a lot more. But as the employees career peaks, so too does their salary. The salary eventually decreases every year until the employee retires. Some companies even have a special "Retiree Consulting Company" where employees work when they reach a certain age (55, 60, etc). The employee takes a big pay cut, is taken off the company payroll, and is then a contractor/consultant, but doing the same job. Usually their hours are ramped down to 3 days/week, 2 days/week, 1 day/week etc until they actually retire from working.

      It has benefits in that a person retiring has had a LONG time to prepare, pass on their knowledge, and train the next worker. But it definitely adds perverse incentives to milking the salary when you can because after a certain point, the employee is just making less and less every year.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    10. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      The company I worked for didn't pay overtime, and would constantly cut bonuses, so it's not just unions that are pushing OT.

    11. Re:Look to Japan as a model for what not to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One other odd thing about Japan is that in many professions, the salary curve is an upside down "U" shape. Straight out of college they pay low salaries, mid-career the employee has received salary increases and promotions and so are making a lot more

      It's called a bell curve.

  35. wow really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i work 30-35 hours a week from home and make far over 100k

    1. Re:wow really? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think I saw your banner ad on a news site the other day...

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  36. Someone explain this to me by LittleBunny · · Score: 2

    I remember back in the 1990s (I think) reading news stories about corporations pursuing 'increased productivity' per worker as a strategy for success, particularly in relation to international competition. Is there any other way to translate that language into plain English other than to say that what was desired was less wages for the same amount of work? I never saw it put in quite those terms, but it seems fairly obvious to me that that's what talk of productivity means. And if that's so, there's clearly a downside to increasing productivity. It means less income going to workers in direct proportion to their increasing profitability to the corporation (what some old ruddy-duddies used to refer to as the exploitation of labor, I believe). It also means fewer jobs, as a smaller number of people handle workloads that were previously distributed across a larger number. Am I just not thinking about this correctly?

    1. Re:Someone explain this to me by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I remember back in the 1990s (I think) reading news stories about corporations pursuing 'increased productivity' per worker as a strategy for success, particularly in relation to international competition. Is there any other way to translate that language into plain English other than to say that what was desired was less wages for the same amount of work?

      Yes. It could be translated as "more output for the same amount of work", if the increased productivity is per-work-hour productivity. Whether that translates into "less pay for the same amount of work" or not depends on whether wages grow with productivity. In the US, they grew with productivity from the late 1940's until the early 1970's, but haven't done so after that.

    2. Re:Someone explain this to me by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Technically, more productivity could mean better tools, more streamlined processes, more reliable supply chains, and stuff like that. But for more executive teams who don't really know what they're doing it really means squeezing more work out of cheaper/fewer workers.

    3. Re:Someone explain this to me by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Your premises are correct, but you're reaching the wrong conclusions. If people are more productive, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that fewer people do the same (or more) work while getting paid the same overall amount. It can also mean all people working less while getting paid the same. Or it could mean that everyone works the same amount and gets the same money but produces more, and hence the cost of those goods is cheaper (which means that the wage is now worth more, effectively).

      So the downside is not in increased productivity. It's in the insistence to use the same economic mechanisms in conjunction with it - the ones that assume a scarcity of labor, and break down when that is no longer true.

    4. Re:Someone explain this to me by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Productivity is a measure of output per unit of labour - neither of those directly mean that increased productivity imply the worker not being compensated appropriately. Certainly one approach is to demand extra unpaid labour, but that clearly has limits. Other methods are to be more efficient or introduce machinery.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    5. Re:Someone explain this to me by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      But for more executive teams who don't really know what they're doing it really means squeezing more work out of cheaper/fewer workers.

      Bullshit. They know exactly "what they're doing". New tools cost money. More streamlined processes? Maybe. But why suffer retraining costs? More reliable supply chains? Anything else? It's harder to squeeze another business (who probably has other customers to sell to if you go away - unless you're Walmart). On the other hand, squeezing employees? Easy-peasey. Fire a few malcontents that don't fall into line in helping you "boost productivity" and the rest fall into line pretty damn quickly - especially when no one wants that horrible union thing around.

      I've gotten a bit off-topic, but no, it's not because they're too stupid to do those other things - it's just easier and more cost-effective to squeeze employees until their eyes bleed.

      --
      That is all.
    6. Re:Someone explain this to me by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They know what they're doing if they are only aiming for very short term profits. But for long term stability and profitability of a company they need both more experienced workers as well as unstressed workers.

      One long term plan that seems to have succeeded though is in convincing so many workers that unions don't matter.

  37. Re:work life balance is a myth by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.

    After several decades I've decided it's better to work at something you enjoy. Every time I've done something I loved for a living, someone found a way to make me hate it.

    YMMV.

  38. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I get 10 unpaid compulsory holidays a year. If I do come in to work on those days, I don't get paid any extra.

    And you will be told you have to come in on those days because the company isn't doing well, and not put it on your timesheet in order to not get your boss in trouble. Failure to comply will show up in your next raise... if you are lucky enough to be employed by then.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  39. And the stupidest thing about it? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If everything I've read about it is true(and I mentioned this in another article here on /.) you literally can't get more than 40 hours of work out of people anyway. Oh sure, the first couple of weeks they do more work but then they get tired and slow and make mistakes. After a few weeks of that they're working more than 40 hours but aren't producing any more work. Go ahead, read stuff like Peopleware where they point this out. (That working overtime makes no sense, you don't get anything but pissed off employees.) Before anybody asks, no I don't work more than 40 hours a week. (And yes one of the big reasons is I'm old enough to recognize I don't get any more work done if I do. Plus the fact you do it and your manager quickly abuses it.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 0

      40 is not a magical number, as you seem to be implying. Some people can work more hours than that, indefinitely, and still be productive.

    2. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      So I work 40 hours of real work and an additional 20+ of so-so work. That's not a bonus, that's to prove I'm a valuable enough to keep my full-job. I'm waiting till they replace me with three young grads. Churn-n-burn baby. There's always a fresh supply of graduates that will slave their way to pay off the student loan debt.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they really can't. The whole "I can keep going!" is a bullshit myth made up to ignore the fact that human are inherently flawed beings and will reflect that in their work. It only gets worse when you start talking about jobs that go against the natural human circadian cycle.

    4. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeap, everyone is an above average driver too.... In aggregate, companies saw TOTAL output in factories increase when moving from 10 hour to 8 hour workdays. There are far fewer studies for jobs where thinking is a major work product, but the few I've seen imply that 40 might be HIGH for those positions.

    5. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by BonThomme · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/bring_back_the_40_hour_work_week/

      It's not magic, it's science.

      PS Productivity is not efficiency.

    6. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I only do 40 hours a week, sometimes not even all of that is my best work. I may be there longer than that though if I'm goofing off too much around lunchtime but I don't count that. A lot of people seem to think I work extremely long hours but it's only because I shifted my commute hours so that I leave later. I don't even see any need to be seen as doing more than 40 hours. They're only paying me for more than 40 hours technically.

    7. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Except that's not what actually happens, at least for the average worker. If you give 60 hours of work, it's all so-so work, which works out to 30-40 hours of real work. If you worked 40 hours a week you'd be doing roughly the same amount of work for a little over half the pay. (after a transition period of a couple months where you'd be doing 20-30 hours of work)

    8. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the actual ideal amount of work attendance in hours per week is. Perhaps 40 is too high also?

    9. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you literally can't get more than 40 hours of work out of people anyway.

      Try 20.

      For most of our existence as a species, 18-24 hours of work per week has been the world-wide average time spent satisfying our basic needs. All the rest was leisure, endeavours in curiosity and socializing. This observation still verifies with the few primitive tribes still around. It also verifies in our records of ancestral agricultural tribes. That's the intensity of work our bodies have attuned to over hundreds of thousands of years of recent evolution.

      From my professional experience too it verifies, and I'm curious about what other people may want to report about that. People around me may log long or short hours over the days but once you substract the pauses, all the staring at the screen in a blank mind right after lunch or at the end of the work day, all the heated discussions about this hot topic or that, all the trying to figure out or motivate yourself about what you should be doing next, and concentrate on the actual, value-adding focus and thinking and doing, that's hardly more than 3 to 5 hours a week-day, typically 1-3 hours around 10 in the morning and 2-3 hours around 3 P.M. Even middle management types who try to commit, who show up first and leave last everyday, spend most of their time socializing rather than actually organising things up (basically they're downrate, modernized tribes' chiefs).

      If you've got a flexible enough mind, it's a lot more efficient for you (and healthier and easier and saner and...) to wake up without an alarm clock, and not rush to the office, help yourself with organising your tasks with basic methodology, then get stuff done in those 4-5 hours. And outside of those hours relax, talk with your colleagues, allow yourself to enjoy your lunch, etc. There's litterally no point trying to force it beyond that.

      Also, you'll benefit immensely from cutting the crap out of your life at home too. Stop inflicting incessant news updates, FB status updates, tweets and 24/7 information TV on yourself, your brain is NOT built for that kind of abuse. Stop thinking in terms of pain/gain balance: an hour of treadmilling is not compensating a handful of cupcakes, not in any way you can measure utility for yourself, ever ; and similarly inflicting huge stress and deadlines and job abuse on yourself so you can then indulge in a more wasteful home and car and lifestyle is NOT balanced either.

      That one most precious but limited resource that you have in a basically fixed amount for life: your time... stop throwing it away so liberally. You just need to spend half as much as your income (give or take a quarter of your income, there's quite a margin) and then you can get retired in your 30s (or 40s if you're already late in the game), even on a $40-50 000/year job.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    10. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, instead of working 40 hours of real work you do 60 hours of mediocre work. possibly producing even less than you would have in only 40 hours.. The point is that if you continuously work very long weeks, the production value of EVERY hours is reduced. You can't assume that the first 40 hours of each week aren't affected.

    11. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by RyoShin · · Score: 2

      I went to an interview for a tech company (can't remember what they did now, this was years ago) and one of the questions went something like "We're looking for people who will be dedicated to our small company; right now most everyone regularly works 10 hours a day. Would this be a problem for you?" I can't remember my exact answer, but I tried to be clear but soft that I had no interest in doing that on a constant basis. While there were more questions, the interview basically ended at that point for me and, I'm sure, for them.

      Crunch time happens, but it should be rare and compensated. If it's not rare, then something is seriously wrong at the company in the way it manages people, it's business, or all of the above. Thankfully, at my current job when I hit 40 hours I'm out the door unless there is something seriously wrong or I'm way behind a massive deadline (and those are rare to begin with). No one makes a peep about this, and everyone else does the same. My income isn't high compared to averages for the area for my job, but so long as I can survive I'm okay with that if it means not being beat like a rented mule.

    12. Re:And the stupidest thing about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh to hell with Mr Money Mustache and his arrogance: it only worked for him because both him and his wife were each making 6 figures at the time. And it's not as if he is living on only those savings, he gets plenty of income nowadays thanks to his cult of personality.

  40. Re:Socialism is not working by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We've been following the Reageanist philosophy since the 80's and things have steadily declined. Data from the last 30 years prove you wrong.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  41. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Baaahhhhh says the sheep

  42. How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes? by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I work my 45-50+ hours a week minimum like everyone else in tech land, but I also normally only have a 10 minute commute. (I'm currently visiting another office and the commute is 30 minutes from my hotel, bleah.)

    I know people who are losing two hours of their life a day commuting each way, in addition to working our nasty hours, leaving fewer hours to actually live. It's either cut out eating or sleeping, and thus it's usually sleep that takes the hit.

    I could make twice as much money if I committed to a horrible commute but I value my free time too much.

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
  43. Re:work life balance is a myth by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Variety is important for a healthy life.

    Variety is also important for a good job. Take on different assignments, learn new skills, volunteer to fly to Mongolia to get the new team up to speed, etc.

    Disclaimer: If you actually do volunteer to go to Mongolia, try to go in the summer or autumn. The winters in Ulan Bator are really harsh. Also, it is not a great place for vegetarians.

  44. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you are a BOFH that got in when companies still paid. Think about what it is like for the people that aren't so lucky.

  45. I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by marcgvky · · Score: 4, Informative

    They lie to you in the interview, "oh, it's rare, but there are a couples of weeks here and there, that we burn the midnight oil." Yeah, bullshit. 50-hours minimum, and everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM. Suck it, corporate America. Sell your soul to the corporate idol for NOTHING in return. Once again, suck it.

    1. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      everyone gives you the stink-eye, if you head for the door before 6PM.

      Look at Yahoo! and their recent policy on telecommuting. It used to be you'd get your assignment done. Whether it takes you 30, 40 or 50 hours per week, nobody will know. Now, you've got to make your appearance at the office where everyone judges you by seat time instead of productivity.

      You can land the best job, but when some asshat takes over as boss, it's all over.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2

      In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers. Notice I said as a whole - there is the rare telecommuter who is more productive. But most are not. So I completely understand corporate policy that lights fires under telecommuters' butts. It's what I would do if I were the boss.

      I speak as someone who was a telecommuter at one time. I have a very hard time believing that the factors that made it difficult to be productive for me are not common for everyone. There are more distractions at home. There is a natural tendency to spread the work over a larger period of time because you can, and because the aforementioned distractions make that appealing. And that leads to habitually intending to "do more work later" but not getting to it because the day runs out. It must happen to alot of people. It happened to me.

      Then there's the physical disassociation from the people you work with, which reduces communication effectiveness and tends to turn what would be small roadblocks into big ones. Not to mention having an impact on morale as you miss out on the spirit of comeraderie that often plays a role in office dynamics.

      I am generalizing my explanation for what causes the ineffectiveness of telecommuters, but I am sure the factors are different for everyone. Regardless, in my expereience working with people who work from home (or worse, from far away), in the vast majority of cases, they produce at a much slower rate than I would expect from someone working in the office.

      If you're one of the 5% of telecommuters who can be as or more effective as you would be in the office, then I guess it does suck when that option is taken away from you because the other 95% can't hack it.

      Then there are people who are just as ineffective in the office as they are at home. I guess they'd be OK working at home too, but those people, I'd rather show the door than accepting their mediocre output, even if they can do it from home.

    3. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by jemmyw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is rather anecdotal. I refuse to believe that I'm in a 5% percentage of people more effective working from home than in the office. The office is full of distractions, noise, people to waste time with, toys like pool tables and so forth. I go in every so often because some of those distractions are important.

      But home is nice and quiet. Can move between desk, sofa, bed, outside with laptop. I suspect that those who find distractions working at home will find distractions working in the office.

      I've noticed that the best workers in my company are the ones who have gone remote. I'm not saying that they are best because they're remote. But they're probably the ones who don't feel they need to be seen in the office to prove their worth.

    4. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I left one job in part due to constant pressure to work overtime (among a number of other factors). 50 hours was the expected work week, and the overtime pay was supposed to be seen as an opportunity to supplement below average wages.

      Applying recently to another job, I was told that there was occasional overtime. I asked what that meant on average. The answer that I got was that it varied from month to month. No specific examples of what they expected were given. I stated that I valued my time outside of work, without outright ruling out overtime. I bet I don't get that job.

    5. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      You probably are in the 5%. Also, what kind of office has more distractions than a home would? Don't people specifically *have* homes so that they can fill them with all of the distractions that they love? Don't offices exist so that people can get work done away from those distractions?

      I guess if I worked somewhere with the kind of environment that you are describing, then it wouldn't matter if I worked at home or at work. But I work somewhere that the work is taken seriously and most those distractions are kept where they belong - at home.

      And to counter your jab, I also find the best workers don't feel to need to be seen in the office to prove their worth. They feel the need to be in the office to maximize their productivity.

    6. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Yes I overplayed it a little there. The best workers work wherever is best for them, be it the office or at home. But the thing I find distracting at the office is the people. I love talking to people and helping them out and so forth (which obviously happens remotely too, but not as much) but for getting some programming or spec work done my own calm space is best. I can work a little long from home without really thinking about it because there's no hassle of "getting ready" or the commute. Although there is often the "shit, video conference in 5 minutes, no trousers" moment.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    7. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      I see. The secret is to be unapproachable. Scare people off with a gruff attitude. Works wonders for me :)

    8. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Problem is that too many workers think they are selling their soul for big gains. They believe the ridiculous lies about stock options being worth something someday and that their longer hours will somehow affect the stock price.

    9. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Home is so full of distractions though :-) But for me, the food is better at work, the cleaning staff is better at work, and so forth.
      One problem I see though is that the work-from-home people often do not have a clear demarcation between start and end of the work day, and instead they'll be working all day long, just at a slightly less output later on (say high to spouse and kids before opening up the laptop again and reading more emails).

      But if you go to the office you know when the day is over. Most people leave the office around 5 to 6, the light from outside starts to go away, and then you think "oh, I'd better go home soon." Then as long as they STOP working when they get home then that works.

      (Notice I said that most leave the office around 5 to 6. It's odd that I see this everywhere I've worked. Which means these 60-80 hour a week workers are not doing this in the office, except for a tiny handful of people. So either all of them are putting in another 20 hours a week at home, or else the "everyone is required to work that long at my company" line is a myth.)

    10. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      My wife often comments that I am not very easy to distract when working. And the day is still delineated with events: children wake us up, time for breakfast then work. Lunch time, walk out for coffee. Dinner time, 5:30, time to stop working. Sure if you had no family then that might break down.

      I've seen plenty of people working long hours at the office.

    11. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      My experiences are similar to yours. I'm hopeful a lot of those problems can be mitigated by better tools for staying connected, because the potential upsides of telecommuting for software developers (at least) are just amazing:

      • We can live in really cheap places if we like, making our salaries way more useful and/or letting us lower our salary requirements.
      • For me at least, I can get my little kids onto and off of the school bus, and be home during the day in case one of them needs to come home sick from school. That alone opens massive opportunities for my wife working that otherwise wouldn't be possible.
      • I'd save 4 hours/day of commuting. That's worth a whole lot to me. It's the difference between having time to exercise, maintain friendships, and having ample time with my family, vs. not.
      • My work attendance would actually improve, because being a little sick or having some mid-day appointment wouldn't lead me to take the whole day off.
    12. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      I guess it's personal.. it'd be nice to see an actual study on this to get a clear figure. But suppose it's 50-50. We should be able to come up with something to adapt work dynamic to this.
      I personally work better at the office than at home, but I know as many people who are the other way around as people that are like me.
      I liked the way we did it at IBM: we had 2 days per week of homeworking (if we wanted to) which was perfect balance for me.
      On the other hand, we didn't have pool tables or anything of the like at the office. Just desks, coffee machine, and work stuff. Same where I work now.
      I think what's flawed is the fordian work model.. it's obsolete, at least for some kinds of jobs. Working 5 days a week for 8 hours at a time doesn't make any sense anymore.
      Also, it's funny how the technology that is always supposed to make our work easier/shorter, ends up having us to work longer... but that's what comes in a capitalist economy driven by competition (not saying it's good or bad, it's just how it works).

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    13. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by PPH · · Score: 1

      In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers. Notice I said as a whole - there is the rare telecommuter who is more productive. But most are not. So I completely understand corporate policy that lights fires under telecommuters' butts. It's what I would do if I were the boss.

      Perhaps that is a shortcoming of your management. If they can't measure workers productivity effectively then they can't cut the slackers. But in my experience, this problem applies to those in an office as well as telecommuters.

      There are more distractions at home. There is a natural tendency to spread the work over a larger period of time because you can, and because the aforementioned distractions make that appealing.

      Maybe so. But this is a matter of time management. Its my day and I'll use it as I see fit. If I need a break while at home, I'll do some house work or go shopping. But its up to me to budget my time. The upside being that I don't have some boss wondering what I'm up to at the moment.

      The upside of telecommuting is that, assuming management can weed out the underperformers, those that are left have only their work output to speak for themselves. None of the social pecking order and politics that "the spirit of comeraderie" implies. So that makes a broader spectrum of employees available to the organization. There is no need to fit in on a day to day basis. Nobody cares if I don't participate in the office football pool.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    14. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by PPH · · Score: 1

      Although there is often the "shit, video conference in 5 minutes, no trousers" moment.

      Sit behind a desk. Shirt, tie, and nobody needs to know what's down below. Or what isn't.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    15. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by jemmyw · · Score: 1

      Working 5 days a week for 8 hours at a time doesn't make any sense anymore.

      I agree. But it's good to have that structure when you first start out. It's also good to know when to break out of it, and I wish I had done so far earlier than I did. If you are a technology worker you should understand that some days you can work longer, some shorter. Sometimes you feel like you can't work on the major tasks so you do support for a few hours. And I often shift the time around. For some reason I feel way more productive between 11pm and 1am than 11am and 1pm.

    16. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But home is nice and quiet. Can move between desk, sofa, bed, outside with laptop.

      I have a 2 year old. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you, but now I'm easily more productive in the office.

    17. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You sound a bit like one of my former PHBs who hated the thought of people working from home because he couldn't tell what they were up to. While telecommuting isn't for everyone, milestones or metrics can easily keep a manager apprised of the level of productivity. Any manager who can't tell, needs to be replaced.

      For myself, sitting in a cube farm isn't conducive to the number crunching I do now (low level management), or the coding I used to do a dozen years ago. Too many distractions in the office, and virtually none at home that were outside of my own control. I'd argue that I'm nearly twice as productive working outside the office.

      I'm not in favor of doing so 100% of the time. There's a lot to be said for the water-cooler/hallway discussions that you just don't get working remotely. Too often people won't answer their phones, or respond to chat, so the ability to walk into their office, and demand attention can be a plus.

      FWIW, I was part of my company's telecommuting pilot program about 15 yrs ago, yes with 56k modems. My small development team worked from home every Monday. We had everyone's home phone number, and would coordinate when we were away. Mondays turned out more and better code than any other day of the week.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    18. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      That may keep people from talking to you. But, it won't keep away all the conversations you hear from over the cube walls. In the infinite wisdom of our facility management, they decided to save money by having the nighttime cleaning crews work daytime in order to avoid paying shift premiums. Nothing like a vacuum cleaner running near your desk to put productivity down to zero. Additionally, I have people who walk by that dig their heels in like they're marching in a parade, or with their cell phones on speaker mode. So, please tell me more about how much better it is in the office.

      Distractions at home are controllable, not so much for the ones in the office.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      I've worked from home for the past 5 years, and was one of the top performers in my group. I'm infinitely more productive when I can focus without distractions. I am always a phone call/e-mail/IM message away if someone needs something. I have an office with a window (with a view - Helena Bonham-Carter anyone?). I play music (on headphones). I slouche. I curse (not frequently, though). I burp. I occasionally drink beer. I do wear clothes, though...

      The GP's statement "There is a natural tendency to spread the work over a larger period of time because you can, and because the aforementioned distractions make that appealing." certainly indicates something is grossly wrong. There's no need to spread work out when working from home. I suspect if the GP had an office (s)he would be doing the same thing.

      I'm switching to a new non-telecommute job because there was an idiotic management change, and the idiots are in charge now. It got so bad I just left the dream telecommute job. Go figure...

    20. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've gotta disagree with GP as well. The best people I know in my field will ONLY work remotely. As soon as you put them in an office, productivity slows to a crawl because they are too distracted by the other office people. I suspect GP's profession is not in technology, but in something like advertising, where face time and schmoozing is important, so it's desired to be in the office all the time.

    21. Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, telecommuters as a whole are only a fraction as productive as in-office workers.

      The problem with your reasoning is you are measuring productivity by overworked in-office standards and not by quality. So you are missing the point of TFA. As a telecommuter I might work less "hard" than overworked, overstressed cubicle farmers, but I enjoy the work (and my life) much more and therefore produce much better work. I'd rather shoot myself in the head than go back to the self-loathing and water cooler gossip of a cubicle farm. I have better relationships with coworkers as a telecommuter than I ever had in cubicle slavery.

  46. in 1942 by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    the main source of sustenance was farming of one form or another, and sure they worked less hours as dictated by the sun, but even the most hardened desk jocky would fall over before the day's end

    1. Re:in 1942 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You obviously have never done much farming or research on farming. In 1942 it was and today still is one of the jobs in the developed world that requires very long hours on a highly regular basis. You may have more machines and less people now but there are still very long hours.

    2. Re:in 1942 by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      It's actually funny, I remember a study about the daily routine of our ancestors and how we increased our "workload" with the years. In the prehistoric ages, before we developed farming and were hunters and gatherers, their calculation came up with an average daily workload of about 3-4 hours. With increased "sophistication" and culture, our daily workload increased.

      Of course it's not possible to return to those days (then again, who'd want to?), but it's still interesting. Of course we gained something from the additional work. We gained security because if we have animals and corn stored instead of having to go out and search for them, it's predictable that we will be successful in finding some. It's out in the granary and barn. Ready to be picked up.

      Still, our "progress" that allowed us to lower our daily workload from 12 to 8 hours in the past century isn't that big a development in that light. And now that we reverse that progress again, it ain't so twice.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:in 1942 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Of course it's not possible to return to those days (then again, who'd want to?), but it's still interesting.

      Average worker output has increased by orders of magnitude as average wages have decreased. Soon we'll have to work 100% of the time just to stay in debt, instead of 33-66% like it is now

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:in 1942 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but i bet they also get the most sleep too

    5. Re:in 1942 by Osgeld · · Score: 2

      only if you are a moron and live beyond your means

      thats a big problem, people think just cause they work hard they are entitled to a mc mansion, new car, loads of toys and the best of everything, it was never that way in the past

    6. Re:in 1942 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      only if you are a moron and live beyond your means

      Just being a "moron" is enough, or otherwise relegated to a crappy job. And more and more of the jobs out there are crappy ones. The ratio of full- to part-time jobs is declining, and real wages have decreased on average in this country for decades now, brief bubbles aside.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:in 1942 by sjames · · Score: 1

      But now we're going backwards. We have a lot of people who are one paycheck away from no food in the pantry.

    8. Re:in 1942 by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      only if you are a moron and live beyond your means

      thats a big problem, people think just cause they work hard they are entitled to a mc mansion, new car, loads of toys and the best of everything, it was never that way in the past

      Actually, debt is baked in. Do you know that every US dollar is existence is owed back to the Federal Reserve? If there were no debt, there would be no money. So yes, some people can live debt free. But that's only possible if someone else is taking on the debt. Under our current monetary system debt will only increase. It is physically impossible for most people to live debt free.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re:in 1942 by Justpin · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing in the USA as a zero hour contract? These things were rare in the early 00s and are becoming the norm. Where you are tied into an exclusivity contract with an employer while at the same time they are not obliged to give you any hours at all. Its worse than part time and you never get ANY rights at all and can be fired on a whim because they can merely offer you 0 hours. Its pretty horrible as you can't plan anything as you don't know how much you will get every month/week/year. I had a bonza week making £900 in a week, the two weeks since have been £0.

    10. Re:in 1942 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is there such a thing in the USA as a zero hour contract? These things were rare in the early 00s and are becoming the norm. Where you are tied into an exclusivity contract with an employer while at the same time they are not obliged to give you any hours at all.

      I sure hope not. I've never heard of anyone having anything like that. Most people in this country are simply non-contract or at-will or whatever they call you, they can fire you at any time for any reason not explicitly covered by federal or state anti-discrimination law which covers race, religion, gender, and in California and probably some other states but I haven't kept up, sexual orientation. And the minimum wage is not a living wage anywhere in the country that I'm aware of, although some places are moving in that direction and possibly some seriously armpit parts of some otherwise affluent states might qualify.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  47. Re:Socialism is not working by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This country is losing it. Don't know if you realize it my fellow citizens, but you are getting your ass kicked in the world. Socialism is not working.

    That's because whenever you try something socialist-ish it's implemented as corporate welfare. Instead of taxing the corporations and helping the people you're bailing out the corporations and handing the bill to the people. Your version of Robin Hood would involve trying to get a trickle-down effect by handing the sheriff of Nottingham more money so he could hire more tax collectors and guards. Or to use a car analogy it's like stabbing the tires and pouring sugar in the gas tank, then comparing it to a horse.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  48. Would someone please think of the Economy? by rabbin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, nevermind that workaholism makes the overwhelming majority of people miserable--certainly that couldn't be more of a reason (or even a sufficient reason) to be concerned. Would someone please think of the upper class's ability to maximize profits by squeezing the life out of the working cla--I mean the Economy, would someone please think of the Economy?

    1. Re:Would someone please think of the Economy? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Would someone please think of the upper class's ability to maximize profits by squeezing the life out of the working cla--I mean the Economy, would someone please think of the Economy?

      Don't bother trying to appeal to someone's better nature. They may not have one. Go at their self-interest instead.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  49. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My hobby and my job align. I work for fun. 35-40 hours per week and salaried.

  50. Re:What choice do we have? -- Unionize, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Don't mourn. Organize"

    Don't let the bosses control the work place.
    Don't let the union leaders become bosses.
    You have to fight for it, then fight to keep it.

    Or you'll get used up.

  51. Re:work life balance is a myth by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The main problem is that people prefer money to working. The idea that you could make people LOVE going to work already fell communism, maybe it needs to fell capitalism, too, before we get wiser.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  52. Re: work life balance is a myth by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I got excited about computers when I saw a computer with BASIC in a chain store in the early 80's. Must have been a Vic20.

    I took an 'Informatics' High School curriculum, got an M.Eng. in Computer Science, and started as 'The Computer guy' in a small, privately owned manufacturing company. Now the company has four plants, 50 warehouses, 600 PCs, and my card says CTO. I still do some programming on the job, but it's probably less than 5 hours per week.

    But in my spare time, I take on real programming projects. My last three were a IDE interface for company that uses hardware that is WAY too old, a computer vision search tool, and a video game AI module. I earn more outside of my day job, and have to refuse projects... but of course the day job comes with security and health insurance.

    But, yeah, mileage varies. There is nothing I would rather do to earn money than write code for applications where a small memory footprint and execution speed are the first priority. This has not changed since 1988, except that since then I've decided that maybe I can afford to use C as opposed to assembly. And, yeah, I have written AI routines for two games released in 2013 in plain old C, because pointy headed bastards think that AI does not deserve ANY resources...

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  53. Innumeracy... by msauve · · Score: 2

    "All workers have managed to cut down on our time on the job by 112 hours over the last 40 years"

    In a summary addressing the "work week," how does one end up reducing it by 112 hours or more?

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Innumeracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 168 hours per week.

    2. Re:Innumeracy... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Looking at the figures for other countries, I'm guessing those numbers are annual.

    3. Re:Innumeracy... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      In a summary addressing the "work week," how does one end up reducing it by 112 hours or more?

      Through the awesome power of smoke and mirrors. Keep shifting units so that nobody has enough patience to actually think critically about the claims that you are making.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:Innumeracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      112/40 = 2.8 hours per year.
      A normal worker can be expected to work 220 days of that year (weekends, training, holiday) that works out as a little under 46 seconds a day.
      That doesn't seem that impressive to me!

    5. Re:Innumeracy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably a crap editor. 112 hours sounds right if you look at it by year.

  54. Re: work life balance is a myth by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Been there, done that, earned the burnout.

    It just ain't worth it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  55. Once upon a time by nytes · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember that, at one time, the big promise of technology and automation was that we would be able to reduce the workweek for Joe Workerbee?

    Somewhere along the way the goal of tech has become to employ as few people as possible, preferably with lower skills so you don't have to pay them as much.

    --
    -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  56. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You seem to be suggesting that only people from a certain generation are applying for jobs. That just isn't the case. I'm 37 and along with 100 other people was laid off in February from a job I spent 9 years at. I would have gladly spent another 9 years there. I'd love to find somewhere to spend the next 9 years. I've been looking but the jobs aren't there. A few entry-level zero benefit positions here and there, like "network engineer" requiring nothing but HS/GED and the bulk of the job description is hauling servers around. Get fucked. At some point soon I'll have to take a job at Home Depot or something to keep the bills paid.

    I don't blame the state of the economy, the economy by and large is doing alright. I blame the companies who continue their greedy race to the bottom. 100+ hard working loyal employees laid off, replaced less than two months later with 30+ fresh college grads and a 50+ "offsite team" in India, despite the jobs never being posted anywhere. I guarantee you bonuses were handed out all up the chain, I guarantee you the business will be hamstrung for the next 6-12 months as the new hires get acquainted to their job and the whole company figures out how the fuck to deal with India. But that's just dandy because nobody looks beyond the quarterly report. Execs and upper management figure 6-12 months from now will be somebody else's problem.

    The entitled generation you mention, they seem like the only ones who are getting jobs now because many can afford to work for peanuts. I have a wife, and a mortgage. $8 an hour hauling servers around isn't going to cut it.

  57. Re:work life balance is a myth by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All things have a marginal utility. Either you are proposing a 168 hour workweek or we are just haggling about price.

  58. Re:work life balance is a myth by WillKemp · · Score: 3, Funny

    But i'm addicted to workahol!

  59. Re:work life balance is a myth by master_kaos · · Score: 1

    man I keep hearing stories like this and makes me depressed if I will ever need to find a new job... which unfortunately may be soon. Currently work 7-8 hour days and that includes 1 hour lunch and multiple breaks. Our boss has the philousophy I don't count hours as long as the job gets done. For a lot of people this may sound bad, but for us it works both ways. If work is a bit slow we can leave early, but if something is urgent we need to stay around to fix it. More often than not we leave 30-45 min early. Maybe once a month may have to stay hour late. I also get 4 weeks vacation, and minimum raise every year of double inflation (but often even more than that).
    Unfortunately our boss doesn't have much of a succession plan and he is 70 years old... Multiple employees pitched buying company from him but he always turns it down

  60. Re:work life balance is a myth by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    This.

    I like my job. It's well paid and as a job perk I get to read board members the riot act if they act stupid (and being board members with an inflated ego and sense of entitlement, they do a lot), but if given the choice, I'd rather sit at home, develop a few programs I like or tinker with some hardware. That's what I LIKE doing. Nobody will ever pay me for it unless I am insanely lucky, but then again, would I want that? It just wouldn't be the same anymore.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  61. Re:work life balance is a myth by WillKemp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nah,. I'm 56 and i've had that attitude all my life. I'm not rich, but i'm a lot happier than i would be if i'd spent all my life working in a crap job just for the money. And i've done a lot of really interesting jobs - in possibly as many as 30 quite different occupations, from builder to seaman, from computer programmer to miner, from taxi driver to technical adviser in Afghanistan. Life's too short to stick at crap jobs for long!

  62. Re:work life balance is a myth by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That's basically the problem. If people would LOVE doing it, and if a lot of people COULD do it, someone would already do it for free and you needn't pay someone for it.

    So having a job that you really love means you're one of the select few that has one that fewer people CAN do than what's necessary.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  63. Re: work life balance is a myth by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    Thank goodness you're taking a reasoned opinion and not oversimplifying and overgeneralizing.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  64. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should learn what socialism is before talking about it.

  65. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And people ask what unions are for...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  66. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In this economy, the question is rather whether you're not well enough connected to find something else. Skill plays little role anymore when it comes to unemployment.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  67. 94%, really? by JeffOwl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone else find that 94% figure for professionals working more than 50 hours a week rather high? I know it isn't anywhere near that where I work and we are relatively well paid.

    1. Re:94%, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working in medicine, I can tell you: I barely find that shocking. We're doing better protecting the residents from that (though it doesn't count certain kinds of being "on call" when you can, and often do, get woken up at any time for an "emergency" call, and it can happen multiple times per night. Follow that up with a full day of "normal" work, and, well...) most physicians easily work 50 or more hours a week.

      We lie to our selves, about how important it is that WE remain available, that WE take care of OUR patients, but really, we're a bunch of hypocrites. We know it's bad for us, we know that we're at risk of giving poor care (all the while thinking "well, *I* can handle it, *I* don't make mistakes, but most other doctors, yeah, their poor patients), and we attend seminar after seminar where we say how important it is for us to care for ourselves, and that we have to change the culture of medicine to something less self destructive, then we drive back to our overbooked clinics, then round on our hospitalized patients, followed by staying up "just a few hours" to chart or such, killing ourselves slowly, while we privately bemoan how residents nowadays don't show enough dedication, that they don't get enough exposure, that they OBVIOUSLY don't care as much, not like we do.

      Ask your family practitioner, your pediatrician, your surgeon how many days a week he actually, ACTUALLY gets 8 solid, unbroken hours of sleep. See if they actually give you a straight, unqualified answer.

      It's a nasty cycle, and protecting residents has only delayed the pressure on them to wreck their health.

      So, yeah, I can see LOTS of professionals working more than 50 a week.

    2. Re:94%, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider the accounting/finance industry... Most people I know there normally work 60-hour weeks. And that's considered normal...

    3. Re:94%, really? by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      I am suspicious of this number too. There were a lot of facts and figures in the article, but I am not sure I found the direct link between vacation, sleep and the overall health of the economy. By some measures the European economies are still struggling, while the US has mostly recovered (technically speaking). I too want to see the US population get more rest, but if vacation and sleep are such a big benefit, why does Europe still lag?

    4. Re:94%, really? by GoCrazy · · Score: 1

      I work at an engineering consulting firm and it's around that, if not higher. If people work during lunch and then leave an hour later everyday, that's already 50 hours a week.

      --
      No beer and no TV make Homer something something
    5. Re:94%, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also found the percentage high. Many of my collegues work long hours because of tight deadlines and limited staffing, but there are many (on different teams/projects) who do not.

    6. Re:94%, really? by GoCrazy · · Score: 1
      The article is kind of all over the place. While it provides no proof that less hours worked means a better economy, it quote some studies that find taking more vacation hours boost productivity and lowers turnover. But to quote The Office:

      Jan: How would a movie increase productivity, Michael? How on earth would it do that?
      Michael Scott: People work faster after.
      Jan: Magically.
      Michael Scott: No. They have to, to make up for the time they lost watching the movie.

      --
      No beer and no TV make Homer something something
    7. Re:94%, really? by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      I'd be surprised if 94% of professionals worked more than 40 hours a week, never mind 50. I don't know how they arrived at that figure, but it doesn't pass the sniff test at all.

    8. Re:94%, really? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. The article cited a 2008 Harvard Business School survey that I haven't been able to find a good link to. I'd be interested in how they came up with that figure.

      For the vast majority of people I work with, the 50+ hr work weeks are saved for when we're working a new proposal, or some similar kind of surge, but are certainly not the norm. That said, work doesn't necessarily end with me leaving the office. I take calls and respond to emails when away that I don't account for, but in total it probably only averages a couple hrs. per week.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re:94%, really? by Renevith · · Score: 1

      I agree. I work as an Actuary, and most of my actuarial coworkers don't typically pull those kind of hours. Maybe they meant "from time to time" rather than on average?

    10. Re:94%, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we are relatively well paid.

      you answered your own question.

  68. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks for proving wage slaves don't exist, John. I was all worried that many people are economically stick in crap jobs, but your anecdotal story has proven how wrong I was.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  69. Re:work life balance is a myth by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.

    Ah... the age old myth. So you realize, that bullshit was started by marketing firms on the behalf of employers right?
    Your reasoning played out: "Find the job you love, then you'll work for free!!"
    That's also the where the idea of a "Career" came from.
    "Well, my career is in computers, so even though I could make more helping my wife with her bakery, that would end my career!"

    Bullshit all around. It's all intended to keep you working cheep because you like what you're doing, and afraid to leave because it would hurt your career. My ass.

    I don't care if you're paying me to nail Scarlett Johansen. You're paying me, and expect a lot. When my shift is over, she'd better spoon with a pillow or something because I'm going home.

  70. Re:work life balance is a myth by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. BUT, if you're exempt and working more than 45 hours a week you are a chummmmp. So many positions out there just don't require it.

    And not only that, if you put up with it, you are making the problem worse for the rest of us.

    Seriously.

    YOU are the market. If you are putting up with BS, then YOU are making it that way.

    If you are underpaid, and overworked, and yet have put up with it for the last 10 years, YOU are the problem. And you're pulling the rest of us in the wrong direction.

    I mean, I found what I was looking for in my current position:
    * 40 hour work week (more like 38-ish)
    * friendly, non-hostile atmosphere
    * vary my time slot spontaneously and not worry about being "late"
    * generous vacation (>3 weeks right off the bat)
    * company sponsored outings for coffee and such
    * getting compensated more than any of my other positions, even accounting for inflation and cost of living

    It's still work, but work doesn't get better than that. But, to get there, I had to job hop 3 times and move my crap around because of all you fat whiny farkers out there who just sit there and take BS that doesn't have to be tolerated, making the rest of us have to go out of our way to avoid any employer you've slimed with the miserable inertia of your big fat lazy ass :P

    Morale of the story...keep jumping positions, cities, hell countries until you find a good work environment. Every two years. Chop chop.

  71. Loyalty to the co. by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    You can't be loyal to the company and not put in boatloads of overtime. Doesn't matter if you're gettting anything accomplished; the company is the be-all end-all and deserves the blood sacrifice.

    1. Re:Loyalty to the co. by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Why be loyal? The upper management team has absolutely zero loyalty to the worker (or the customers for that matter). So there's no logical or moral reason to show loyalty to them. They will gladly throw you under the bus if they think it would make their stock price go up a penny.

  72. It's All About Productivity by mckellar75238 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've read comments above about loving your job, about pressure from management, about socialism, about Obamacare, and none of them seemed really to address the issue -- at least, as far as I could see. I worked in IT for 25 years, plus another 15 or so in other fields. I absolutely loved programming, the others just paid the bills, but there was one constant: my productivity maxed out at about 45 hours a week. If I worked 50, I didn't get any more done (net, i.e., after fixing errors) than if I had only worked 40; if I worked more than 50, things just got worse. I'm sure I lost some job offers along the way, because I was always careful to ask about overtime and then describe my experience if I was told it would be significant. Yes, I would work overtime if it was necessary; if it needs to be done, then "suck it up" is the rule of the day. But long term, heavy overtime costs more than it gains -- even if it's unpaid.

  73. pls by darthdavid · · Score: 1

    The fuck is workahol?

    1. Re:pls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fuck is workahol?

      Don't know about other regions, but in the US, "Workaholic" is a term for some one that is addicted to working, or rather feels compelled to keep working.

      Simple, no?

  74. The Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Petition the US Congress to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to include not overtime pay (time and a half pay), but simply pay for salaried, professional workers, working over 40 hours a week, who do not own a significant stake in their company. This proposal is founded on the following axiom:
    -The cornerstone of a free market economy is trust, meaning that known goods and services are traded for known prices. If either the buyer or seller is able to arbitrarily mandate exchange conditions, one party is looting the other.
    Under the current Fair Labor Standards Act, any salaried workers, engaged in skilled labor, bear no right to bargain for their time and service. Salaried workers enter into a relationship in which an employer arbitrarily mandates the value of an employee's time and service. For example, if a salaried employee works 8 hours a day one month, then 12 hours a day the next, the employee's time and services have been devalued 33% the second month. The only condition that has changed from one month to the next is the employer's need of the employee's time and services. Under the normal laws of market equilibrium, this demand for time and services would increase the price of them, but instead the inverse occurs and the services rendered become less valuable over time, even though their demand increases.
    These practices steal an employee's valuable time. They obfuscate the true price that employer's are willing to pay for an employee's time and services. They undermine the principles of a free market. And, by sanctioning these practices, the government is sanctioning corporate socialism by awarding employers the right to arbitrarily mandate exchange agreements with employees, based on an employer's need, rather than their ability.

  75. More than 40 hours? Go home! by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's at least what I tell my people. I can't use them if they burn out.

    I made that mistake once and lost a very valuable employee that way. I didn't notice it. He was always around and, hey, who doesn't like an employee who seemingly never sleeps? Until one day he didn't show up anymore. Burnout. Boom, gone. To understand how severe that really is, it takes AT LEAST three months for someone to get our workflow down. If, and only if, they are not only clever but also know the relevant underlying security protocols and process systems. Else, double it. Including the hiring process, the screening, the preparation and all the crap associated with HR and security procedures to actually get someone into our crystal palace, from the moment you decide you want someone to the moment he is actually a full member of your team... let's put it that way, conception to birth is faster.

    So we had the additional workload of that person for a whole year on our shoulders. Which, as you can imagine, nearly costed me more people due to overtaxing.

    Never again. Of course I can't protect myself and my team against one of them having an accident or even becoming unable to return to work forever. Even though risky sports are already "unofficially" disallowed (can't really outlaw them legally 'cause what you do in your spare time is your business, but it is "frowned upon". Let your imagination come up with what this means in a corporate environment...).

    But at the very least I can ensure that I don't add to the problem. Nobody here clocks more than 40 hours (unless the fecal matter got into contact with the air transportation device, and then you will go and take those hours out as soon as you can).

    I don't need my people to spend time in the office. I need them to get stuff done. That can mean that I might suddenly call them at some rather odd hours and ask them to come in, but I don't see any compelling reason to keep them around when there's nothing to be done on time. It's an agreement we have, and so far both sides can live perfectly with it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  76. France is a goal to aspire to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Look at the French economy, I certainly don't see a useful model there to aspire to. I work for myself, so maybe there's more direct incentive to put in the long hours, but in a global economy, I just don't see a 40-hour workweek and prosperity going hand in hand. If we still had a manufacturing base in the US, you might argue otherwise, but our middle class has been gutted by globalization; the idea of a well-paying manufacturing job is largely history. 40-hour weeks are a quaint relic of the past, regardless of your place in the economy.

    1. Re:France is a goal to aspire to? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      Really? Look at the French economy, I certainly don't see a useful model there to aspire to.

      Try Germany instead; they appear to work fewer hours than the French, and I have the impression the German economy's doing fairly well.

    2. Re:France is a goal to aspire to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try Germany instead; they appear to work fewer hours than the French, and I have the impression the German economy's doing fairly well.

      Yes, but the Americans are just as big self-centered a**holes as the French, in cultural terms, so they would wind up like France anyway.

    3. Re:France is a goal to aspire to? by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Productivity is going up, consumption is not (or at least not as fast) so fewer hours are necessary to meet demand. Either hours get reduced or employees do. If hours are reduced, (and pay isn't increased to compensate) people have less money to spend, driving consumption down. If employees are reduced, fewer people have money to spend, driving consumption down. The only way to resolve it without a collapse is to pay people the same or more than they are now while letting them work less. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.

    4. Re:France is a goal to aspire to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Look at the French economy, I certainly don't see a useful model there to aspire to.

      Try Germany instead; they appear to work fewer hours than the French, and I have the impression the German economy's doing fairly well.

      Great article, excerpt:

      "The Greeks are some of the most hardworking in the OECD, putting in over 2,000 hours a year on average. Germans, on the other hand, are comparative slackers, working about 1,400 hours each year. But German productivity is about 70% higher."

      There's also a telling graph showing the relationship between hours worked and productivity.

  77. Why do we work by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    It seems we work for at least a couple of reasons. One is pretty obvious, that is, to earn income to support a hopefully comfortable life for ourselves and our family and provide a secure retirement. Maybe also something for our heirs. There's also the whole business of enjoying our work so as to feel accomplishment, contribute to our company's and society's improvement and success, and professional and personal associations with coworkers. What happens when all this becomes unbearable because over work compromises or destroys these features of work? You may be earning a living but without any joy not only affecting your personal life but your work and its quality. Is this burn out? Companies must begin to realize this and make changes.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  78. I guess it depends on the job in the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right now I'm in one of the most enjoyable jobs I've ever had.
    It's also the highest paying I've ever had.
    I do have some overtime... but it's rare that I end up with more than a 45 hour week. And I get time and a half when it's more than 8 hours in the day.
    I did obsessively check my work provided smartphone for email... but that's more often for the personal email than work.

    Now the current hobbies are a bit ridiculous... small time poultry rearing. It's physically grueling... but mentally clearing.

  79. Re:work life balance is a myth by tFunc · · Score: 1

    And still balance your life. Don't work constantly. There is much more to life than work. Best to discover this while you're young enough to enjoy it.

  80. Re:work life balance is a myth by DigitalHammer · · Score: 0

    Based on all that job hopping, I'm assuming those jobs were crap too?

  81. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I had to job hop 3 times and move my crap around because of all you fat whiny farkers out there who just sit there and take BS that doesn't have to be tolerated

    Fark jumped the shark a long time ago. Bannination is where it's at now.

  82. Re: Socialism is not working by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It may nor be socialist, but one of the biggest problems is Obamacare.

    Yup, a lot of the ideas came from that big socialist left-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation.

    It absolutely kills small businesses.

    So maybe MOAR SOCIALISM would help here.

  83. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am twenty years younger than you and agree. I did tech work for a long time, but realised that there was more to do in life. I have had many jobs doing many different things and many countries around the world. I'll never go back to a ridiculous notion of "career". It's boring and unimaginative.

  84. Re:work life balance is a myth by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    Nah, i just get bored easily!

  85. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work my 45-50+ hours a week minimum like everyone else in tech land

    Really, where I work we do just the regular 40 hours. Occasionally we do additional hours in case of incidents, but that results in time n lieu, which can be used whenever you want an additional day off.

    Sorry, but if you think that's normal, there's something horribly wrong with the society you're living in.

  86. Re:Baloney by docmordin · · Score: 1

    The whole image of the 60 hour a week death-marching 'murican worker is a fiction.

    When I was a graduate student, a 50- to 60-hour work week was basically a vacation, given that I routinely put in 70 to 85 hours per week. Moreover, it wasn't unheard of for students to basically not leave the lab for an entire week, let alone only sleep 5 hours per day on a couch during that time, while some important experiment was being conducted.

    Nowadays, a 60-hour work week is the norm for me, and I've come to enjoy it. I have around three "productive" days where I work a total of 39 hours, two "semi-productive" days where I work a total of 18 hours, and an additional 3 hours that I spread out over the week for administrative tasks and meetings. While it would be nice to cut back to just 40 hours per week, I nearly double my salary by working those additional 20 hours.

  87. Back when I wor lad... by Kittenman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I worked in the UK in the late 90s for a multinational. The company sent me to Philadelphia for an interview. Offer included two weeks holiday a year. I asked the recruiter why this was so low (in the UK it was four) - she replied that the folks there really loved to work.

    Uh-huh....

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  88. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    No I won't.
    I'm self employed, if it's not in my contract, I don't do it.
    If I do work, I get paid.
    There is no middle ground.

  89. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you're talking about the US, there's nothing that resembles socialism. It's corporatism, socialism actually takes care of the weaker members in society, instead of further exploiting them.

    Either you don't know what the term socialism means, you're not in the US, or you're smoking something that's not on the approved list.

  90. Re:work life balance is a myth by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

    True. He may not even be able to.

  91. Want to fix it? ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then remove the exempt status from all the employees and pay them overtime.

  92. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I like receiving bjs. But I have yet to find someone to pay me for the privelege.

  93. Change is as good as a rest by caseih · · Score: 1

    I think the problem is that the nature of most of our jobs and work environments are repetitive, non-physical, dull, uninspiring, and often lacking in meaningful interpersonal communication. You can only take so many hours of that sort of stuff without burning out. In that context I understand and agree with the supposition that our productivity is hurting because of these long hours.

    On the other hand, sometimes working long hours isn't that bad of a thing, but it depends on the context. Currently I'm working in a family partnership doing agribusiness (IE farming). Depending on the day I may be working from 8 to 14 hours a day. But since it's a lifestyle as well as a job, and family lives here on farm, it's not quite as soul-sucking as working 14 hours behind a computer screen, though sometimes I do spend hours doing things on the computer doing things like server maintenance, or the odd bit of software development, which is rather tiring after a few straight hours (maybe it's being behind a screen shining in one's eyes that makes jobs so fatiguing). Each day differs pretty significantly. Yesterday I put in some hours after supper and came in at 9:30 pm. Today I was done by 5. Those seasons that demand long hours do get old in a hurry, but they don't last forever, and there are other compensations. Also I take one full day a week off (Sunday). Most farmers really enjoy the lifestyle, and their families too, as well as many farm workers, despite sometimes putting in long hours, and they do find balance and it works out. At least for some people.

    So it's not just a simple hours put in issue, but more of an inability to balance personal and family needs against an employer's demands, and the type of work these long hours consist of.

  94. Re: work life balance is a myth by iONiUM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're a CTO of a company with 4 plants, and you make more doing after hours work than what your job pays you? I'm not sure what to make of that, except that perhaps you're underpaid, and also appear to be working insane hours.

    I also love my job, and what I do, but there is a balance, and I like my life outside of work as well and am glad to make enough from it to not have to worry.

  95. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I totally understand, I did taxi driver too, just cause it was fun. I solve puzzles for money IT, a lot of fun :-)

  96. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I got 2 weeks up front for signing the paper on my first day of an entry level job + federal holidays, dunno what your problem is other than being a doormat.

    Oh, is that what it is. Being a doormat. I thought there were fewer jobs than there were people looking for work.

    I know some bleeding heart is going to pop in and say economy and joblessness rates and blah blah blah,

    Ah, of course: stating the realities of the supply and demand market is "bleeding heart."

    Well, have fun. Your hard work has clearly served you well, and it's not like others work as hard as you do, or they'd be in your job and you'd be unemployed. It's not like you were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. It's definitely your hard work.

    well I started in early 2012, and was unemployed since early 2011 and still worked nearly every single day thanks to one up jobs from the computer store around the corner when they got overwhelmed and seasonal temp jobs for more than minimum wage.

    Well that's nicel Wait, you worked for the computer store and seasonal temp jobs for more than minimum wage? You were fucking lucky. In one of my previous jobs, at a computer store, when we got more work in than I could handle it meant that I just had to stay late. Every night. For free. That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

    My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

    But I guess it's just that I wasn't working hard enough, with a few 13 hour days and weekend work sprinkled in, and no pay for overtime work. If I'd only worked harder, or negotiated better ("If you don't want the job with these conditions, someone else will take it and you can stay unemployed") I'm sure I could have been in exactly the same position.

    the days I didnt work I was at multiple temp agencies

    Lucky you. When I go to temp agencies, they look at my skill set (Computer Science degree, 10 years in IT support and networking, 6 years in media production) and tell me that there's just no work out there, and if I come back in a couple of weeks they might have something but I should probably look at getting my forklift licence and start at the bottom in retail or warehousing.

    and admittedly I sat on my ass for a couple weeks floating on savings after the initial fact.

    So what? Are you attempting to point out that you were "smart" enough to save some money? All you've done is point out that you were sufficiently well paid to save money, which is a completely different thing entirely - and something that minimum wage employees don't get.

    So don't boo hoo cause you grabbed the first trinket on the shelf and are now stuck with it

    Yeah! How dare people allow themselves to be forced to accept the first job offer that comes along as unemployment support requires in so many places? They should just harden up and work harder, like you did, and that way they'll get the Just World desserts that they so richly deserve.

    You should go find someone who's desperately unemployed, and find out how willing they really are to work. You'll be surprised - more willing than you are, willing to work harder than you do, and by the sound of things, a damned sight less entitled than you are.

    You "Just World" cunts make me sick.

  97. America, the land where "Arbeit macht frei" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew! That and it appears that despite the stock market's 'record breaking' performance the US of A is just as screwed as the rest of the world.

    Ah well, record profits, and all is right...

  98. Protestant Work Ethic by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget that significant portions of the American workforce are 100% on-board with the idea that *not* slaving your life away makes you a worthless layabout. Slave mentality, indeed.

  99. Someone explain this to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I just not thinking about this correctly?

    There are 2 ways to increase profits: Decrease expenses or increase sales. Productivity is sales over expenses. By increasing control over the supply chain, a business can pay less and increase productivity. Back in the '90s, a business could work harder or work smarter. Both approaches were tried, such as downsizing (employees work harder) and enterprise sharing (stealing IP from smarter people). There were some workplace protections during that decade so wages couldn't be decreased forcing most business into the 'smarter' path. In a global market, productivity levels are always changing so businesses need to do whatever to keep their merchandise affordable. Unfortunately, as competing nations improve their technology, working smarter becomes more expensive and actually reduces productivity. So it is easier to compete by reducing expenses.

  100. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I supposed I should thank the unions actually.
    I get paid more than the employees I work with for doing the same job. That's more to do with the employment law here, not the unions though. You can't fire someone for being not very good at their job without years of mediation, warnings and pumping excessive money into extra training and coaching for people who are essentially just a drop kick.
    You can fire a contractor on the spot for no reason whatsoever.

    I have yet to hear anything good come from a union in the last decade or so.

  101. Re:work life balance is a myth by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

    If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.

    Yes but does the job love me?

  102. We find more ways to make busy work by LordRPI · · Score: 1

    Juxtapose with this onion article:

    "Magical Office Worker Able To Turn Everything He Touches Into More Work For Colleagues"

    http://www.theonion.com/articl...

    We've failed to work smarter, not harder.

  103. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Same here. I was involved in nuclear power then radiological controls. Got sick of that, took a huge pay cut and left. Started near the bottom of IT making in the $30's and worked my up into a position in the $150K range in 13 years. I'm now in my mid 40's. The bell is ringing again and it's time to move on to something else. This time something much different. A plumbers helper, stocking shelves at a home improvement store. Something where I put in an honest 6-8 hours a day and go home and be 100% away from work. Something I haven't had since high school. I live in the same house I did when I was making $30K/year and I still have cheap used cars. Everything I have is 100% paid for because I did not increase my recurring monthly costs as my pay went up.

  104. USA Must Out Fuck World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In species survival, out fucking everybody else WINS !

    So, USA citizens, you MUST out fuck every other country, Even Germany !

    So Get To IT ! FUCK UP !

    1. Re:USA Must Out Fuck World by Lord+Maud'Dib · · Score: 1

      Not if you're working in Seattle.

  105. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's me spending all this time trying to work out what's wrong, and yet it's so simple! It's just "the people of this generation," which is unfortunately so vague it could refer to nearly anybody.

    And of course, people are so cashed up that they "try this a few times, then give up and blame the economy." I didn't realise people had so much money. How the hell can we be in any kind of recession? They just need to stop saving and start spending/stop spending and start saving, a lot more!

    And expecting to make "huge amounts of money right out of college," well that' just idiotic. $10/hour didn't hurt me 30 years ago, and it won't hurt them now! So what if living costs have gone up, you don't get a professional job to make money!

  106. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    Pure dumbfuckery. Do you like picking up the slack for lazy incompetents at your non-union company? Of course not. Would that change if you changed jobs and joined a union? Of course not.

    So why, exactly, do you think union members spend all day thinking, "boy, I wish Bob over there would stop doing his job so I can do my work plus his!"

  107. Overwork also makes it hard on management by CaroKann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aside from the lack of sleep and general burnout, working overtime also tends to skew expectations with management. Upper management is not going to be aware of exactly the amount of effort required complete a project. They are only going to see the results, the number of employees, and the amount of resources it took to achieve those results. So, if everybody gives it 110%, with lots of overtime and everything, that has the effect of raising the expectations of management. This leads management to believe employees can accomplish this great feat as a matter of course, when in fact, that type of effort can't be repeated. It all ends up with management making unrealistic demands while believing it is entirely reasonable.

  108. Wow, not enough sleep :) by rsilvergun · · Score: 1
    Surprised nobody noticed that I wrote

    is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the workers

    When from the tone of the post it's pretty obvious I meant

    is it just me or can nobody in the American Media do anything except blame the employers :)

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  109. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Where I'm from unions aren't at the company level, they're at the industry level. People don't voluntarily joins the unions, the unions opt everyone in and claim to work on their behalf and attempt to take over. They threaten employees who don't join in their stop-work actions and threaten employers who would let them come to work.

    Unions don't protect employees, employment law protects employees.

  110. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that when Bill Clinton was running the economic controls that everything was super happy fun time.
    I'm confused.

  111. one news article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that I read mentioned that someone worked 60 hours a week as a manager of a convenience store.

  112. Net not profit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After fed/state tax 25k a year is going to be 20k net...oh not to mention even though you're going to get a good chunk back (since 20k is considered poverty by the fed) its going to be missing basically the entire year.

    So what you're really talking about is $1600-$1800 a month....or $800 a paycheck if your bi-weekly. Doable, but you're by no means going anywhere in life.

    At that amount you might as well be on welfare, It would be more cost effective for everyone in my mind. Less people on the road, less gas use, less everything. Just pay the broke people to stay at home till they find something.

    1. Re:Net not profit by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

      It really depends on where you live and what your circumstances are. Do you have a car loan and student loans? That'll make it really tough, as those alone can easily be $5K/year or more. Do you not have a mortgage? That makes it easier. My parents live on about 25K a year, but this was after moving and buying a smaller house in cash from what they made off their old one. No mortgage means your household expenses could be dirt cheap depending on location ($200/month for property taxes and insurance for them). No mortage, no car loans and no credit card debt makes $1800/month much more survivable.

      Plain numbers are tricky. The possibility of surviving on a certain income really comes down to what specific expenses you have to contend with. I could do 35K/year (gross) pretty comfortably with my current costs, but not 25K.

      Most people who can't survive on the 35K number the OP tossed out are unable to do so because of existing debt that is dragging them down. If they had been able to avoid getting sucked into that position from the outset, 35K would be a much easier number to handle. Debt is a dangerous creature that we've become far too complacent about.

  113. Re:work life balance is a myth by HeLLFiRe1151 · · Score: 0

    Sounds like my life...I've made paper and candles, stacked and cut lumber, installed phone, missile and rocket circuits, printed shampoo bottles, cleaned boilers, commercial fished in Alaska, well pump installation and numerous short lived positions. Life is too short to do the same thing everyday.

    --
    I've got 101 mod points and you can't have them!
  114. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work something like 35 lately. The guy who sits in front of me works 60. I'm pretty sure I also have a higher salary than he does.

    I attribute this to willingness to be a jerk. I refuse to work more than 40 at all or even more than 35 lately if nobody has a plan for what the hell we're supposed to be doing. 5 more hours to get to 40 would just be 5 more hours to throw away when they decide on a real plan. I have 35 hours of real work I can do at present, the other shit would be make work that will get trashed. When we have real work I'll go back to doing 40, but no more. If someone asks me to do more than 40 I'll happily tell them I will do over 40 (short term) if I am additionally compensated and point out the downsides to doing it long term. My managers at least accept the studies I point out and "being a jerk" and refusing has had no apparent adverse affect on my career.

    I also was bitchy and whiny enough about feeling underpaid to get a significant % increase in pay outside of a promotion and then got an additional % increase the next year tied to a promotion.

  115. Dough by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    Aww man, but there's all this money to be made! You don't turn down revenue, right? :0)

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  116. I hate it when they do this with the numbers by poity · · Score: 1

    In 1942, more than 80 percent of Americans slept seven hours a night or more. Today, 40 percent sleep six hours or less.

    How do you even compare these two stats? I get that it sounds dramatic, but you can't work with this crap.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    1. Re:I hate it when they do this with the numbers by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Um, actually, you can? It means that, in 1942, 20% slept six hours or less. Today, that's 40%. Perhaps you haven't slept enough?

    2. Re:I hate it when they do this with the numbers by omnichad · · Score: 1

      7 vs. 6. No idea how many people were within that range.

  117. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you considered a career in the lucritive pornography industry?

  118. Some people may not afford to work less. by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    Some people may not afford to work less because they need the extra income from a 50 hours workweek.

    Of course - this means either that they try to have a higher living standard than what's possible for a normal salary or that the salary is too low.

    However there are demands for competent people, the problem is to find competent people because a lot of the unemployed can't even swing a hammer or do basic math - much less do engineering math. It doesn't matter that you are an expert in the works of Van Gogh or can play xylophone with your feet - only a few can live on that.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Some people may not afford to work less. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are stats on this, but I was under the impression that most people working more than 40 hours a week were salaried and overtime exempt, so they don't see any extra income from the extra work.

      I would be surprised if it were otherwise - employers loathe time-and-a-half overtime pay, and would consider it unaffordable to pay someone for all those extra hours.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Some people may not afford to work less. by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Some people may not afford to work less because they need the extra income from a 50 hours workweek.

      The people surveyed were professionals, and thus likely not being paid for any of the additional hours. Quite honestly, I'd put in more hours too if I was compensated for it, but I'm expected to put in "casual overtime".

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:Some people may not afford to work less. by dywolf · · Score: 1

      they're either salaried and expected to work more than 40 a week (Publix expects managers to clock 55+ a week, though they do pay managers quite well)...

      or they're minimum wage (or low anyway) and working multiple jobs (which in itself is a feat of accomplishment, given how often low wage employers tend to make getting a 2nd job impossible by giving you a random inconsistent schedule).

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  119. Organized religion is a mind game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Designed to manipulate the unwashed, undereducated masses using the 1 reliable tool the "controllers" have: 'Hope' (false hope). That's why it actually works, & always has worked, on the poor serf class folks. Don't get me wrong: I believe there IS an almighty creator spirit out there. You can call this being God. I do. I just do not like when men use that and twist it to their OWN malicious ends.

  120. The Real Brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real corporate brainwashing is that we need his and her SUVs, his and her cell phones, $120/mo cable bill and a 4000 sq ft house. Almost all of the true jobseekers would be employed in a month if we didn't have double income middle class families. In fact, a rough look at the numbers (economics is mostly voodoo horseshit, but the raw data is generally somehow connected to reality) shows that if there were no dual-income middle class families, the entire nation could be pulled out of poverty. There are second order affects that aren't included in that look ... it doesn't account for day care workers losing their jobs (why are we outsourcing our children anyway) and it doesn't account for American jobs lost due to not buying a whole lot of shit we don't need, However, McDonalds because you're too busy to cook is bad in every way except as a shareholder. Outsourcing your children is bad. Buying things you don't need is bad for you and bad for the environment. Two SUV's is an extra 5000 lbs of steel produced, which extra 9000 lbs of CO2 in the atmosphere before you start driving it. And how much healthier would we be with less stress and better food?

    1. Re:The Real Brainwashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if there were no dual-income middle class families, the entire nation could be pulled out of poverty.

      Sure, if you drag down the middle class to just above poverty, you can raise the poor to just above poverty. But, why? WHy punish those that worked to get where they are today?

  121. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like receiving bjs. But I have yet to find someone to pay me for the privelege.

    There are companies in Chatsworth California (the video porn capital of the US) who might hire you, but be careful what you wish for, they jobs you are likely to start out with in that industry are not likely to be as pleasant as you imagine (you can't always start at the top)...

  122. We learned this in the great depression by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    If people are working 60 hour weeks, that means every two people are eliminating employment for a 3rd person.

    One of the key drivers behind the 40 hour work week was 25% unemployment rates.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:We learned this in the great depression by Imrik · · Score: 1

      No, one of the key drivers behind the 40 hour work week was higher production than the 60 hour work week while only having to pay 2/3 as much. (or less once OT became widespread)

    2. Re:We learned this in the great depression by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Also a factor but..

      http://www.gobankingrates.com/...
      But it wasnâ(TM)t until the International Labor Organization held its first conference in Oct. 1919 that âoeHours of Workâ convention established an 8- or 9-hour work day, which constituted a max of 48 hours worked per week.

      Just as the work week seemed to settle, the Great Depression hit. In an effort to avoid layoffs, President Herbert Hoover proposed a bill that would reduce the work week to 30 hours. It passed in Senate; however, it didnâ(TM)t make it through the House.

      When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office, he tried to push again for shorter hours, but they were overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1936 passed, which required the federal government to pay its contractors overtime wages after eight hours of work in a day. And then the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 passed, which established the five-day, 40-hour work week for everyone, a standard we observe today.

      a little more here

      http://www.bloombergview.com/a...

      ----
      Without the great depression we'd have had longer work weeks all along. The exempt status used to be much more limited as well. Very few employees qualified for exempt status. Specific laws were passed to sell computer programmers and engineers down the river and make them exempt even tho they were not management.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  123. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Bingo! This is definitely a HUGE factor for those of us living and working in the metro D.C. area! (I'm pretty sure Californians working in the Silicon Valley area have the same experience, but I can't speak about it with any direct knowledge.)

    My commute is a little over an hour each direction. (Basically, I can take the train in to a station where I have to transfer to the metro and ride it for about 4 stops until I get to my workplace. Alternately, I can drive in but it takes about the exact same amount of time.)

    Either way, it's "lose, lose", really. Everyone loves to point out that if you take public transportation, the time is really "your own time" since you don't have to drive. But due to the lack of reliable cellular data connections through much of the trip, it doesn't let me do a lot of productive things I'd like to do with that time (like check email or handle trouble tickets that came in). It's good for reading a book or magazine, but honestly? I'm not too enthused about spending 45 minutes to an hour reading that early in the morning, or right after a long day of work. I like to read on weekends or possibly at night just before bedtime. If I opt to drive, then I'm out the cost of the gas money and wear and tear on my vehicle. I also get stuck paying about $8 a day for parking. (The train and metro fare is over $275 a month though, too.)

    But in this part of the country, you don't have any other realistic options to live closer to your job if you have a family with kids. Singles or child-free couples can usually find a reasonably affordable apartment that's nearby, but adding kids to the mix really makes that unworkable unless you're one of the "elite" (such as govt. contractors getting huge paychecks or politicians or their lawyers).

    Out here, it used to be, you were directed to one of the "inner D.C. suburbs" like Rockville or Gaithersburg or Silver Spring if you needed to find a 3 or 4 bedroom house at a somewhat normal price. But so many people have relocated up here for the government and military jobs and contracts, those properties were quickly snapped up and priced escalated with the demand. So you have to look further and further out to find something at a sane price point.

  124. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hear hear... I work for a home improvement store you may have heard of with an Orange motif, and I enjoy it most days and can totally leave work at work... do it, retire, and save what's left of your sanity.

  125. You are understaffed. You are part of the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are understaffed. You are part of the problem.

    You should not be operating where one person on your staff being incapacitated has the effect you describe. I know this is normal but it it completely against so-called best business practices. It is however, common business practice.

    People like me with 2 master's degrees (CS and TEL with a perfect average and 15 years of experience in the field) and my son who graduated with honors Math/CS minor and proved a new result in his thesis still can't even get INTERVIEWS, let alone a job.

    I've been functionally unemployed for 5 years, in my mid-50's I never expect to work again. At least not in CS/IT which I have completely lost interest in as a career or field of endeavor. It is simply soul-destroying.

    I am starting to think my son will never work.

    So fuck you, fuck this economy, fuck the lying CEO's hiring H1-B's, fuck the US and its Oligarchy.

  126. Other industry's also abuse OT also time off rules by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Other industry's also abuse OT also time off rules need to ban use it or lose vacation policy at least some pales the law is on the workers side.

    It's not just tech the retail places want mangers to work 60-80+ weeks with no Pay and a pay that can be hit min wage or lower when you look at you per HR rate.

    Even in tech your pay rate can hit number that make doing non tech jobs look good even for less pay with an 40 hour week.

  127. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got one word for you; deodorant.

  128. It's mostly BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two kinds of people putting in these hours: 1) those w/multiple low paying jobs who need the income and 2) those who think the future of the free world rests upon their efforts because that's how they measure their self worth.

    I'd put so called 'workaholics' in the second category. Employers are pushers selling them their self worth fix. Just Say No!

  129. Re:work life balance is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

    And not only that, if you put up with it, you are making the problem worse for the rest of us.

    So what are you going to offer me to work less? I don't care that you might in theory have to work a bit harder just because I do. What I care about is not being able to do the things I want to do, which including making more money than if I didn't do that extra work and doing things I would not otherwise get the chance to do.

    I have a solution to your problem that doesn't involve any more work on my side. It comes right out of those pvp games with the whiners who complain because people who've learned to play the game, play better. QQ.

    If you don't like it, quit. Pretty much what you suggest with the jumping positions. The problem solves itself. I might add that most of the people in my department don't have to work my hours. They have pretty nice jobs and I work hard to make sure it stays that way.

  130. remove health care from jobs and then they can hir by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    remove health care from jobs and then they can hire more then as right now it's cheaper to work 1 person 60-80 hours an week and replace them when they burn out

  131. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by dbIII · · Score: 2

    You could have saved a lot of time by just writing a three word post: "I've got mine."

  132. I'm forwarding this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To my boss.

  133. So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employwhere if people are working for shit money in unsafe coal mines becaer

    Ah yes - the "libertarian" answer - just get Daddy to put up the money to start a business, stop whining, and if your Daddy isn't rich then you are nobody so you don't matter. It's posts like the one above that just give yet another petty little insight into a flawed human nature but provide no other useful information. Banks may as well not exist for people starting in the workforce so most people can forget about anything other than capital from family.

    1. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      Ah yes - the "take one sentence from someone's argument and ignore the rest" answer.

      It would be easy for me to take one sentence fragment from your post, and then label it as a Stalin-style communism apology, and ridicule it as such, but this is a pretty childish debate tactic.

      Furthermore I was not suggesting that workers actually become employers. I was suggesting that this is what workers should do *if* the labor market was really as lop-sided as the original poster implied (which I don't think it is).

    2. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Ah yes - the "take one sentence from someone's argument and ignore the rest"

      "It's not fair, just one donkey years ago yet they still call me the donkeyf-r"

      Why should I give you leeway because only one thing showed you don't have a clue instead of several? That little bit in your post was a bit of a warning that you are considering the issue from a very narrow and unrealistic viewpoint.

      which I don't think it is

      That bit showed you are not even trying to think about it very hard. Are you an example of a generation with a distorted view of the world and a lack of empathy for the less well off due to growing up with servants? If not, exactly what is your damage, and why are you passing it off as acceptable and the values that built the USA as "communism"?

    3. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Furthermore I was not suggesting that workers actually become employers. I was suggesting that this is what workers should do *if* the labor market was really as lop-sided as the original poster implied (which I don't think it is).

      The original poster implied the labour market is very lop-sided because he thinks so. If you suggest him something *if* the labour market is very lop-sided, for him you suggested him that something.

      Your opinion on labour market matters only if you suggested something *if* TsuruchiBrian thinks the labour market is very lop-sided.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    4. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      The original poster implied the labour market is very lop-sided because he thinks so. If you suggest him something *if* the labour market is very lop-sided, for him you suggested him that something.

      What rsilvergun thinks and what is reality are not the same thing. I am not suggesting workers try to become employers in reality because I don;t think that the labor market is so lop-sided in reality. I am suggesting that *if* the labor market ever were to become like rsilvergun thinks it already is, that workers should do this.

    5. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You clearly have no idea what my positions are. You need to learn reading comprehension and how to make proper logical inferences from what you have read.

      Why should I give you leeway because only one thing showed you don't have a clue instead of several? That little bit in your post was a bit of a warning that you are considering the issue from a very narrow and unrealistic viewpoint.

      This indicates to me that you are not only an ideologue, but one who is not willing to read any ideas that don't sync with your own within one sentence. If anything is dangerous people who are willfully ignorant.

      Are you an example of a generation with a distorted view of the world and a lack of empathy for the less well off due to growing up with servants?

      Had you actually read my complete post, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

      If not, exactly what is your damage, and why are you passing it off as acceptable and the values that built the USA as "communism"?

      Had you actually understood what I wrote, you wouldn't be asking this question.

    6. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      For rsilvergun, what he thinks is reality.

      When one says A, he means "I think A". Even if one says "he thinks A", he actually means "I think he thinks A".

      Corollary : When one reads "if A then B", it means "if reader thinks A then B".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    7. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting workers try to become employers in reality because I don;t think that the labor market is so lop-sided in reality.

      You should have made it more clear that was your opinion - personally I think you should take a look at unemployment figures and consider if you want to revise your opinion if you want to provide more than attempted jokes in very poor taste, or even if you want to throw words like "reality" around.
      Stuff happened in 2008. There's still people reacting to that in a way that IMHO makes the market very lopsided and I must admit I'm amazed that you do not appear to be aware of that.

    8. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You should have made it more clear that was your opinion

      Just because something is clear to *you*, doesn't make it reality. As I have stated before, I think your reading comprehensions skills and your ability to read subtext are lacking.

      personally I think you should take a look at unemployment figures and consider if you want to revise your opinion if you want to provide more than attempted jokes in very poor taste, or even if you want to throw words like "reality" around.

      Unemployment doesn't indicate a lopsided labor market. It indicates a recession. Furthermore, in a truly lopsided labor market (in favor of employers), everyone would be employed but at low wages, maximizing profits for employers.

      Stuff happened in 2008.

      Obviously

      There's still people reacting to that in a way that IMHO makes the market very lopsided and I must admit I'm amazed that you do not appear to be aware of that.

      The fact that we had an economic collapse in 2008 does not indicate a lop sided labor market. It indicates a recession. Lots of employers have failed businesses because of the financial collapse. They couldn't pay their workers salaries and had to shut their doors, and are now counted among the unemployed. A recession is bad for everyone, not just employees.

    9. Re:So what about people without that choice? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Why do the vast, vast majority of people who win the lottery declare bankruptcy shortly thereafter?

      People aren't poor because they don't have access to capital.

      They're poor because they don't exercise self-control and initiative.

      A small slice of the population are truly victims (born with genetic defects, refugees, etc), but even those people have more favorable living conditions in countries that have free market economies. Well over 80% of US folks believe private charities provide better these people than the government which just wants a permanent underclass to rule over.

    10. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      And if I say "People should do C if A is true", this is different than saying "People should do C", because "rsilvergun thinks A is true" is not the same as "A is true".

      I am saying "I think that rsilvergun should think 'People should do C'" (because rsilvergun thinks A is true), but I don't necessarily think "People should do C" because I don't think "A is necessarily true".

      I am not advocating that people do C. I am only advocating people do C if A is true. The fact that rsilvergun thinks A is true does not affect what I am advocating.

    11. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's amusing that you were accusing me of a reading comprehension failure yet managed to miss words such as "reacting" that provide a context you appear to have missed. I suggest you pay a bit more attention to what is going on around you before suggesting that your opinion is "reality".

    12. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I pointed out how you clearly did not read or understand what I wrote, and now you are trying (badly) to do the same thing by suggesting I didn't read the word "reacting" from your post?

      How did anything I said imply that I missed the word "reacting" in your post?

      Is English your 2nd language or something?

    13. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      "rsilvergun thinks A is true" is not the same as "A is true"

      For rsilvergun, the addressee, it is same.

      And if I say "People should do C if A is true", this is different than saying "People should do C", because "rsilvergun thinks A is true" is not the same as "A is true".

      "A is true" will be evaluated by the reader. So whoever the reader, if the reader thinks "A is true", then the following 2 are equivalent :
      1. "People should do C if A is true"
      2. "People should do C"

      Knowing fully well that your addressee, rsilvergun, does think "A is true", your statement amounts to "People should do C" for him. And for every other reader who thinks "A is true".

      The fact that rsilvergun thinks A is true does not affect what I am advocating.

      For rsilvergun, you are advocating "people should do C".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    14. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      For rsilvergun, you are advocating "people should do C".

      And this is different than me personally advocating "to people in general" that they should do C

    15. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      For rsilvergun, and many others, you are advocating that people in general should do C.

      So you can't claim correctly that you are not advocating that people do C because it depends on the reader.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    16. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So you can't claim correctly that you are not advocating that people do C because it depends on the reader.

      I *can* claim that I am not advocating that people do C *because* it depends on the reader.

      If I tell people that they should go to the hospital *if* they are having a medical emergency, I am not telling "people in general" to go to the hospital even if some of them are having an emergency. I am advocating for some people (the people that meet the *if* condition) to go to the hospital.

      If someone thinks that they are having a medical emergency, but I don't think they are, I can still say: *IF* you were having a medical emergency I would recommend you go to the hospital, but because I don't think you are having one, I don't think you should go.

      I really don't see what is so hard to understand about this.

    17. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You are unable to understand the simple thing : The reader of your statement is not the subject of your advocacy.

      Your advocacy amounts to : if YOU(the reader) are in a medical emergency, everyone should go get checked up in a hospital.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    18. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      I understood what you wrote but apparently not what you meant. Now you are having trouble understanding what I wrote. My language skills or lack thereof are clearly not the problem here. I suggest stop trying to blame me for your "joke" gone wrong and your naive view of the world.

      Is English your 2nd language or something?

      How cute. Getting lectured on English by an American with very little life experience after such a dramatic mistake as your one above.

    19. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Your advocacy amounts to : if YOU(the reader) are in a medical emergency, everyone should go get checked up in a hospital.

      You'd have to be really fucking stupid to have inferred that from what I said.

    20. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I wasn't making a joke. I was being serious. This is why your language skills are the problem.

      You think I am joking when I am not.

      You think I am calling your position communism, when I am doing the opposite.

      How cute. Getting lectured on English by an American with very little life experience after such a dramatic mistake as your one above.

      You could tell me you were a 100 year old English professor at Oxford, and it would only highlight how dim you are.

    21. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Let me spell it out for you. If you live in the USA and you have not seen instances where people are being exploited by their employers because it's difficult for those people to find another job then you have either led a very sheltered life, sleepwalk through life, or are lying. It's starting to look a hell of a lot like the latter.

    22. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Let me spell it out for you. If you live in the USA and you have not seen instances where people are being exploited by their employers because it's difficult for those people to find another job then you have either led a very sheltered life, or are lying.

      Obviously there are instances of employers exploiting employees. At no point did I suggest that this wasn't happening, or that it was ok.

      It's starting to look a hell of a lot like the latter.

      That's because you keep inferring things that I have not said, and ignore things that I have said.

      The reason I am suggesting ways that employees can improve their condition (e.g. voting), is not because I blame them for their situation, but because I genuinely want their/our situation to improve.

      Despite my best efforts, you seem not to grasp this idea that me saying "Here is how I think things can become better" does not mean "This is not a real problem".

    23. Re:So what about people without that choice? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      At no point did I suggest that this wasn't happening, or that it was ok.

      Shall I point you back to your disgusting suggestion that started all this off or will that ruin this new lie?

    24. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No, you have to be stupid to not infer it.

      Consider the statement "People should do C if A is true"

      1. The READER is evaluating the predicate "A is true".
      2. Recommendation is clearly for PEOPLE, not for the reader.

      If, instead, you had said "you should do C if A is true", the "you" can conceivably considered to be addressing the reader.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    25. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yes please point me back to what you *think* is a contradiction.

    26. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No, you have to be stupid to not infer it.

      If a doctor says to a patient "come to the hospital if you are having an emergency", and the patient things swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency, are you seriosuly suggesting that the correct inference is that the doctor instructed the patient to come to the hospital for swallowing a watermelon seed?

      1. The READER is evaluating the predicate "A is true".

      And I am suggesting the reader is incorrect in addition to suggesting what should happen *if* the reader were correct.

      2. Recommendation is clearly for PEOPLE, not for the reader.

      The recommendation *is* for "people", referring to a group to which the reader belongs (along with everyone else).

      If, instead, you had said "you should do C if A is true", the "you" can conceivably considered to be addressing the reader.

      If I say "You can't teach an old dog new tricks", I'm not saying that everyone can teach a dog new tricks except the reader. I'm sorry English is ambiguous like that.

    27. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If a doctor says to a patient "come to the hospital if you are having an emergency", and the patient things swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency, are you seriosuly suggesting that the correct inference is that the doctor instructed the patient to come to the hospital for swallowing a watermelon seed?

      1. You had yourself simplified your own statement to "People should do C if A is true". Why are you needing to complicate it further ? Was that aforementioned simplication a mistake on your part? In that case please come clean so that a fresh argument based on your newly simplified statement can be made.

      2. In this case, doctor cannot truthfully claim to not having advised the "patient" to report for a checkup. Doctor is guilty of not defining emergency with mathematical precision.

      And I am suggesting the reader is incorrect in addition to suggesting what should happen *if* the reader were correct.

      1. You have not proven with mathematical precision that the reader is incorrect.

      2. Even if you had, you are incorrect in claiming "People should do C if A is true" does not mean "People should do C" for some people.

      2. Recommendation is clearly for PEOPLE, not for the reader.

      The recommendation *is* for "people", referring to a group to which the reader belongs (along with everyone else).

      1. If "people" refers to a group (to which the reader belongs) AND also to the complement of that set (everyone else), only a person intending to deceive would word it in so complicated a manner. An honest person would simply call it "people", or "everyone".

      2. Now, for everyone, the recommendation is "People should do C", which is now clarified to "Everyone should do C" whenever the reader is of an opinion "A is true". You are claiming otherwise.

      If I say "You can't teach an old dog new tricks", I'm not saying that everyone can teach a dog new tricks except the reader.

      1. Completely irrelevant example. This statement is addressed to the reader, and making claims about only the reader. The statement in question "People should do C if A is true" is making claims about NON-READERS, which is the source of error in this case.

      2. Since the statement "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is not talking about "everyone other than the reader", obviously neither an ability nor an inability of "everyone other than the reader" in teaching any tricks to any canines is under question.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    28. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1. You had yourself simplified your own statement to "People should do C if A is true". Why are you needing to complicate it further ? Was that aforementioned simplication a mistake on your part? In that case please come clean so that a fresh argument based on your newly simplified statement can be made.

      It's the same statement. People should do A if C is true. People should become employers if the market is lopsided in favor of employers. I think the fact that more people are not rushing to become employers (as in the case of a rise in new businesses during an economic boom), is good evidence that the labor market is not lopsided in favor of employers currently.

      2. In this case, doctor cannot truthfully claim to not having advised the "patient" to report for a checkup. Doctor is guilty of not defining emergency with mathematical precision.

      It is not a doctor's job to define an emergency with mathematical precision. IT is his job to define an emergency in terms relevant to the field of medicine. With the near infinite number of things that can happen, a doctor must rely on others to use their best judgement as to what is an emergency. There is no mathematical formula for what specific situations qualify as an emergency.

      1. You have not proven with mathematical precision that the reader is incorrect.

      I was not attempting to prove with mathematical precision that the reader was incorrect. I was claiming that I don;t think the reader was correct in order to clarify the fact that I am *not* personally recommending that people do C, because I don't *think* A is true.

      2. Even if you had, you are incorrect in claiming "People should do C if A is true" does not mean "People should do C" for some people.

      No I am not. If *some* people think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency, the doctor is not telling those people to come to the hospital. The doctor doesn't think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency for anybody. It doesn't matter what the patient thinks, he is not recommending anybody come to the hospital for this.

      1. If "people" refers to a group (to which the reader belongs) AND also to the complement of that set (everyone else), only a person intending to deceive would word it in so complicated a manner.

      Assuming the reader is a person (i.e. a member fo the group "people") is complicated and deceptive?

      An honest person would simply call it "people", or "everyone".

      I did until you asked me to clarify if I was talking to the reader or "people", and I decided to not specifically exclude the reader from "people".

      2. Now, for everyone, the recommendation is "People should do C", which is now clarified to "Everyone should do C" whenever the reader is of an opinion "A is true". You are claiming otherwise.

      I didn't say everyone. In fact I think I specifically said that *not* everyone should become employers. And no I am not saying "when the reader is of an opinion A", I am saying "when A is true". My recommendation doesn't depend on what the readers opinion is, like how it doesn't matter that the patient thinks swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency. I am saying "Don't fo to the hospital because swallowing a watermelon seed is not an emergency, but if it was an emergency you should go to the hospital because you should go to the hospital for any emergency." In this way I am providing a different recommendation if it turns out swallowing a watermelon seed is indeed an emergency for some newly discovered reason.

      BTW acting like a math robot doesn't do anything for your argument. It just makes you seem like some asperger's pedant. And the only thing worse than a pedant is a wrong pedant.

      I am telling you exactly what I mean, and you are trying to reduce my statement's through some kind of logical analysis that isn't even methodologically correct.

      I was trying to be patient with you, but you seem to just want to argue some retarded semantic point rather than understand what I am saying. I am done with this conversation

    29. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You are misquoting yourself. I am replacing all instances of "People should do A if C is true" with "People should do C if A is true" to quote you correctly.

      1. It's the same statement. People should do C if A is true.

      2. It is not a doctor's job to define an emergency with mathematical precision

      Quote (2) from your post proves why quote (1) from your own post is false. The simple statement about A and C does away with irrelevant considerations like what a doctor's job is.

      It is every bit the job of the writer of the statement "People should do C if A is true" to define A precisely, or be subject to misinterpretation. If A is vague, the recommendation cannot be denied if some interpretation of A is true for some one.

      I am *not* personally recommending that people do C, because I don't *think* A is true.

      1. What you think about A is irrelevant, when you write "People should do C if A is true". Telling for the fourth time, the reader evaluates if A is true

      If you don't want to recommend people to do C, you can simply write "People should NOT do C". In which case you could have truthfully claimed to not having recommended that people do C..

      No I am not. If *some* people think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency, the doctor is not telling those people to come to the hospital. The doctor doesn't think swallowing a watermelon seed is an emergency for anybody. It doesn't matter what the patient thinks, he is not recommending anybody come to the hospital for this.

      So the analogy has failed when stretched thus far. When applied here, the doctor (you) do have the responsibility to define emergency (A) properly. If you can't wrap your head around that, stick to A and C.

      Assuming the reader is a person (i.e. a member fo the group "people") is complicated and deceptive?

      No, saying that recommendation is for people belonging to a certain group along with every one else is complicated and deceptive. Because there is a simple and clear way to say that the recommendation is for "all people" or "everyone".

      I did until you asked me to clarify if I was talking to the reader or "people", and I decided to not specifically exclude the reader from "people".

      I didn't ask you to clarify. "People should do C if A is true." is clearly recommending to people other than reader too.

      1. I didn't say everyone.
      2. The recommendation *is* for "people", referring to a group to which the reader belongs (along with everyone else).

      Quote 2 from your earlier post is for everyone. The part in bold should remove all doubt.

      And no I am not saying "when the reader is of an opinion A", I am saying "when A is true"

      You seem to not know the meaning of "opinion". When it is a person X's opinion that "A is true", A is true for that person. So for X, his own opinion about A being true is the exact same fact as that of A being true.

      To prove this further - imagine a person who thinks his own opinion is false!!!

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    30. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Error: your statements are not in correct written in the correct mathematical syntax. Your logic coprocessor must be malfunctioning. Bleep bloop.

    31. Re:So what about people without that choice? by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Syntax is same as that of your posts, only much less ridden with errors.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    32. Re:So what about people without that choice? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Error: The sentence "Syntax is same as that of your posts, only much less ridden with errors." is inconsistent with English grammar and lacks necessary mathematical and logical precision. Bleep bloop.

  134. Re:work life balance is a myth by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    I like your posts and I cannot lie,
    You other brothers can't deny
    That when a guy posts in with an itty bitty unix trace
    And a resume in your face
    You get sprung...

    But seriously-- grats on being in the 8 to 11 % who like their jobs. The other 89 to 92% envy you.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  135. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the parent, but I find that relatively easy to imagine. I make 75k a year at my fulltime job, (midwest, that's pretty good where I am) but for short term contracts I bill 100$ an hour. If you can keep the work rolling it's much more lucrative to be an independent contractor.

  136. how much is in meetings that can be better used? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    how much is in meetings that can be better used by doing real work / finding other ways to the info most of the little to no use meetings?

  137. Re: Socialism is not working by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    Why, because the US is the most socialist country in the West? What planet are you on?

    Really high welfare payouts? Check. Significant amount of the GDP on military spending? Check. 1 in 4 of the workforce work for the government? Check. Vast amounts of government subsidized housing? Check.

    Seriously, compared to Canada, the US is positively socialism even though republicans like to call Canada socialist/communist.

    In Hawaii, you can get 60k on welfare.

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  138. Spread out work force by ctime · · Score: 1

    Talent is usually worth paying extra for, so make your business a talent center and attract the top players. Then give them freedom to get things done and don't micro manage. Ask what isn't getting done (read: the small things, like documentation) and pay someone do to that. Grease the wheels. Allowing people to work from home *IS* a huge benefit for many people, and more importantly, lets people disconnect from the office. I tend to get way more done at home as the office is just pure interrupt driven non-sense most of the time. Technology work is difficult and frustrating, but on the bright side, can pay very well. Deal with it or don't play.

  139. Awards for overworking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where I work, we have annual awards. And the awards always seem to go to those who are putting in the most hours. The management think those people are doing a great job and hence should be rewarded. But a thought is never given to doing a little analysis as to who is actually producing the most results by working the least or in essence who is most efficient. And for those wondering who the most efficient worker is, they are the one who gets all of his/her work done but is usually seen sitting around reading slashdot or watching youtube. Yet people wonder "How does that person get their work done when they are sitting around not working?"

  140. Re:work life balance is a myth by KraxxxZ01 · · Score: 1
  141. Lack of sleep? by Evtim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the most dangerous conditions known to medicine - prolonged lack of proper sleep increases the risks of developing depression and psychosis apart from the other detrimental effects [which are many].

    Sleep deprivation is a method of torture that leads eventually to insanity.

    But don't worry, fellow Americans - your insanity is spreading fast around the world. Our brave leaders, here in Europe, work around the clock [with apparent lack of sleep - see symptoms above] to implement every detrimental [to humans and society] system and method disguised as "increased efficiency" and "cutting costs".

    And here too, the new generation is brainwashed to accept all this as normal. "Work harder and we will make it" - yhea, right. Work harder under artificial, manipulative and downright abusive financial system which can delete your life [together with your hard work] in a second? Work harder when the rules of the game are not what they are professed to be? Work harder so that 0.1% of the wealth you actually produced trickles down to your ever shrinking middle class budget? Work harder and we will increase your children tuition fees by 100%. Work harder and will keep on increasing the costs of living [energy, housing, food, water, education, health care] with a rate that outpaces the increase in your income by factor of 2 or more?

    I don't mind working and I do like to do many things. I love to feel appreciated and I love the thought that I am contributing in my own way to my life and the whole of humanity. But I do not accept to be a hamster in wheel who has to run ever faster [shortening my life in the process] in order to stand still [or go backwards as it happens in the last decade].

    People, we have to stop this insanity and the first step is to realize that we are manipulated into "camps" so that we keep on fighting each other. Reading the discussions about such topics I notice that at least half of the population has bought into the scam and will defend the system with their lives. I do not see any way how this can be changed. I have spent years trying to convince a handful of people to look a bit further than the next meal without substantial success. And I am bloody good when it comes to talking and convincing people.

    Any ideas?

    1. Re:Lack of sleep? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the only workable solution on an individual or group level is to create organizations that are profitable enough to stay open while still keeping work life in proper balance. Wanna bet you could attract some top notch talent in America at affordable wages if you offer four weeks vacation?

      Study and scheme to develop something that adds value to society that can be produced using that model.

  142. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

    In this economy, the question is rather whether you're not well enough connected to find something else. Skill plays little role anymore when it comes to unemployment.

    If you are highly skilled and those skills are in demand, hire yourself. You can't be fired unless you fire yourself. You can't be underpaid unless you underpay yourself. You can take as many vacation days as you like.

    If you succeed, that's great. If not, you have no one left to blame but yourself.

  143. theres anothe 8 hours after 8 hours sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shorten the workday to put americans behind other countries workers in the industries we STILL can compete in??
    Good way to make sure everyone can sleep 16 hours because there arent any jobs any more.
    Some people can hack it and make a company a success and others cant - this sounds like 'those who cant' trying to force/mandate everyone else into their situation.

    Try not texting/phoning at work half the day and then you can get your work done as you are supposed to. Then maybe you wont have to 'work' as long to get done

  144. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess you havent seen whos been in the whitehouse since.

    Go peddle your occutard philosophy someplace else and let the people who work hard (who make you look shiftless) have the freedom to leave you in the dust.

  145. Re:work life balance is a myth by techhead79 · · Score: 2

    I agree, I love what I do and used to do it as a hobby. Now even as a job, I still come home and do my own programming...but at some point down the line you begin to realize that regardless of what you love to do, it is not more important than friends and family. Doing what you love and drowning yourself in your work, regardless if you love it or not...is not a substitute for socializing or creating memories that actually matter. Someday you will be to old to change the choices you made.

  146. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    private industry unions many people have no problem with - that is as long aas those workers arent force into being in a union they dont want or who represent something they despise.

    there should be no public worker unions as they have too much ability to extort whatever they want from the taxpayers.

    in private business there is competition AND if the unions attempt extort too much then they are out of a job when their company fails

    its time to simply open up most of this government work (any of it that is actually needed) to private business and if you want unions then you can go be in one of those businesses instead of extorting the least work for the most money as happens in government job unions.

  147. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Again, where do you get the contracts from if you lack the network?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  148. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I make significantly about $200K, drive a 'Benz', and just bought my second house. At the same time, I only work about 6 to 7 hours per day, I have no college degree, and I'm generally kind of a douche. I went full-time in programming right before the .COM bubble burst, and I made the cut when my company shitcanned all of the non-programmers a year later. I shudder - SHUDDER - to think about what it is like for the people that aren't so lucky.

  149. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

    Again, where do you get the contracts from if you lack the network?

    From the gettin' place.

    Disclaimer: You may or may not find that amusing depending on whether you've seen "No Country For Old Men"

  150. Re:work life balance is a myth by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    ...sometimes you have to start as the bottom.

  151. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep, maybe 3 headhunters from google contacted me about a sysadmin position for "hauling 30kg around every day", in a French site in some god forsaken site, and I told them in no certain terms to get stuffed. I agree with you, I would prefer to work in MacDonalds than work for peanuts in IT.

  152. Re: work life balance is a myth by cpm99352 · · Score: 2

    mod parent up. Given unemployment numbers, why not cancel H1-B altogether?

  153. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    But who is going to bribe the politicians to pass employment laws?

  154. Is it really "alcoholism"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if you are given a bottle of wine and then told "Drink until you pass out", while pointing at you with a gun?

  155. Re:Socialism is not working by cpm99352 · · Score: 1

    Oh, don't worry, the parent poster is probably complaining about how the top tier got bailed out in 2007-2008. Goldman Sachs et al, because acorrding to Secretary Paulson, tanks would be in the streets if the 1% weren't bailed out. Elizabeth Warren disagrees with this position. but you'll never read about that in the mainstream media. Sad to say, Chomsky was right. 20 years ago, I would never have thought I'd say that....

  156. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by hankwang · · Score: 1

    "I know people who are losing two hours of their life a day commuting each way, "

    I commute well over 2 hours, 4 days per week. I don't see it as lost time. I'm reading slashdot and other sites in the train like now (plenty of space since I travel after the peak hours). In addition, 15 km of cycling per day, which is my only exercise. Fortunately the climate over here allows cycling.

    But the idea of driving a car for 2 h/day horrifies me...

  157. Re:Socialism is not working by Jesrad · · Score: 2

    I'm a french citizen and I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this whole debate. I wish anyone genuinely curious about this topic could live my situation for a couple years, just as I have gone and lived in other countries to see and learn. There is no way to get a useful view on this from a single vantage point.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  158. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm one of those that travels almost 2 hours a day.

    I live outside of Stockholm, cause living in Stockholm has not been within my reach even tho I'm a well payed software developer. Maybe the problem isn't really the pay or the prices, but I refuse to live in a appartment the size of a wardrobe.

    I work what I would say is a 40h week, but it takes 11 hours of my time every day, cause of commute and a break to get some food during the day.

    I'm also dead when I get home, I can not understand how people can work much more, and here we talking about a total spent time of 55 hours a week, how do you put in 65 or more at work, and to that add travel? How is it possible? Someone that do this, please explain to me.

  159. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you richer than the ones who tried to maintain a work life balance through an overactive social life? The older I get, the less it seems salary affects overall wealth.

  160. Re: work life balance is a myth by Tuidjy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My salary is below 150K. We're an aftermarket automotive manufacturer, and times have been better.

    Last year, I declared 170K from programing projects.

    I billed anywhere from $110 to $350 per hour for side projects, and I prefer negotiating for payment upon completion rather than having to give an estimate, and charging per the hour. Many customers prefer it this way, are ready to just pay 5-10K to get something done, and do not really care how long it takes me, as long as I'm done before they need the results This is especially true for companies who are forced to migrate from one application to another, and who do not want to pay a new service provider to transfer old data to the new system, but still want to be able to access it.

    It takes a fraction of a weekend to write a program to pull the data from a ADP payroll database, a Kronos timekeeper system, a Business Works Accounts Payable module, a Solomon Ledger, etc... transfer it to MariaDB and throw together a few reports that can answer 99% of the client questions about their past history.

    Service providers easily charge 50k+ for stuff like this. Big companies pay without a second thought, but privately owned shops balk. And people in the same industrial parks talk to each other... to the point that I simply do not have the time to take all the lucrative projects that come my way. (Or the inclination, really. Computer vision and game AI is what really gets my attention nowadays.)

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished...
  161. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    That's the most amazing thing to me, compared to here in the UK. I get 20 days paid holiday a year and my company is not considered the most enlightened when it comes to this. I know people who get 30. I also work 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. As a software developer I can't imagine staying an extra 3 hours a day just to make it up to the US average and actually getting any more work done than I do now. I mean my brain is burnt out by around 4pm in any case.

  162. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    You don't need a union to GTFO of your job and go work somewhere else where the pay and conditions are more suited to the kind of lifestyle you want.

  163. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    If you don't mind that your situation will never improve, no, you don't.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  164. Re: Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But at least socialism allows big businesses to write off their losses and send the bill to small businesses!

  165. Re:work life balance is a myth by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I do enjoy work, but I don't let it consume my entire life. 8 hours a day really is quite sufficient.

  166. Re: Socialism is not working by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Where did you see "really high welfare payouts" in USA? And what does military spending have to do with socialism?

  167. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... handing the sheriff of Nottingham more money so he could hire more tax collectors and guards.

    No that's big government; such as the Department of homeland security. A better analogy would be giving land owners free paving stones, or a more American analogy; giving a massive tax deduction for making paving stones. Land owners then choose to spend money building foot-paths or make money selling stones.

  168. The old days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I started out in 1974, writing accounting software on CPM machines. HP and DEC ruled, everyone was doing hardware and writing code. Cheap 8 bits ruled.
    Those time were fun and exciting. The corporate hacks hadn't taken over, and china outsourcing was a few years away, Jobs in tech where plentiful.
    About 1977, the suits saw the cash and had taken over, They built production lines here, tuning them and then packing up the operation for deployment somewhere else, usually china.
    The culture that was created in the early 60's and 70's at places like HP, Tektronix and Xerox was destroyed for increased profits by those raiders. We need to take back our culture of exploration, Or we and out children will be sentenced to a life of poverty.

  169. Neolithic working time is the goal to achieve ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neolithic "working time", estimated at 4/5 hours a day max. is the goal !!!
    By law, working time should be limited to 34 hours a week.
    I note with interest that this is close to the optimum shown is the article linked above (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours).
    How can we speak about progress is working time increases ?

  170. Automation? by StripedCow · · Score: 1

    And automation was supposed to make our lives easier...

    --
    If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
  171. Re: work life balance is a myth by ruir · · Score: 1

    If you are refusing projects to keep your day job, you are losing money on the long run. Even better you are able to command 100-400 per hour. I have seen "freelance" jobs in elance for sysadmin as "high" as you earn per hour in MacDonalds, and that is quite a joke.

  172. Re:work life balance is a myth by pr100 · · Score: 2

    Only in the US would 3 weeks be regarded as a generous holiday allowance. In most of Europe 4 weeks is a minimum - many people have ~6 weeks+.

  173. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey, I can replace you with 3rd world labor in an instant ... look, they made a cup of rice a day for their labor before, and I'm now given them a cup and a half - literally a 50% increase in their pay ... and they breed like rabbits, so there's a never-ending supply. Odd part is, I can't seem to find any customers for my products, everybody says they can't afford them ... wonder why that is ? ... must be excessive regulation or confiscatory taxation, must buy politicians to remove those obstacles, then there will be customers ... still none ? ... hmmm, I wonder who is screwing with the system, there should be profits here ...

  174. I think this explains it: by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Forget that its an ad for a bad product by a bad company... and just focus on over arching message... which is just a cultural difference between the US and a lot of other places.

    Enjoy your free time, euros... You're welcome to it. Americans want to work.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  175. Re:work life balance is a myth by reikae · · Score: 1

    You don't have to be insanely lucky, just lucky enough to be born in a country with unemployment benefits. You'll have 24 hours each day to tinker with whatever you want. It has its moments, but you're right, it really isn't that great. However, the option is there if you value free time over a lot of things (some of which aren't material, like respect).

  176. Re:work life balance is a myth by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Generous vacation allowance? Your generous vacation allowance is less then the government mandated minimum in many other countries, yet somehow you still feel you're being treated very generously. It goes further than that here too. Most companies will give you a leave loading of around 15%. That's right you get paid 15% more to go on holiday than you do to work.

    Do you get sick leave too or does that come out of your pay / holiday? Again government mandated in Australia
    What about option to cash in overtime on days in lieu? I work a 37hour week, but I get to do it over 9 days a fortnight. (This is just my job, nothing mandated here).

    So I would have to correct you. It most definitely DOES get better than that. I was recently considering taking up a role in the USA, but I turned it down when I found out what the work conditions were from all the people at the other end who told me that I am crazy and they couldn't wait to trade places with me.

  177. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I don't know, we're tied with Denmark as the least corrupt countries in the world.

  178. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I'm self employed.
    The people I work next to get paid half as much as I do but they get 20 days leave, get paid for those 10 public holidays, get at least 2 weeks paid sick leave and numerous other benefits of being an employee.

  179. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    I have yet to hear anything good come from a union in the last decade or so.

    Ahhh so because they have done nothing in the last decade means they are completely worthless and shouldn't exist at all? I don't like unions for much of the same reason you don't. They breed a slack workforce full of people who can't be fired for some bullshit reason.

    But they do provide balance. Thanks to the union movement some 30+ years ago I have a government mandated minimum 4 weeks holidays. I have leave loading meaning I get paid extra on top of my salary as an incentive to take those holidays. Much of what the unions argued for in the past has made it into law that gives us (not the USA) the great conditions I enjoy today.

    I'm all for getting rid of the unions now, but only if you get rid of the government at the same time. If you freeze employment / wage laws where they are it would be ideal. It's in balance. The problem is every time I turn on the TV it's yet another article about the government attempting to reduce my rights and the unions attempting to milk for all it's worth. In the middle I'm quite happy.

  180. yeah, that's the problem by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    An ever-growing segment of the population doesn't work at all.

  181. Re:work life balance is a myth by dargaud · · Score: 1

    If you do not enjoy work then that is the problem to be fixed. Find a job you love.

    I love sex. Doesn't mean I want to work as a whore.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  182. Work ahol? by HagraBiscuit · · Score: 1

    So why not simply make workahol an illegal substance, or at least license it's production and distribution?

  183. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    You are a selfish and mean SOB to think employers can dictate the market solely on there terms.

    Here here!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  184. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    Yeah, that's what everyone should do- become and independent contractor. All those big corporations that employ thousands of people can start negotiating a fresh contract for each and every independent contractor they hire. And for engineers who do things like design or manufacture semiconductors, well, they can all buy their own equipment and hire themselves out as contractors too.

    Oh, wait, they might have trouble getting loans to purchase millions of dollars worth of stuff, just so they can do their work.

    Hey, I have an idea, what if large corporations hired people as employees under a more or less uniform contract? Then they wouldn't have to do so much negotiating, and people who do work that requires massive investment in infrastructure could do that work without having to own that infrastructure themselves...

    Now I can hire myself out as an HR consultant and explain the benefits of hiring employees to big corporations!

  185. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unions don't protect employees, employment law protects employees.

    That's a frightening thought, considering how much law is written at the behest of corporate lobbiests.

  186. Exaggerated hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the American culture "rewards" hard work, I think Americans exaggerate how hard they actually work.
    A 65 hour, 5 day week means getting in at 9am and leaving at 10 pm. A 65 hour 7 day week means getting in at 9 and leaving at 6:15 every single day. While one might occasionally work that many hours, I do not believe that half of all professionals work that many hours every week of their lives.

    I think people claim that their max work week is their average work week.

  187. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    I think I would give up my 20 days to get paid twice as much. At least for a few years, or until I'd paid off my mortgage.

  188. Re:Baloney by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    The whole image of the 60 hour a week death-marching 'murican worker is a fiction.

    When I was a graduate student, a 50- to 60-hour work week was basically a vacation, given that I routinely put in 70 to 85 hours per week. Moreover, it wasn't unheard of for students to basically not leave the lab for an entire week, let alone only sleep 5 hours per day on a couch during that time, while some important experiment was being conducted.

    Nowadays, a 60-hour work week is the norm for me, and I've come to enjoy it. I have around three "productive" days where I work a total of 39 hours, two "semi-productive" days where I work a total of 18 hours, and an additional 3 hours that I spread out over the week for administrative tasks and meetings. While it would be nice to cut back to just 40 hours per week, I nearly double my salary by working those additional 20 hours.

    You're not in IT, then, because they're salaried. No extra pay for extra hours.

  189. Re: work life balance is a myth by BVis · · Score: 2

    If you are refusing projects to keep your day job, you are losing money on the long run.

    Take health insurance into account when you're figuring that. If I were to pay my health insurance myself it'd be another $1300 a month.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  190. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2

    This Post is a Choose-Your-Own-Post Post!

    For Cheeky Sarcasm goto 10.
    For Argument goto 20.
    For Abuse goto 30.
    For Mouthbreathing goto 40.

    10 I knew Denmark had been going downhill, but I didn't know it was that bad over there.
    20 [Citation Needed]
    30 Stupid git.
    40 *pant* *pant* *pant* *drool*

  191. Re:work life balance is a myth by BVis · · Score: 1

    Well, when you consider that employers in the USA don't have to give any vacation, sick time, etc AT ALL, 3 weeks is pretty generous in comparison.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  192. Re:work life balance is a myth by BVis · · Score: 1

    So having a job that you really love means you're one of the select few that has one that fewer people CAN do than what's necessary.

    And, it usually means you're not getting paid what you're worth, since they know that if you like the work they can pay you less.

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  193. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by BVis · · Score: 1

    You can fire a contractor on the spot for no reason whatsoever.

    I have yet to hear anything good come from a union in the last decade or so.

    Ohh, the irony...

    --
    Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
  194. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

    That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

    My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

    You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.

    When I go to temp agencies, they look at my skill set (Computer Science degree, 10 years in IT support and networking, 6 years in media production) and tell me that there's just no work out there, and if I come back in a couple of weeks they might have something but I should probably look at getting my forklift licence and start at the bottom in retail or warehousing.

    Either you are applying at the wrong agencies (there are many that deal exclusively in unskilled labor), or you are in the wrong market. Unpleasant as it may be, you might have to move to a different city/state to stay with that career.

  195. Corporate logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We need to see more than 40 hours a week on your time card so we can justify getting more staff."

    1) We tried that for quite a long time, and guess what? The bean counters are happy to just drive the existing staff into the ground, and didn't add anyone.

    2) How about actually staffing for your planned projects? You're paying big bucks to PMs to figure out resource requirements. If Project C is going to need 100 man-hours, how about actually finding out if someone actually has the hours available to handle it instead of just tossing it on the pile of our existing workload of just trying to keep the lights on?

  196. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    I work in Boston, and I spend 4 hours/day commuting. It's a pretty lousy lifestyle.

  197. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by dywolf · · Score: 1

    Rush hour in atlanta.
    (Ugh...never going back)

    We need more mass transit.
    More cities with GOOD metro lines.
    High speed commuter rail.
    Etc.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  198. It's probably annual by langelgjm · · Score: 1

    It's ambiguous, but it doesn't explicitly say "112 hours per week" which led me to assume it meant over the course of a year.

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  199. Re: work life balance is a myth by smaddox · · Score: 1

    Oblig. xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1346/

  200. capital kept benefits of automation for themselves by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    80/60/40 years ago, automation was going to lead to a life of leisure for everyone with a 20-hour work week.
    Now those of us that are employed do the work of five people because employers are sitting on record profits and while not hiring more workers. While we have huge numbers of people that can't find work.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  201. Re:What choice do we have? -- Unionize, dammit by russotto · · Score: 1

    That's right, unionize. So instead of overworked Silicon Valley, we end up with collapsed Detroit. That's best case; the more likely case is that the companies will find no shortage of non-union labor.

  202. Re:work life balance is a myth by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

    Sometimes you start as a bottom!

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  203. Maybe ageism isn't irrational in software ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow reading the comments here I can understand why firms might prefer to hire new college grads as described in this recent /. post:
    http://m.slashdot.org/story/203667

  204. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    Unions just protect those that are incompetent or barely capable.

    Fuck unions. I haven't even had to negotiate a raise in 3 years because they are a afraid of me leaving. >10% *grins*

    Am I to understand that your personal experience negates the value of collective bargaining in general?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  205. Vacations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my company, whenever someone goes on vacation, 75% of the time when they send out the notices "I'll be gone for a week, but will have access to email."

    Some of that is their own doing, but it's peer pressure to check email during vacations.

  206. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what are you going to offer me to work less?

    A better economy? That's what the subject line of TFS is apparently saying (not that I agree or disagree, I'm keeping the /. tradition of not reading TFA)

    What I care about is not being able to do the things I want to do, which including making more money than if I didn't do that extra work and doing things I would not otherwise get the chance to do.

    You would make more money and get to do more things you want under a better economy. Under a better economy, everybody's purchasing power would increase, including yours.

    I have a solution to your problem.

    But you don't have a rebuttal to his point that you (well, people like you, he didn't specify you) make the problem worse for everyone else.

    Car analogy time: he's saying people who drive as reckless and fast as they can just because they can (traffic laws are just government oppression after all) make the roads more dangerous for everybody else. Your response doesn't refute that notion. You're basically saying "well drive better yourself, and find a different road to drive on! I need to drive fast to get to places I want!"

    You're free to think that of course, but people are not going to impressed or convinced.

  207. Re:Socialism is not working by smcdow · · Score: 1

    If by "socialism" you mean "corporate socialism", then we agree.

    --
    In the course of every project, it will become necessary to shoot the scientists and begin production.
  208. only 46% of Americans work by peter303 · · Score: 1

    146M out of 315M according to the BLS. Its 59% percent if you only look at working age adults. 26M of those 146M are parttime too.

  209. Re:work life balance is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

    But you don't have a rebuttal to his point that you (well, people like you, he didn't specify you) make the problem worse for everyone else.

    What is there to rebut? His opinion is more or less self-consistent. It's just not taking into account my actions or for that matter the actions of most of the world who simply aren't on that page.

  210. The best strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I am taking away from this, the last few paragraphs at least, is that I should work 60 hours a week for 4 weeks then take a weeks vacation.

  211. 12 hours a day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    7 days a week. Why time and a half everything over 40, double time for Saturday and triple time for Sunday and Holidays.
    Man I love my job.
     

  212. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your version of Robin Hood would involve trying to get a trickle-down effect by handing the sheriff of Nottingham more money so he could hire more tax collectors and guards.

    Awesome line. I'm keeping that one. If I had mod points, you'd get some.

  213. Re:work life balance is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

    You would make more money and get to do more things you want under a better economy.

    What's good for the economy isn't necessarily good for me. There's that. But I never took seriously the premise that limiting our labor and productivity would improve the economy. Nor do I consider the presence of hard workers in the world a "problem".

    And in my case, my hard work actually does mean that a fair number of people don't have to work so hard. How do you get to decide that is making the "problem" worse?

  214. are 94% of people really working 50hr+/wk?!! by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked at the stat that 94% of tech workers are putting in more than 50 hrs/wk!

    I have a nice well paying 40 hr/wk job, which occasionally requires the rare 45 hr wk. Those 40 hrs/wk already seem unnaturally long for me.

    BUT...I'm currently applying to new jobs, and this stat makes me concerned about expectations that my new employer might have for me. I'm up front in the interviews that I'm looking for a 40 hr wk. Some companies are cool with this and offer me jobs, others, like Amazon.com are openly not cool with it, and that's fine. I don't want those jobs. But still, makes me wonder how hard it will be to find a 40 hr/wk job.

    BTW...I'm not counting general reading/studying/training required to remain an expert in my field. The 40 hrs I'm referring to are specific job tasking.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  215. Solution: Move to Paris by theadman · · Score: 1

    I'm from Melbourne, Australia and I'm sure we have a very similar work culture to the US. A culture where a whole lot of people define their social value, and a great part of their self value to their work. I think we all get sucked into this to some degree. Then my girlfriend got a job in Paris and I threw it all in and tagged along. Now I work maybe 8-9 hours a day, down from 10-12. No one eats at their desk because food it respected enough to give it some respect. The work we do is of high quality because we're not stupid after staring and screens for too long. And we tend to spin our wheels less and waste a whole lot less time. So overall I'd be surprised if productivity is really down. And life is much nicer. France isn't perfect (far, far from it) and your anecdotal milage may vary but hey, so far, so good.

    1. Re:Solution: Move to Paris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Amerifats call us Europoors. Noone really works here. Welcome to Europe.

  216. becoming an employer by schlachter · · Score: 1

    Interesting argument. I agree that people have more options than they often realize. Or that they unnecessarily limit their options by excessive spending, debt, etc.

    BUT....not everyone wants to become an employer. And I think there ought to be room in this economy for both skilled and unskilled workers to earn a living wage with a 40 hr work wk.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:becoming an employer by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      No not everyone wants to or should become an employer. Luckily you have the option of just buying stocks in companies and you can become part owner.employer without actually having to know how to do those things. The only thing you need to do is research.

      Not that research is easy. I fail to do adequate research all the time. I sign things without reading them. I pick mutual funds in my 401K without really knowing anything about mutual funds. But I *could* do research if my life really depended on it. And it's a lot easier than running a business.

      BUT....not everyone wants to become an employer. And I think there ought to be room in this economy for both skilled and unskilled workers to earn a living wage with a 40 hr work wk.

      I agree in the sense that I think you should be able to earn the living according to what your skills are worth. If your skills are not worth a living wage, then it is time to get better skills. Times are changing and automation is taking over more and more unskilled jobs. Pretty soon even jobs currently outsourced to 3rd word countries will be more cheaply done by machines. There really isn't going to be much opportunity for people who don't have useful skills.

      The good news is that all this automation creates more wealth in the form of better goods for cheaper prices, and we (i.e. tax payers) will be able to afford educational programs to help unskilled workers develop new skills.

  217. health care is the real killer... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    I was getting buy just fine in grad school on $12K/yr. Never felt poor. Lived cheaply and had everything I needed. Even saved a few bucks each month.

    I was making $36K/yr in my first job and was living the good life, nice apartment, going out, etc. and still saved a bit each month.

    Now I make much much more than that, but I've been hit with up to $10K in medical bills the past few yrs, despite having good health insurance. I also have a family and a house in a good school district, and suddenly things are tight even though I now make 6 figures.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  218. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then you'll have to change all the time to get the excitement of learning something completely new. Most "entry level" jobs get boring after a short while. That is why you build a career - to get to work on challenging stuff that takes years to learn, not (only) because of the rewards.

  219. Contributing thoughts by NuAngel · · Score: 1
    I'm late to this article by 7 hours, way down at the part where nobody reads the comments anymore, but I do find it therputic to respond sometimes, so I will.

    I have to first laugh at the neckbeard movie theater employees claiming people chained to desks want to defend their lifestyle, "defending the man" and whatever "modern day slave" type comments they want to pull from the beatnik bible. Very few people WANT to work a 60+ hours week. But you don't have much of a choice in the matter. The big problem is that if you won't do it, there's someone waiting to replace you who will, so you have to do it. Even if you're salaried, with no overtime - the best you can hope for is a little recognition and a bonus. If you don't work those exhausting hours, you will be replaced by someone who will. Employment is better than unemployment, so that's what you do, unless you want to work 22 hours a week and live in your parents basement.

    My first job out of college I averaged 70+ hours a week - and I was on a salary BELOW $30,000. I had graduated 7 months ago and took a bad offer just to finally have "a" job. But it wasn't worth it. I got to a point where I worked through my weekends, ten hour days, and got to 34 days in a row when I finally told my boss I was clearly being abused. Within a few weeks, I was fired. The guy they hired to replace me started at $46,000. Valuable lesson learned: never undersell yourself just to get in. Raises don't happen as frequently as they did in our parents' generations, and frankly, you'll never even get one of those if you don't stick your neck out and ask.

    I've job hopped a bit, and was even at a job where I would work about 50 hours a week, clients would call and email at all hours of the night and I had to be able to respond to those calls, too. My boss, one day, would tell me that these things weren't expected of me, and the next day ask me why a project wasn't moving as quickly as he wanted it to. To mitigate some of those problems, I asked him to prioritize the multiple tasks I had in front of me. He would decide what got finished in what order (usually forcing him to choose between pet projects and profits).

    The simple fact is that it's still an employer's market out there. Unemployment is still just high enough that they have their pick of the litter and if you don't live up to their expectations, you're gone, and another warm body can fill your chair. The problem isn't so much that people are willing to do this, the problem is that employers are expecting them to do this. It is the expectation set by the "driven" few at the top, who expect all of their employees who earn a tiny percentage of what the guy up top earns, to be just as driven as they are. I'm not going to "make partner" as an IT guy, why should I have to work just as hard at your law firm, accounting firm, medical practice, etcetera?

  220. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly there are tradeoffs and depending on what kind of person you are depends on what is better. USians, by and large, go for goods over time off. Big homes, big SUVs and big partying have to be paid for somehow. Most 60-hour-a-week Americans wear their work life on their sleeves by driving around in obnoxiously large vehicles and having homes and lawns that eat away at what little down time they have by having to maintain all this abundance that they never really use anyway aside from as a social trophy.
     
    Unfortunately, as an American who's trying to move to a suburban minimalist kind of life you find that you can't trade the extra pay for more time off. At least not in the short term. At that point you have to ask yourself if maybe it's ok to be paid less and have a less stressful role or to keep pushing up the ladder and hope that you can retire early...

  221. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by phorm · · Score: 1

    Bob isn't able to do the new work. Management needs to send him to training. Frank can take care of it in the meantime

    Bob is still having issues with this new system, more training. Frank can take care of it in the meantime

    3 years down the road, Bob still doesn't know how to stop/start a Unix service or manage the backup system. Well, actually he might if he tried, but Frank is still the one that gets poked to handle it all. Really, Bob is just somewhat lazy and is milking the system. Bob *could* be fired, but it would take another several years of fighting between the union and management, and that's expensive. So install Bob manages a few servers in the old system, and Frank gets 1.5x the work.

    And yes, this *does* happen in unions. I worked in one shop where the guy wasn't coming to work, was mis-using company resources, and basically did it all with a smirk. It took them *years* to get him out, and years again of fighting to keep him from being brought back.

    I've also been in union management. Even if you know Bob is being a useless turd, you still need to defend his lazy ass. Meanwhile, Frank is being overworked, and Sally is being screwed over but you're too busy dealing with the Bob's of the world to help out the honest employees to the extent that's needed.

    Oh, but *everyone* gets a 3% raise this year based on negotiated contracts. That includes Frank - who more than earned it - and also Bob, who definitely did not.

  222. Re:capital kept benefits of automation for themsel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The promise of lesser work hours comes from technological utopianism.

    Our current work load and hours come from unbridled capitalism.

  223. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by rainmaestro · · Score: 1

    I really miss my old commute. When I started, the office was a five minute bike ride away. I could ride home, have a nice lunch, and ride back. Six months later, they moved 15 miles north. That 15 miles represents over an hour of rush hour driving. Ended up moving to a spot that wouldn't require me to deal with the worst rush hour roads, but I'm still a good 20-minute drive away.

    The worst I've seen are devs at a client in DC. Between driving in from the surrounding area to a parking garage at the tail end of the Yellow line and then taking the metro into town, they spent an absurd amount of time in transit to their jobs (not to mention the $200/month or so they had to pay for parking).

  224. Re:Socialism is not working by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. It's a question of balance. Too much socialism creates problems (except in Plato's Republic). Too much capitalism creates problems also, albeit of a different sort (oligarchy).

  225. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm one of those that travels almost 2 hours a day.

    I live outside of Stockholm, cause living in Stockholm has not been within my reach even tho I'm a well payed software developer. Maybe the problem isn't really the pay or the prices, but I refuse to live in a appartment the size of a wardrobe.

    I work what I would say is a 40h week, but it takes 11 hours of my time every day, cause of commute and a break to get some food during the day.

    I'm also dead when I get home, I can not understand how people can work much more, and here we talking about a total spent time of 55 hours a week, how do you put in 65 or more at work, and to that add travel? How is it possible? Someone that do this, please explain to me.

    Someone that do this, please explain to me

    Cocaine.

  226. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    But who is going to bribe the politicians to pass employment laws?

    Not the unions. They get around the law with the union contracts the companies are forced to take.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  227. Oh yeah it's by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    totally people are addicted to working longer hours. Not, maybe, and this is just a shot in the dark here, the proles are being taken advantage of by the bourgeoisie, business as usual.

    You say that like socialism is the solution, when it's the problem--all it does is let the ruling classes say and perhaps even truly believe that in screwing the plebeians they are doing them a favor.

    When you make it expensive to employ additional people, you're going to ensure giving people overtime is favored over adding another employee, even when it would be otherwise preferred to have an additional employee.

    When you make it expensive to have somebody work full-time, you increase the number of part-time workers--and the number of people having to work two part-time jobs in order to pay bills.

    There is a problem when you set up the economy so that a company can be punished for deciding to be kind to their workers and not make a single worker do the labor of many...

    Corporate welfare isn't the problem as much as bureaucrat welfare & the granting of functional monopolies to large corporations by screwing the smaller guys for them.

  228. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.

    My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.

    You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.

    Minimum wage does not typically apply to salaried workers who are generally "professionals" which are exempt from minimum wage. There are also a host of positions (such as working at a movie theater) that are also exempt. (See http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/co... for details.)

    Now, if you are hourly and in a position that qualitifes, then you are generally good. Restaurant workers that receive tips are guaranteed by law at least minimum wage - that is, they get the greater of minimum wage or their base of $1.20/hr plus tips for the pay period. Beware - not every position qualifies.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  229. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by dcw3 · · Score: 1

    I feel for you. The price of housing inside the beltway (or near it) is insane, and only going to get worse. There's really no space to build more w/o tearing up existing structures. I fought the daily commute from western Fairfax Co. to inside the beltway for several years. Once I was able to afford better digs, I attempted to find a place closer to work, but even an additional $70k increase in property value wouldn't have got me something comparable within five miles of the office. That was back in the mid-90s, and the housing bubble bursting didn't really improve matters here.

    --
    Just another day in Paradise
  230. Perfectly captures what's wrong with America by runeghost · · Score: 1

    Institutions pushing ultimately destructive long-term behavior in favor of short-term returns.

  231. Work cuts into my consumer time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, the longer I work, the less time I have for leisure activities and "consuming" of any sort. I do less, so I need less stuff to do it with. I don't have time to shop, or time to enjoy what I'd buy, even if I bought it. The only people that stand to make a mint are whoever picks up the pieces when I burn out physically or mentally.

  232. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who is a vegetarian and left IT to teach English in China, I can confirm what you say about Mongolia :)

  233. Salaried, *hah* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a datapoint, the old idea of "professionals" being "salaried" is that they didn't have to keep track of their hours, they'd be well-compensated, and would make those hours... not *HUGE AMOUNTS OVER*.

    These days, and I looked it up on the US Dept of Labor site, there's a special exemption written *just* for computer people, that they can be "salaried", and can't charge overtime, and aren't eligible to join unions, in general (unless I misinterpret a *lot*).

    So, last year, when the #$%^&#$%^&*$%^&* neoConfederate "Tea Party" shut down the US government, they *stole* those days from those of us who are, for example, federal contractors, and we will never, ever get that back, even though we're allegedly "salaried", if we can't charge, we do *not* get anything.

    Then there was when I worked for Ameritech (former Baby Bell, swallowed by SBC). I swore I'd never do it gain when I broke 70 hours one week. My DBA said the same the week he did 80. But both of us were pikers (that, and not as young and stupid as too many slashdotters) compared to the young consultant who, in one week, put in 119 hours..... Overtime? Fat chance.

    And thern there's all the folks who are out of work, or on part time and "underemployed" because a hell of a lot of *suckers* will work "whatever it takes", rather than management hiring enough people to do the work....

                          mark

  234. Re: Socialism is not working by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    It may nor be socialist, but one of the biggest problems is Obamacare. It absolutely kills small businesses.

    They're paying you too much, because you suck at this.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  235. Re: work life balance is a myth by f00zy · · Score: 1

    If you are refusing projects to keep your day job, you are losing money on the long run. Even better you are able to command 100-400 per hour. I have seen "freelance" jobs in elance for sysadmin as "high" as you earn per hour in MacDonalds, and that is quite a joke.

    There are many reasons to keep a particular job - money is but one. In a discussion about work - life balance, this seems to be a pretty important point.

  236. Re:work life balance is a myth by rochrist · · Score: 1

    A rare healthy person!

  237. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Nice to see all the douche bags on Slashdot now. Can't even make a comment without folks taking some offense.

    Nowhere did I say there weren't wage slaves and folks weren't stuck in crap jobs. My anecdotal story is just that. A little bit from me responding to the original poster indicating that while the US doesn't have mandatory vacations, you are capable of asking for more.

    Chill out a little. It's not all about you, or me.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  238. Re:work life balance is a myth by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it's more that I've tried other jobs and have settled into a job that I'm good at at a company that generally appreciates my talents. As we age, we might just realize that while the job might be crappy at times, it's the attitude you bring and the realization that a job at a different place really doesn't offer much difference. Just different idiots. Better the idiots you know :)

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  239. Re:work life balance is a myth by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    Nah. I'm not all that good with thinking about the unlucky others. Must be what makes me a BOFH. :)

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  240. Re:What choice do we have? -- Unionize, dammit by phorm · · Score: 1

    I believe that the GP said "organize", not "unionize"

    More specifically, he makes the statement "Don't let the union leaders become bosses", which is indeed part of the problem these days.

  241. Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is bad how exactly? And how does working harder HURT the economy? That makes no sense.

  242. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry if you can't find a job in IT, you're an idiot. Plain and simple. A blithering moron who nobody will hire because you're stupid.

  243. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have some mental issues my friend. Might want to see a therapist about those. Just because you hate everything doesn't mean everyone else does.

  244. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's good for the economy isn't necessarily good for me. There's that.

    That is not true if you're as hard of a worker as you make yourself to be. The coming tide lifts all boats.

    But I never took seriously the premise that limiting our labor and productivity would improve the economy.

    And why should people take you seriously? Turn about is fair play. My continued courtesy to you is just me being an extra nice guy (and unlike you, I have time to deal with people who choose to argue insincerely)

    Nor do I consider the presence of hard workers in the world a "problem".

    The label Richard used was "chummmmp". I think the angle is people are being Boxer from Animal Farm, where the hard workers are being useful idiots keeping the regime going (ergo making the problem worse). In a vacuum hard work is not good or bad, but in reality things don't happen in a vacuum.

    And in my case, my hard work actually does mean that a fair number of people don't have to work so hard. How do you get to decide that is making the "problem" worse?

    How do you get to decide you aren't?

    What is there to rebut? His opinion is more or less self-consistent. It's just not taking into account my actions or for that matter the actions of most of the world who simply aren't on that page.

    How do you get to decide he isn't taking that into account?

    You're free to do not take him seriously, but turn around is fair play. You don't take him seriously. He doesn't have to take you seriously. So why bother replying?

  245. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by omnichad · · Score: 1

    If you're exempt from overtime pay, it's quite the loophole to effectively cut wages in half while still looking OK on the books.

  246. What choice do we have? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do have a choice. If you don't see that you have a choice it is because of your own limited brainpower, not because it isn't there. Wake up.

  247. I call bullshit by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Everyone - bar none, and including myself - who claims that they "work 60 hour weeks" might indeed be AT WORK 60 hours a week, but they do things like post /. comments at quarter after two in the afternoon or spend hours playing farmville, solitare, or updating their facebook posts.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I call bullshit by NuAngel · · Score: 1
      You can say you include yourself in this, but don't try to sound so high and mighty. People have ALWAYS found a way to "waste time" at work, but if you actually cranked every minute of every day, you would burn out in years rather than decades. Every profession does it. Doctors get treated to lunch by drug reps, farmers as long as there has been farming have either ridden on a carriage of sorts behind the oxen or the tractor. It's why executives golf and rub elbows with each other at business awards ceremonies, schmooze clients at lunch. You may consider it "work related" but not "working hard."

      Facebook is the new water cooler. You take a few minutes to clear your mind before moving to the next task at hand, it's a normal part of a person's workflow, provided they don't have some form of Asperger's or something on that order. A few minutes to read news on Slashdot is often thought to be work related, depending on the field of work.is. Normal, long standing behavior in every work force of every era, save for maybe slavery.

    2. Re:I call bullshit by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      How is including myself in this "high and mighty"? That doesn't even make sense.

      In any case, essentially, your entire post basically says that you agree with my point, anyway.

      --
      -Styopa
  248. Re: work life balance is a myth by ruir · · Score: 1

    Indeed, indeed, nothing is black & white. There are too many variables at stake, and quality of life is not easy to come by.

  249. Fix the overtime and improve economy by sentiblue · · Score: 1

    I've had this idea in my head since the economy downturn in 2008/2009.....

    If we have a federal law that mandates maximum 50hrs of work per week, this will force companies to hire more regardless of their profitability.

    I said this because I have couple friends who worked at AMD/Intel/Cisco at the time... they came to my birthday party Sunday noon time, and at 2PM they had to split because they have to get some work done at the office.

    I think that's a serious violation taking advantage of employees' resources... they knew the job market was dry, they squeezed every possible drop of juice out of their employees' energy because they knew there was no where else to go.

    If US corporate management think more for the general economy than their own corporate interests... we would actually boost economy, people got jobs and have more buying power... it automatically increases service/product demands and we're back in shape. But it's easier said than done.

    1. Re:Fix the overtime and improve economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      We *do* have laws in the US, about ->40- hour weeks. Make them apply to *all* employees, and stop classifying those of us who "manage" computers, or code, as "management".

      And go look up the history of the 40 hour week, and make sure it mentions Henry Ford, and why *HE* went for it....

                          mark

  250. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not have to be like that for your whole life. Bust your ass early in life, really bust your ass, not just say to yourself you are busting your ass but really not doing it to make yourself feel better. Get a home/property established and most of all AVOID avoid increasing your long term recurring monthly expenses as your income goes up. Depending on your path, eventually your income will rise much higher than your expenses and you pay off your debts. If you keep moving into bigger houses and buying more expensive cars, you will be trapped. That's fine if you really want to compete with the Jones's and show your wealth through material things but eventually that will catch up with you. My wife and I make about $200K a year. If we need even a 1/4 of that to makes ends meet in 10 years, we have failed.

    What are the alternatives? Don't bust your ass early and think you are going to do it later instead and play catchup? I have many co workers that are in their late 50's that still have 20 years to go on their $2500/month mortgage. Good luck with that.

  251. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by DrGamez · · Score: 1

    I laughed, consider this +1 Funny.

  252. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Here are the 10 least corrupt countries in the world, according to the index:
    Denmark.
    New Zealand (tied with Denmark for No. 1)
    Finland.
    Sweden (tied with Finland for No. 3)
    Norway.
    Singapore (tied with Norway for No. 5)
    Switzerland.
    Netherlands.

  253. In on roll bread? by Lockdev · · Score: 1

    Please tell me that 90%+ of my fellow IT professionals are not really working 50+ hours a week.

    You guys do realize that software developers/engineers/database dudes are in very high demand right now, right?

    If you don't want to work over 40 hours a week, then don't!

    Over the past 6 years of being a software developer, I've had three jobs and all have been 40s hour a week.

    They've actually been less. You know why? I come in late and typically leave early. I get the job done and my bosses didn't/don't want to lose me.

    So, just get the job done and don't worry about "what people think" about you leaving at 5pm. If you're good at what you do, they're not going to let you go.

    If the demands are unrealistic, then again, find another job. There is PLENTY of work out there right now.

    I wish CS majors were required to take economics. If these punk arse companies that like to play games and force long hours were actually hit with an informed workforce, they would have empty cubicles and we wouldn't have conversations like this.

  254. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Don't forget, you can still take unpaid leave.
    Although, you need to be good at your job, since they can fire you on a whim and when projects end you can be out on your ass too.

  255. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    No problems ars long as you follow two rules:

    Don't be a dick
    Be good at what you do

  256. Re:How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes by Lockdev · · Score: 1

    So move. DC is not exactly a great area to live in. There's plenty of awesome places that offer much more at a lower cost of living.

    Really, I thought the only reason people actually moved to DC, was because they were offered one of those "elite" jobs you referred to.

  257. Life is too short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if people understand how short life is. I am 51 years old. I've got three awesome sons, an awesome wife, a cool dog... When I was in my late twenties I made the mistake of working a lot.. I got home and my wife was sad... that changed everything. family, friends ... that's all more important than a job.

    1. Re:Life is too short by NuAngel · · Score: 1
      I'm about to turn 30 and have never had time for a wife or kids, and even if I made time, I couldn't afford them.

      The "life is too short" speech doesn't work when your 18 year old goes from high school to college, and then is 22 and saddled with $40,000+ in debt. Then they have to pay $700+ every month in rent (not the $150 it was for my parents in the 1970's), because a six figure loan to buy a house is complete nonsense. In order to keep my job I have to work, as the article suggests, 50+ hours every week, sacrifice sleep to do some work from home and allow my boss to bug me via my smartphone on the rare day when I take a vacation day.

      That's just a summary of my experiences and everyone I went to college with. Ask one of your three kids, if any of them are in college. Or wait until they graduate. It is terrifying that prices of many things have inflated far faster than incomes, the income gap is the largest its been in decades, and not ONCE has anybody ever uttered the word pension in the near-decade I've been out of college.

      Life is too short, but if I don't work it'll be even shorter, because I'll be out of food and shelter.

  258. Re:You are understaffed. You are part of the probl by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I want to be honest here, if you're in your mid-50s, you might have a hard time convincing me that you're a good candidate for me. I'd probably ask you VERY personal questions (that I may not even ask you legally, but they'd be of course completely voluntary to answer on your part with you refusing you having no impact on your chance to be hired. Yeah. Honestly. You bet...). The reason isn't even that you're going to retire in about a decade and, as mentioned before, training will require about a year. With relevant prior experience that may even be less the reason (of course, if you neither ever worked in the business field nor in security, your chances might be getting a wee bit thin...).

    The reason is that you're most likely not "compatible" with our work style. We do offer a great range of freedom (come as you are, pretty much whenever you want, and your average work load will probably be considerably below the 40 hours you get paid for), but there's of course the backside to it. Odd work hours ("Mind staying 'til 5am today? You get tomorrow off and the next Monday."), odd phone calls at odd hours ("Can ya come in? Yes I know it's 4am, and it's your day off, why're you asking? Be here in an hour, ok?") and the kind request that you inform us should you plan a vacation abroad so we know that it's kinda futile calling you to come in.

    These are, of course, rather "insane" requests. Ok, let's call a spade a spade, requirements. We do offer a lot in compensation, including training programs that pretty much triple your salary, VERY liberal work hours unless there's an emergency (which basically amounts to "come when/if you feel like it"), no asshole PHBs breathing down your neck, near perfect work security and a few more tidbits and benefits, but that all comes at a price: It is near impossible to have a functional relationship when you try to hold down this job. Twice so if you have kids. I know for a fact that this line of work killed more than a few relationships. It isn't really possible to have a rich family life or even plan something. Want to explain your 8 year old why you suddenly had to leave just when he had his first big role in that school theater performance?

    This job is something for the younger audience. Where having an unpredictable life may even be entertaining. I just learned that most people prefer more stability and predictability when they get older. Of course you may be that odd man out who pushes 60 and still gets an adrenalin rush when his boss calls at 2am with a "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You are my only hope.", but I'd guess even that joke gets old quickly. I tried it a few times with people who claimed that they "don't mind" and that they still have the drive, but in the end they all eventually folded.

    I would not mind having someone older than me on my team. But there's a reason why most here could call me "dad", from an age perspective... I guess I AM already the odd man out.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  259. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much employment law would there be without union actions?

  260. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fortune 100 company I used to work at laid off all their QA people, their Exchange admin, failed to fill open spots on the helpdesk until half the team was gone at the same time they doubled the number of devices they support. They used it as an excuse to not give raises because they "aren't performing" so they want to cut more. Last I heard the company is planning on "relocating" to Ireland as a tax dodge.

  261. Someone explain this to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're correct. A business only has one concern. Make more money for the shareholders, regardless of where it comes from. Steal, lie, cheat...it doesn't matter as long as the shareholders make more. When the economy tanks because of us, the taxpayers will just give us a bailout and we will get bonuses.

  262. Re:work life balance is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

    That is not true if you're as hard of a worker as you make yourself to be. The coming tide lifts all boats.

    That isn't true here since the alleged "rising tide" is caused by me willingly earning less (as a consequence of working and doing less). I sacrifice substantially so that certain Slashdot posters can slack off more? Doesn't work for me.

    And why should people take you seriously?

    This isn't a popularity contest. 40 hours isn't that much for a lot of work and I think the original research is absurd. Sure, if I'm doing original mathematical research (something I've done in the past), I won't get 20 hours of such work done in a week except in unusual circumstances. But on the other hand, working a moderately physical job like security, I could work 50-55 hours a week for months.

    How do you get to decide you aren't?

    Reason and awareness of the situation at the place where I work. Why do so many people think that I can't evaluate such situations?

    To elaborate on my situation, I train and supervise a number of people who work overnight to process a bunch of paperwork for people who work in the daytime. If that work doesn't get done, then life sucks for the day people who have to work much harder. Similarly, there are problems which come at night which can lead to life sucking for the night people and for which, I happen to have dealt with before. Finally, I act as a reserve of manpower so that when a high labor problem shows up, I can work on it in place of the poor night person who stumbled across it so that they can finish their job.

    Finally, I started the job rather recently and am working somewhat inefficiently as a result. I expect the hours to decline a little bit as I get more experienced with the job.

    Currently, that work means 45-60 hours per week. I'll probably hit 60 hours this week.

    You're free to do not take him seriously, but turn around is fair play. You don't take him seriously. He doesn't have to take you seriously. So why bother replying?

    Debate and discussion are processes by which rational, sincere, truth-seeking beings can communicate with one another.

    (and unlike you, I have time to deal with people who choose to argue insincerely

    I don't know why you bothered to post that. If you're human, you can't have that sort of time. You can spend some of your copious free time, but there's far more insincere people here alone on Slashdot than time you could possibly have. After all, there's only 168 hours in a week to respond to all those trolls and such. And if you're not human, then you probably still can find something better to do with your time.

  263. What is wrong with people? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    No, really, what the heck is their deal? If I get only 7 hours of sleep for more than 2-3 days, I start turning into an ornery, unfocused, weak, idiot zombie who's as likely to pour a cup of coffee into his lap as into the mug!

    I don't understand how people do it.

    --
    -
  264. change proffession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm thinking of becoming a plumber (hydronic heating area). Equally challenging (think fluid dynamics), well protected from outsourcing and I can work 20-30 hours a week making almost as much as my current IT job. It does require working 3-5 years as a slave/apprentice however...

  265. Re:Baloney by docmordin · · Score: 1

    You're not in IT, then, because they're salaried. No extra pay for extra hours.

    You're correct: I'm currently not a salaried employee. I also hope to never be salaried again, let alone work for a company that bars me from overtime simply because I'm considered a "computer professional" in the eyes of the government.

    As an aside, I can definitely empathize with those who are salaried employees. I had to deal with being labeled a salaried employee all throughout graduate school, despite my contract saying otherwise, and basically miss out on $100k to $125k/year (USD) in overtime; pretty much everyone else in the EECS department was in a similar situation. Suffice to say, when I had the chance to join a start-up company as a fairly compensated employee, I jumped at the opportunity.

  266. Can only read what is there by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Are you suggesting that it was some sort of unlabelled attempt at a joke or some other reason to put forward a view you see as ridiculous?

    Had you actually understood what I wrote

    You should keep in mind that reading comprehension relies on what is written and is not mind reading. I strongly suggest you improve your writing skills before attempting to lecture people for reacting to what you wrote instead of what you may have meant.

    1. Re:Can only read what is there by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you can criticize what I wrote, since you only read one sentence and made all your conclusions based off that.

    2. Re:Can only read what is there by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Care to point out the sentence I "didn't read" that provided the information that you were not being serious? It appears that the reason I did not read it is because you did not write such a thing.

    3. Re:Can only read what is there by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1
      I was being serious. I said you wouldn't have said X if you had read and comprehended my post, in reference to 2 things you said:

      Are you an example of a generation with a distorted view of the world and a lack of empathy for the less well off due to growing up with servants?

      I don't lack empathy for the less well off. I described in detail my frustration at the fact that they do not vote in their own interest. Unlike many other nations which do not have anything close to a democracy, we are fortunate enough to have a democracy. It is not without it's problems, but just about any change could be affected simply by voting. We don't need to storm a government building under a hail of gunfire and risking losing our lives to take back our government from corporations. All we need to do is vote, and we just don't care enough. When I used the "In a democracy the people get the government we deserve", I was including myself in "the people".

      If not, exactly what is your damage, and why are you passing it off as acceptable and the values that built the USA as "communism"?

      You said this in response to this:

      It would be easy for me to take one sentence fragment from your post, and then label it as a Stalin-style communism apology, and ridicule it as such, but this is a pretty childish debate tactic.

      If you read this closely, you'll see that I was not calling anything communism. I was describing what the opposite side of the same coin of your caricature looks like. The idea that the world is only Ayn Rand anarcho-capitalists and Stalinist communists is a false dichotomy. People don't fit only in these 2 boxes. I was criticizing this debate tactic of attempting to cast someone into one of these 2 boxes and then simply attacking the strawman of extreme capitalism or extreme socialism.

      I am not an ideologue. In terms of capitalism and socialism, I don't think either is evil or the complete solution. I care about what's fair and what works.

  267. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Now I can hire myself out as an HR consultant and explain the benefits of hiring employees to big corporations!

    You jest, but this is a necessary task. The C-level executives have managed to insert their heads so far up their asses they're in danger of disappearing entirely.

    Except for Charter Cable. Which I was absolutely ASTONISHED to learn has dumped basically all of their contractor technicians, hired employees, instituted training regimes that insist those employees spend a mandated minimum amount of time doing fresh installations before they're ever sent on trouble-shooting calls, and, wonder of wonders, hired quality inspectors who follow after those technicians and independently and apparently rather severely criticize their work.

    It seems there is one executive in the country who escaped the echo chamber. I can only assume s/he'll be fired next year for spending all that money without generating miraculous profits.

  268. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The label Richard used was "chummmmp". I think the angle is people are being Boxer from Animal Farm, where the hard workers are being useful idiots keeping the regime going (ergo making the problem worse). In a vacuum hard work is not good or bad, but in reality things don't happen in a vacuum.

    High point of my career was telling my boss at performance review time that I should have worked smarter, not harder: and defining that as "by ignoring all the agile shit the managers were doing to prop up their own careers and concentrating on the boring shit that our fucking customers actually paid for"

    I said it a little more politely than that, but I do recall using the "work smarter not harder" line. No disrespect intended to the boss, I wouldn't have said it if I didn't know he'd be cool with it, but he was still surprised ;)

  269. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 1

    A software project that actually ends? What kind of crazy company do you work for?

  270. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

    According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.

    You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "

    Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.

  271. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That isn't true here since the alleged "rising tide" is caused by me willingly earning less

    That's not true. Richard was referring to people who are underpaid and overworked.

    He doesn't want you to stop working. He wants you to get paid for the extra hours you put in. Maybe you already are, in which case he's not talking to you. What does he have to offer to you? Nothing, because he wasn't talking to you.

    This isn't a popularity contest.

    Indeed, so why does it matter that you don't take his premise seriously?

    Reason and awareness of the situation at the place where I work. Why do so many people think that I can't evaluate such situations?

    Why do you think people think you can't? Again, Richard is talking about people who are underpaid for the hours they work. You may not be that person! Why do you think what he says applies to you at all? Forer effect?

    Debate and discussion are processes by which rational, sincere, truth-seeking beings can communicate with one another.

    So again, why are you replying? Telling people you don't take them or their premises seriously is not a good way to promote such communication.

    I don't know why you bothered to post that.

    It's an indirect way of telling you that you're the one of the insincere people on slashdot.

    If you're human, you can't have that sort of time.

    Wrong, it's precisely because I'm human that I have that sort of time.

    Being human, I have the freedom to allocate my time as I please. Whether or not I have "that sort of time" is my decision, not yours. You object to people thinking you can't evaluate your own situation. Why are you then turning around and evaluating for me what my time is worth?

    there's far more insincere people here alone on Slashdot than time you could possibly have.

    Did I say I have time for EVERY single insincere person? No I didn't.

    You have a very funny way to interpret the English language. You seem to always pick the interpretation which makes the other guy the most wrong and ridiculous. That sort of attitude is not conductive to rational sincere truth-seeking individuals

  272. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

    According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.

    You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "

    Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.

    Here's the link. Working in a movie theatre would fall under "Employees of certain seasonal amusement or recreational establishments".

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  273. Re:work life balance is a myth by khallow · · Score: 1

    You have a very funny way to interpret the English language. You seem to always pick the interpretation which makes the other guy the most wrong and ridiculous. That sort of attitude is not conductive to rational sincere truth-seeking individuals

    I can only base my perception of you and your activities on what you write. And you corrected my mistaken impression of you in the normal way it is done. Drama averted.

    It's an indirect way of telling you that you're the one of the insincere people on slashdot.

    Maybe you should just stay with the direct methods.

  274. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't have to pay me to nail Scarlett... just saying.

  275. Re; Unions / Associations - take action! by takochan · · Score: 1

    There is a problem in this country..

    I go to Nashua, NH, around the Oracle and other labs residential areas, and there are basically nothing but H1B Indians all over. Go to Herndon, VA (another tech hub), same thing, go up and down the office parking garages, streets, and basically nothing but H1B Indians all over again. Americans are virtually nowhere to be seen..

    I talk to my university placement officer of a top 25 US business and tech school, and he says that he cannot place half of his new grads..

    Tech salaries are falling year by year, even though there is this 'supposed' shortage..!
    It is a fraud, there is no shortage. The recession for the middle class tech people would have ended 5 years ago if it wasn't for H1B. We'd all have permanent good jobs, with high salaries, strong benefits and good vacation, with respect from management..if it wasn't for H1B. Apparently 1 out of 2 new tech jobs in this country now goes to an H1B, while there are millions of high educated Americans out of work or underemployed in 'junk-jobs' and tempwork.

    Campaign money by large employers are corrupting the law and steal money from regular middle class educated Americans as long as this continues.

    It is NOT racism to say that this is wrong.. !

    There probably is not much that can be done about offshoring, but 'fake shortage' H1B is happening right here in this country. We are being rubbed out, and being replaced.. in our own country! It *CAN* and *SHOULD* be stopped...now!, if we rise up..

    Why don't we take action?. Maybe not a union like the Teamsters, but Lawyers have a union (the American Bar Association), Doctors do (you need to be 'licensed' to practice..that is just like a union..). How about we all wear our Guy Fawks masks(so we can still keep our jobs the next day..those of us that have jobs anyways..) and have a day of protest in tech parks across the country this summer, in front of senate and representatives district offices all over the country.

    Be loud, be vocal, like those French unions do. Be disruptive to company bottom lines. Protest in front of their clients when they contract out to firms that use H1B, like those Anti-Abortionist and NRA people do, make the companies feel pain so this changes!.

    We don't have to do nothing... If we unite and make disruption enough that it costs more to companies to not listen to us...then they will listen to us, and stop doing things like 'fake shortage' H1B that destroy the middle class.

  276. Dead wrong by chstwnd · · Score: 1

    The majority of engineers value getting the job done and extra pay, not merely working longer hours. The companies that employ them often egregiously take advantage of these particular aspect of the work ethic and draw them into working longer hours to the point that it becomes commonplace. This is a big reason for the current trend towards wholesale contract workforces. and there is an ebb and flow to it that will reverse soon enough. companies will realize that they're paying the contract workforce much higher then they would directs and they're not all that much more disposable because it now takes up 75-80% of their total headcount. So they'll try to pull in more to directs at lower rates, arguably more perks and the illusion of increased stability. If you've been talking into believing that simply working a longer day is at the heart of a strong work ethic, you're clearly not thinking for yourself. and, with that, you're probably not truly an engineer (applies hard sciences vs. "sales engineer", "social media engineer" or any of the drivel). I still remember a remark one of my professors made about an intrinsic characteristic of engineers: we're lazy. we're always trying to find simpler, better ways to do mundane, time consuming tasks LONG TERM and we're willing to put in 100 hours now if we anticipate it saving us and a million other people 1000 hours of work down the road. benefits always have to outweigh the risks and costs.

  277. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The burnout got me 180k in one year. It also gave me cubital tunnel syndrome. Which caused me a month of hand paralysis not worth it.

  278. Re:work life balance is a myth by warpuck · · Score: 0

    I retired last year. Worked many different jobs. A lot were boring or just a too stupid way to bring a paycheck home. Have 2 small pensions & SSI. When I get bored. I ride the bus. Riding the bus in Detroit beats watching daytime Springer & the Springer clones.

  279. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    One where 6 month contracts turn in to 2 years.

  280. Re:Socialism is not working by dywolf · · Score: 1

    its not about personal freedom.
    reagan didnt do anything to increase personel or worker freedom.
    the people he gave freedom to was the corporations.

    and the result of all that deregulation was an isntant decoupling of productivity and wages, after they had tracked in parallel for over 6 decades,. wages have been stagnant ever since, while revenues go ever higher, leaving the ACTUAL producers with a smaller and smaller piece of the pie they are creating.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  281. RE: move? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Nope, you're right.... DC is really *not* that great an area to live in. However, I'm pretty happy with the small town in Maryland we wound up buying a house in. Only about 20 minutes outside Frederick, MD, which is a fairly nice city itself.

    The only reason I moved up to the the DC area in the first place is a need to get out from a dead-end I.T. job I was in, in the midwest, working for a steel supplier and fabricator. In general, I.T. careers in the midwest doing server/network administration on hands-on PC support are mainly found in the manufacturing sector. (Exceptions would primarily be hospitals or education -- both of which handle I.T. fairly differently than the typical business.... sort of their own worlds.)

    Not just one, but two of my friends who used to live near me and also worked in I.T. wound up moving away and taking jobs with the company that offered me the DC area position. The fact I'd get to work with two of my long-time personal friends (albeit each of us in different offices in different cities) was a major reason I accepted. This was also a company which was actually growing during the recession, while most were downsizing.

    Truthfully? I think a lot of folks up here relocated for jobs that were far from "elite" - simply because they were promising-sounding career jobs in a bad economic climate. (I've met several people who moved here from other parts of the country for jobs with MedImmune in Gaithersburg, for example. Probably pays well, but not "defense contractor well" or anything like that.)

  282. Depends where you are in life by lightbounce · · Score: 1

    I don't know why everybody assumes there is only one life/work balance that's optimal throughout your life. When you first get out of school, want to make a mark, and don't have a family, it's often very rewarding to put more hours into work. But later on in life when you get a family and other interests, work just isn't as important for most people. It's not that one is better than the other, it's that priorities change as you age.

  283. Re:work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Moral

  284. Work is The Point of Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Human beings are work machines. In the end, that is all we are. We work ourselves to exhaustion, rest briefly, then go back and work some more.

    Nothing else matters. A person's life is worthwhile only so long as he is working. Everything else he or she does is something that helps them continue to work. Nothing but work matters. Nothing.

    A good man is one who gives everything to his employer, sacrifices himself relentlessly for the sake of the job, and drops dead at his desk at 50 before he can collect Social Security. And if he does make it to 70, he commits suicide rather than retiring -- because if you can't earn a living, you don't deserve to live.

  285. Re: work life balance is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cancel H1B? Who do you think is profiting from h1b? Tech companies. and lobbyist in Washington are controlling the airwaves.

  286. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "When I go to temp agencies, they look at my skill set (Computer Science degree, 10 years in IT support and networking, 6 years in media production) and tell me that there's just no work out there, and if I come back in a couple of weeks they might have something but I should probably look at getting my forklift licence and start at the bottom in retail or warehousing."

    Where do you live though? I cant imagine this would be the case in a big city.

  287. Re:work life balance is a myth by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

    Must be nice to have a government that allows a tight labor market to keep benefits high and dependency low. Our politicians adore dependency and buyers market here in the US...we've had more immigrants+graduates than jobs created for the last 7 years, making it tougher and tougher to negotiate benefits like that.

    You CAN get vacation like that in plenty of companies in the US, but it is based on years of service. 5 weeks isn't terribly uncommon but you'd have to stay at the same company for a decade.

    So you have to be pretty much done growing your salary if you want your 5 weeks. Almost nobody gets raises based on the market value of the experience earned at the company. Just inflationary raises if any. Even that is based on government reports of inflation, which are underreported to keep benefit costs down.

  288. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    3 years down the road, Bob still doesn't know how to stop/start a Unix service or manage the backup system. Well, actually he might if he tried, but Frank is still the one that gets poked to handle it all. Really, Bob is just somewhat lazy and is milking the system. Bob *could* be fired, but it would take another several years of fighting between the union and management, and that's expensive. So install Bob manages a few servers in the old system, and Frank gets 1.5x the work.

    And yes, this *does* happen in unions

    Cute story, and I'm sure that oceanfront property you're selling in Nebraska is beautiful as well. Just a few problems, though:

    1) There is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired for cause
    2) Bob is management's problems, not the unions.
    3) Because Frank, and Frank's union friends, would be the ones standing outside managements door demanding that Bob be retrained or "encouraged" to find a different job. Because, once again, joining a union doesn't mean you get a hole in your head and a desire to do your work plus someone else's.

    I worked in one shop where the guy wasn't coming to work, was mis-using company resources, and basically did it all with a smirk. It took them *years* to get him out, and years again of fighting to keep him from being brought back.

    Oooo, black and white anecdote time! Enron stole money from customers and shareholders, therefore all capitalism is bad, mmkay. And Wells Fargo ripping off homeowners means that all for profit banks are bad and should be banned immediately!

    Of course, no one would be stupid enough to make those kind of leaps of bad logic with business. But people do it all the time with labor - why is that?

  289. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Where I'm from unions aren't at the company level, they're at the industry level.

    So you're saying workers are less abused, better paid, with greater benefits and vacation time? And this is a bad thing for you?

    People don't voluntarily joins the unions

    Here, why don't you try an experiment: go down to the office of your local Chamber of Commerce, and tell them you want to enjoy all the benefits of being a CoC member, but without having to pay membership dues. Write down the responses, and come back to us.

    Unions don't protect employees, employment law protects employees.

    Why don't you go work at the Tyler Pipe factory for a while and say that again. Negligence that would land your ass in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison gets shrugged off if done by a monied corporation.

    Unions are a check on greed, and the robber baron class as only gotten more as time goes on.

  290. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by phorm · · Score: 1

    Well sorry if my experience with 3 DIFFERENT UNIONS and THE SAME SHIT isn't good enough for you.
    Sorry if my experience being a SHOP STEWARD as well as a member of the UNION COUNCIL wasn't good enough for you.

    1.
    For the record, no, being in a union DOESN'T prevent one from being fired for cause. It does however, tend to prevent one from being fired in a reasonable time, as they have to give a bunch of warnings (because, hey, not coming to work is apparently not a known problem) and then log multiple concurrences before "Bob" can really be fired. Unions don't prevent people from being fired, they just make it very time-consuming and difficult to do so, even oft-times when there is cause. Hell, "Bob" even managed to accuse a few co-workers of various things before it was finally found to be him at fault.

    2. Bob is management's problem. However the union filing motions to keep him from being fired is also a problem.

    3. Yes, that one happened as well. The problem is that it's pretty hard to get somebody for being a lazy turd, and some people are particularly good at making it look like they're trying when doing absolutely minimum and little more than warming a chair.

    Wells Fargo ripping off homeowners means that all for profit banks are bad and should be banned immediatel

    No, banks aren't necessarily bad. Stripping regulation from industry, having it fail, then bailing them out is bad. If banks were like a Union, then if 90% of banks are doing good and the rest were going down the road of Wells Fargo, then you'd give them all a 3% pay increase regardless of how screwed up or piss poor that other 10% were.
    Unions aren't bad, but they share a common issue: it's difficult to hold members accountable when they go bad. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when there weren't unions and *employers* had no accountability, I just suggest we move the pendulum more back towards the middle. Let people be judged on merit, but treated fairly overall.

  291. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Why don't you go work at the Tyler Pipe factory [pbs.org] for a while and say that again. Negligence that would land your ass in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison gets shrugged off if done by a monied corporation [huffingtonpost.com].

    Why would I want to go and work in a country with shitty employment law?

  292. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Well sorry if my experience with 3 DIFFERENT UNIONS and THE SAME SHIT isn't good enough for you.

    Sorry my TWO DIFFERENT ANECDOTES weren't enough to get you on board to summarily ban capitalism. Three's the charm? Okay, one more:

    I used to work at shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union. One old codger did more talking than working, and one time this "talk" included telling a woman 30 years younger than him that he would, quote unquote "like to rape the shit out of you". Nothing was done by management. Now, since three different examples are what you needed, you're down for banning capitalism, yes? Or were you just getting your confirmation bias on?

    Unions don't prevent people from being fired, they just make it very time-consuming and difficult to do so

    Not. If. There. Is. Cause.

    However the union filing motions to keep him from being fired is also a problem.

    It's called due process, to make sure the real reason Bob's getting fired isn't because he refused to come in on his day off, work off the clock, or balked at doing a dangerous job he wasn't trained or equipped to do.

    No, banks aren't necessarily bad. Stripping regulation from industry, having it fail, then bailing them out is bad. If banks were like a Union, then if 90% of banks are doing good and the rest were going down the road of Wells Fargo, then you'd give them all a 3% pay increase regardless of how screwed up or piss poor that other 10% were.

    Exactly! Judging entire groups of people based on the actions of a few is just silly when it's the boss class. But for those uppity proles who don't know their place, it just makes sense.

  293. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by Uberbah · · Score: 1

    Why would I want to go and work in a country with shitty employment law?

    So you had a talking point, not an argument, by admitting that employment law doesn't necessarily protect the employed? Why didn't you say so earlier? Let us know how the meeting goes at your local Chamber of Commerce goes, when you ask for all the benefits of membership without having to pay membership dues.

  294. Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g by phorm · · Score: 1

    Unions don't prevent people from being fired, they just make it very time-consuming and difficult to do so

    Not. If. There. Is. Cause.

    Again. 3 unions. With cause, people did get fired but it. still. took. a. long. f*cking. time.

    But for those uppity proles who don't know their place, it just makes sense
    Don't see where I said that. I'm not management myself, more of a prole than such. I just prefer to see people actually do their damn job.

    I used to work at shop that made Wal-Mart look pro-union

    I didn't say non-union shops didn't have issues, I've seen plenty of them in private as well (lazy or poorly trained management, nepotism, etc). As per the codger, a harassment suit would probably have been useful if one had a witness to such behavior.

    What I *would* like to see is for unions to get back to the days of "Proudly made in a union shop" where unions and management both don't fight like spoiled children over stupid shit, and deal more with important issues *LIKE* harassment, discrimination, unsafe conditions, and fair wages (including fair wage increases) etc.
    I'm not anti-union, but I do believe that unions have lost "the power of the people" because of the crap like what I've described. We all still need to put in a real work effect (not to the bone, just good, decent, hard work), but we also need to deal with when some people - management and employees - aren't contributing to a positive workplace.
    Unfortunately, in many places unions have become just another layer of middle-management. They do work for good things in a broad sense, but they've become large, unwieldy, and have their own layers of fat/pork just like businesses do.

  295. Re:work life balance is a myth by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Certainly there are tradeoffs and depending on what kind of person you are depends on what is better. USians, by and large, go for goods over time off. Big homes, big SUVs and big partying have to be paid for somehow. Most 60-hour-a-week Americans wear their work life on their sleeves by driving around in obnoxiously large vehicles and having homes and lawns that eat away at what little down time they have by having to maintain all this abundance that they never really use anyway aside from as a social trophy.

    Unfortunately, as an American who's trying to move to a suburban minimalist kind of life you find that you can't trade the extra pay for more time off. At least not in the short term. At that point you have to ask yourself if maybe it's ok to be paid less and have a less stressful role or to keep pushing up the ladder and hope that you can retire early...

    You're assuming this is all very different to elsewhere. If you ever visited Australia you'll find in the cities things are very similar. The McMansion phenomenon is alive and well here and driving property prices through the roof. I myself am guilty of it. We are 2 people living in a 2 story 5 bedroom house. While I don't have a gas guzzler that's more the reality of the cars for sale here. Other than a hummer most of the cars here generally have smaller engines and are more fuel efficient on account of the petrol price here being double that of the USA. But certainly splurging is alive and well.

  296. Re:You are understaffed. You are part of the probl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did that job, working for a company which provided mission-critical software and infrastructure, sold to a rather cancerous financial firm.

    After the buyout, the day-to-day work was heavy, but the on-call periods were brutal - you wouldn't sleep for a week. The oldest person on the team left at 50 years old, the youngest at 43.

    That kind of job eats people, and when everyone finally bailed (within a three-week span), the new manager (who had taken over from the existing IT manager) was stuck - he had no one who knew the array of systems (7 OSes, 4-5 different enterprise storage systems, network/vpn gear, connections to ancient SNA servers, etc) maintained by the old crew, and constantly called the staff who had left asking for assistance.

    In general, his former staff was too polite to laugh in his face, but we did agree among ourselves that $500/hr with an 8-hour minimum was a good basic rate, as it disincentivized further calls.

    The PTB in the business - to a person, jerks hired by the financial firm who'd bought the business and squeezed the crap out of it - took to calling personally, asking people to come back, offering the earth - it was really funny. No one took the offer, and it took them about twenty-four months to get out of that hole (they eventually did it by hiring a con$ultancy created by a former employee) , and burned a lot of bridges with a lot of customers bc they couldn't deliver on contracted services. There was a lot of schadenfreude pie to be had....

  297. Different Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TFA is mostly in regards to salaried positions, but I figured I would chime in with the perspective from us hourly paid folks. As an employee working for an absentee (and often clueless) boss, the 1.5x overtime pay has saved my ass many times. I wouldn't do it if I was salaried, but as an hourly employee, the more I work, the more I make. It's a concrete connection, and one I consider reasonable to make. Especially considering that I've had shit luck in finding a job with a better pay rate. How else is one to to make extra money but to work more?

  298. You failed by dbIII · · Score: 1

    You failed to point out what clue there was to identify you as putting it forward as a serious suggestion. Your rants about "reading comprehension" and "second language" appear to only be an attempt to blame your own stupidity for putting up such an inflammatory statement on others by pretending you never did it. Quite disgusting and even cowardly in my opinion.

    1. Re:You failed by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You failed to point out what clue there was to identify you as putting it forward as a serious suggestion.

      You failed to issue a disclaimer indicating that you were in need of special coaching, leaving me to assume you had normal human intelligence.

      Your rants about "reading comprehension" and "second language" appear to only be an attempt to blame your own stupidity for putting up such an inflammatory statement on others by pretending you never did it.

      It's not stupid to make an inflammatory statement. Whether a statement is inflammatory depends on who is reading it. Furthermore whether a statement is inflammatory has nothing to do with it's merit or if it is true.

      Quite disgusting and even cowardly in my opinion.

      I wrote down exactly what I meant to say and I said what I meant. I'm not sure why this would be a cowardly or disgusting way to present one's ideas, but after talking with you for a while, I can't say I am surprised.

  299. Re: work life balance is a myth by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Very true. I made a lot more during my management years. Now I barely top the low six figure mark. That being said I'm very happy with my job right now, and between my wife and I we have a very good income and standard of living. There is far more to life than just making the maximum amount of money you can.

  300. Re: work life balance is a myth by ruir · · Score: 1

    Indeed. I worked in a consulting firm 5 years, and my life was pretty miserable.

  301. Re: work life balance is a myth by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    Building radio stations in Afghanistan was pretty challenging!

  302. Re:work life balance is a myth by WillKemp · · Score: 1

    I'll never be able to afford to retire, but if i do i'll be riding buses for entertainment and movement, too!

  303. Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st place by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Obviously the post I replied to in the first place.

  304. Re:Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st plac by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    I made *lots* of statements and I don't believe any of them are contradictory. If you want to point out which of my statements you think contradicts another I made, go ahead, otherwise I am not going to try and guess what you are referring to.

  305. Re:Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st plac by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Funny how you are now taking that line after your "take one sentence from someone's argument and ignore the rest" comment.
    You know perfectly well what it was so stop trying to weasel out of it just because you do not want to admit you posted something so utterly stupid and insulting to just about everyone who's worked for more than a week in their lives.

  306. Re:Obviously the post I replied to in the 1st plac by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    You got nothing. You can't even cite one example where I contradicted myself. All my posts are public for everyone to see. I don't need to admit anything. Either cite where you think I have contradicted myself, or shut up.

  307. You're joking right? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    "Well if the job market is so terrible (for employees) and never getting better, then the obvious thing to do is to exploit that and become an employer. You can hire people for essentially nothing, and rake in huge profits for doing very little work."

    Are you going to start this whole naive authoritarian bullshit all over again with a "take one sentence from someone's argument and ignore the rest" like you did before? Who is this audience you think you are playing to and why would they bother to read your drivel this far down? Lay off the ego stroking mass debate bullshit and start taking responsibility for what you preach to others, because you are making us all look like clueless and heartless pieces of shit.

    1. Re:You're joking right? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I stand by that statement 100%. And in no way does this contradict anything I said. To you it may seem heartless, but this is how lopsided markets get corrected. In the event of a lopsided market (which the OP was claiming), there is a high incentive to be an employer. In this circumstance the best thing for people to do is to become an employer, and doing this comes with a financial incentive. If enough people do this, then the labor market reaches equilibrium and there is no longer a high supply and low demand for labor. Having more people become employers to "exploit" the lopsided labor market actually helps workers. It means a higher ratio of jobs to workers, which means higher wages for the same work. It's better for everybody.

      Not always, but often, doing what's best for yourself also helps society as a whole. In a free market, profit is the reward for providing a useful service. In a lopsided market profit is the reward for helping to balance the market.

      And before you lose your mind again, no I'm not saying capitalism is flawless or that poor people should be dying in the streets, etc. I am saying that free markets reward people for doing useful things for society. The more useful you are the more profit you make. Certainly there are some people who make profit without being very useful (i.e. thieves, criminals, etc), but that's just something we must deal with.

      It's like if you're in an airplane and the masks fall from the ceiling. You are supposed to put on your own mask before helping others. As admirable as it is to help others before helping yourself, you can't help anyone if you are unconscious, and now you require people to help you.

      Our society should be focused on minimizing the number of people who need help. This includes people doing what they can to be as successful as possible, and we can have a social safety net that is even more effective for the people who still need it. A wealthy society is one that can afford to do more to help the less fortunate.

    2. Re:You're joking right? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      How long are you going to keep on whining about how you are not a bad boy and just misunderstood?
      You've been caught out with ridiculous bullshit - not a lopsided market? Tell that to girls staying in a job where they are being sexually harrassed because there's no other jobs they can find. Unless you've led a very sheltered life or are utterly clueless you would have seen that and more over the last few years, so don't pretend it isn't there - that's being dishonest.

    3. Re:You're joking right? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      How long are you going to keep on whining about how you are not a bad boy and just misunderstood?

      For as long as you continue to misunderstand my statements.

      Also I am not whining. I am showing you how bad at reading comprehension you are.

      You've been caught out with ridiculous bullshit - not a lopsided market? Tell that to girls staying in a job where they are being sexually harrassed because there's no other jobs they can find.

      So this is what I am talking about.

      I say: I don't think the allies are losing the war.
      You hear: Not only are the allies winning hugely, there are no allied casualties.
      You say: How dare you make the disgusting suggestion that nobody on the allied side is dying. Tell that to the 400,000 dead soldiers.
      I say: I didn't say that nobody on the allied side is dying.
      You say: Now you are trying to change your story. Which is it? Do you think the allies have no casualties or do you think the axis have no casualties?

      You fail to grasp that there is a middle ground between these 2 extremes. But everything that is not on your extreme looks like the opposite extreme even if it is actually pretty moderate.

      Unless you've led a very sheltered life or are utterly clueless you would have seen that and more over the last few years, so don't pretend it isn't there - that's being dishonest.

      I try not to let my emotions cloud the truth. Just because it is hard for workers, doesn't mean the labor market is lopsided. It is hard for employers too. It's a fucking global recession.

      It's not my fault you have trouble understanding what is actually being said, rather than what you are incorrectly inferring.

    4. Re:You're joking right? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Still whining about how some cruel person is expecting you to take responsibility for what you write? You poor oppressed little boy.

    5. Re:You're joking right? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Just because it is hard for workers, doesn't mean the labor market is lopsided. It is hard for employers too

      Of course it does - it means we are seeing many examples of the unscrupulous exploiting the situation where people will accept not only worse treatment but also empty promises, as cases at your local courthouse will show. The large number of "commission only" scams that fail to pay a commission is one of the many symptoms you are ignoring. There's also plenty of people doing unpaid overtime to keep thier current job - hence the article we are commenting on in the first place!


      Meanwhile I still find it amusing that you are still attempting the evasion and petty bullying of the "reading comprehension" line that must have won you some schoolyard arguments in the apparently very recent past against people with low self esteem. Give it up, nobody gives a shit about your spelling bee scores here.

    6. Re:You're joking right? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You fail to grasp that there is a middle ground between these 2 extremes.

      You fail to grasp that I'm merely pointing out your extreme of sweetness, light and daddy will buy you a gang of slaves is fucking offensive.

    7. Re:You're joking right? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Just because it is hard for workers, doesn't mean the labor market is lopsided. It is hard for employers too

      Of course it does - it means we are seeing many examples of the unscrupulous exploiting the situation where people will accept not only worse treatment but also empty promises, as cases at your local courthouse will show. The large number of "commission only" scams that fail to pay a commission is one of the many symptoms you are ignoring. There's also plenty of people doing unpaid overtime to keep thier current job - hence the article we are commenting on in the first place!

      There is unscrupulous business practices happening at all times, regardless of whether the labor market is favoring workers or employers. There has never been a time when this wasn't happening somewhere. Is it far to say that the labor market is lopsided toward workers, if I can find plenty of examples of employees taking advantage of his employer? Of course not.

      Meanwhile I still find it amusing that you are still attempting the evasion and petty bullying of the "reading comprehension" line that must have won you some schoolyard arguments in the apparently very recent past against people with low self esteem. Give it up, nobody gives a shit about your spelling bee scores here.

      It's not a tactic. It's drawing attention to the fact that you can't follow what the people you are arguing with are actually saying. It's pretty fucking hard to have a reasonable argument when one person doesn't understand English. You can call it bullying if you want, but it's true. I am not doing it to win the argument. I'm am doing it to try to get you to read what I am saying rather than substituting whatever you seem to feel like I am saying.

      I didn't just accuse you of reading comprehension problems. I cited examples where you completely misread what I had wrote, and in many cases understood the exact opposite of what I was saying.

    8. Re:You're joking right? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

  308. You sir... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sir...either need a girlfriend, or shouldn't be left unsupervised in your cubical!

  309. Re:work life balance is a myth by Rakarra · · Score: 1