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."

Comments

I can stop any time!!!

[BenSchuarmer]

I just need to finish this one thing...

Re:I can stop any time!!!

[Wonko the Sane]

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?

Re:work life balance is a myth

[TigerPlish]

You say that now.

Get back to us 20 years from now.

Sleep Collects Neural Garbage

[Baldrson]

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.

Re:Sleep Collects Neural Garbage

[zijus]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Corporate Brianwashed Fools

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Corporate Brianwashed Fools

[ultranova]

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.

Oh yeah it's "workaholism"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

What choice do we have?

[rsilvergun]

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.

Re:What choice do we have?

[TsuruchiBrian]

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

Re:What choice do we have?

[stenvar]

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.

Re:What choice do we have?

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:What choice do we have?

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re: work life balance is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked

[Chas]

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.

Re:Maybe if the economy wasn't so fucked

[Nemyst]

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.

Do more with less!

[Prien715]

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

Re: work life balance is a myth

[dreamchaser]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[Kjella]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[beelsebob]

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.

Re:Socialism is not working

[beelsebob]

Uhh, you realise that the other countries highlighted, where this is going better, are more socialist than the US, right?

Look to Japan as a model for what not to do

[antifoidulus]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g

[nitehawk214]

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.

And the stupidest thing about it?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

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.)

Re:Socialism is not working

[plopez]

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.

How much reduced sleep is tied to long commutes?

[sandytaru]

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.

I've quit two jobs, due to overwork

[marcgvky]

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.

Re:I've quit two jobs, due to overwork

[jemmyw]

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.

Re:Socialism is not working

[Kjella]

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.

Would someone please think of the Economy?

[rabbin]

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?

Re:What choice do we have? -- Unionize, dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:I do not do it because I want to

[rolfwind]

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.

Re: work life balance is a myth

[Tuidjy]

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...

Re: work life balance is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[WillKemp]

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!

Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g

[Opportunist]

And people ask what unions are for...

Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g

[Opportunist]

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.

94%, really?

[JeffOwl]

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.

Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:work life balance is a myth

[Richard Dick Head]

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.

More than 40 hours? Go home!

[Opportunist]

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.

Back when I wor lad...

[Kittenman]

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....

Re: work life balance is a myth

[iONiUM]

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.

Re:And guess how many vacation days we Americans g

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Overwork also makes it hard on management

[CaroKann]

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.