No One Is Working(humaninvariant.com)
humaninvariant.com
No One Is Working
https://www.humaninvariant.com/blog/working
58 comments
Mindlessly coding is stuff like gluing together libraries, components, and services that do the actual work, building simple CRUD UIs, copying AWS configurations to terraform, etc.
[deleted]
I wouldn't call that mindless, just not as cerebral as some tasks. But mindless or not, if it needs to be done then it's still productive work. Why the author feels that only "deep work" counts is beyond me.
Right. Some of my programming work is done sitting back in my chair, a movie going on the TV for background noise, probably daydreaming a little while I write code or documentation or do basic tasks. Then there's other "deep work" where I stand up at my desk, turn off anything in the background, and block everything else out of my mind until I've finished the task. It's possible that I'm 10x more valuable during the latter periods than the former (1000x is just silly).
If I could turn the first type of work over to an AI assistant so I could spend that time napping or working on a hobby or side interest, that would be cool. But that's not the goal of companies pushing AI. They figure if I don't have to do the "mindless" work anymore, I can do "deep work" for my full 40 hours. But maybe I'm not capable of working more hours at that level of focus. Maybe the hours spent doing "mindless" work are necessary for resting and recharging between the intense sessions. So if my company takes away the "mindless" work, they're probably not going to get the jump in productivity they're going for. They're more likely to burn me out and send me looking for a new job.
If I could turn the first type of work over to an AI assistant so I could spend that time napping or working on a hobby or side interest, that would be cool. But that's not the goal of companies pushing AI. They figure if I don't have to do the "mindless" work anymore, I can do "deep work" for my full 40 hours. But maybe I'm not capable of working more hours at that level of focus. Maybe the hours spent doing "mindless" work are necessary for resting and recharging between the intense sessions. So if my company takes away the "mindless" work, they're probably not going to get the jump in productivity they're going for. They're more likely to burn me out and send me looking for a new job.
Like others here, I am somewhat skeptical of the accuracy of these accounts, but ofc like anyone who's been working for some time I've seen the kinds of situations that inspire them. To me, framing this as being about the workers as opposed to the situation the workers find themselves in is entirely wrongheaded.
Working for 10 hours a week can either be embarrassingly bad or heroically productive depending on the situation you find yourself in. People can avoid work, of course, but generally avoiding work looks very different if you could be doing 30+ hours of real work each week. I recall (but cannot find) an article about the many months and meetings it took to add a single option to the windows shutdown menu. Depending on your organizational constraints, doing very little work each week may be optimal. Doing more work in the wrong direction would be a net-negative.
I just think it's very odd to say "no one is working" instead of "companies can't organize people to be able to work." If you are in an environment where you could actually do a lot of work and you do a little, you will not last long. The only way you last is if you're in the ballpark.
Working for 10 hours a week can either be embarrassingly bad or heroically productive depending on the situation you find yourself in. People can avoid work, of course, but generally avoiding work looks very different if you could be doing 30+ hours of real work each week. I recall (but cannot find) an article about the many months and meetings it took to add a single option to the windows shutdown menu. Depending on your organizational constraints, doing very little work each week may be optimal. Doing more work in the wrong direction would be a net-negative.
I just think it's very odd to say "no one is working" instead of "companies can't organize people to be able to work." If you are in an environment where you could actually do a lot of work and you do a little, you will not last long. The only way you last is if you're in the ballpark.
Exactly. In many organizations this is a coordination problem at the organizational level, not an individual lack of initiative. I imagine if someone looked at an army, they would say, hey these guys are just polishing their boots, and filling out paperwork and doing meaningless tasks, why does the military pay their salaries? Well, you need those people there to be ready when the war breaks out. The same thing often happens in corporations.
It's a perpetual two-way dance between labor and management to maximize their hourly wage per unit of effort.
There are many who choose not to participate and work for other motivations.
There are many who choose not to participate and work for other motivations.
[deleted]
I don't see any evidentiary basis for these claims (or narratives) in this article. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
It seems like several of the hypotheses contradict each other, too, at least in small ways.
gjsman-1000(1)
The analysis is interesting but depends on accepting a premise that is only substantiated by fictional anecdotes.
I don't believe the anecdotes are fictional. Cherry-picked, perhaps. But these people surely exist.
I second this. By the time you're 4 years in almost anywhere you're an old timer. That plus being better than average at coding can easily make you 2-3 times as productive coding than average for your role.
You can either use that to get more done or get the time back. Lots of people choose the 2nd option. Especially if they can wfh.
You can either use that to get more done or get the time back. Lots of people choose the 2nd option. Especially if they can wfh.
I don't see any attributions or citations.
Even if we did have citations, didn't we have an article about how academic fraud is a massive business, just yesterday, because academics are flawed humans just like the rest of us?
All the virtuous skeptics here would just be calling the study flawed.
All the virtuous skeptics here would just be calling the study flawed.
Unreal to me that this submission got flagged to death, and that most of the comments are "these type of people don't exist." I encounter all of these people on a daily basis
Realistic fiction is still fiction!
> academic fraud
I would be content with just a statement like "these are real people I personally know (anonymized)."
I would be content with just a statement like "these are real people I personally know (anonymized)."
I can assure you that the anecdotes are not fictional.
It's also predicated on the idea that "mindless coding" isn't working.
And the idea that someone who works late (9-7) isn't working.
Like, what?
And the idea that someone who works late (9-7) isn't working.
Like, what?
They didn’t really bring up the idea that these people are being hired and retained for reasons other than their day to day output (I mean they did, but with odd rationales like wealth distribution). Number of bodies is a key metric for describing the growth of a company or the power of a manager. When he bottom line stop mattering all kinds of useless practices can flourish.
This is the flip side to the 10xer phenomenon. If you were to randomly sample an employee, odds are they aren't doing much. If you buy the 10xer thing, which many of us do, then this must also be true. If you don't, then you are watching a different movie.
The article goes off the rails when it tries to explain high salaries with a generational wealth transfer scheme that is at odds with corporate incentives.
A better explanation exists which is that companies slowly become bureaucracies, everyone is playing politics, trying to get more resources and people around them to accomplish less and less. People are trying to do that locally, for their own interests, and it manifests globally as productive output tending towards zero and cost of labor tending higher. No society-wide scheme necessary. This is at odds with the shareholders, but its difficult to fix because bureaucracies are parasitic organisms which defend themselves.
The article goes off the rails when it tries to explain high salaries with a generational wealth transfer scheme that is at odds with corporate incentives.
A better explanation exists which is that companies slowly become bureaucracies, everyone is playing politics, trying to get more resources and people around them to accomplish less and less. People are trying to do that locally, for their own interests, and it manifests globally as productive output tending towards zero and cost of labor tending higher. No society-wide scheme necessary. This is at odds with the shareholders, but its difficult to fix because bureaucracies are parasitic organisms which defend themselves.
Well, previously people have spent countless hours on routines.
Nowadays the biggest blocker for progress in the companies are (the lack of) well defined strategy and good planing. Companies pay money to retain the talent that they would need right after they figure out what's the priority right now.
[deleted]
Crazy to read this on two hours sleep in two days because of startup deadlines
Good point, OP describes "firms" e.g. large established organizations, and ignores early stage startups for the most part. I think that fact and your comment illuminate another reason for the high salaries - namely:
A huge raison detre to create and sustain a "firm" in the first place is stability. That stability extends on all fronts - stable base of customers, stable base of revenue, stable base of shareholder returns, and stable base of compensation for employees. Therefore, it is expected that there would be some looseness/slip/"irrationally high" or however you want to think about it, in the salaries. An early-stage startup by comparison is dealing with a different problem and purpose.
A huge raison detre to create and sustain a "firm" in the first place is stability. That stability extends on all fronts - stable base of customers, stable base of revenue, stable base of shareholder returns, and stable base of compensation for employees. Therefore, it is expected that there would be some looseness/slip/"irrationally high" or however you want to think about it, in the salaries. An early-stage startup by comparison is dealing with a different problem and purpose.
And stable labor availability for high load periods, even if rare.
This might be kind of tangential, but—if people are working pretty hard at early stage start-ups with the intent of having their start-up bought (presumably by a large company), then the large companies must be doing something, right? Clearly the startup employees think it is worthwhile to create a good product (the company to be bought). Which means they think there will be some reward based on the quality of the start-up they create. Which means they think the large company has some way of distinguishing between high and low quality start-ups.
That’s a thing the corporation does, I guess.
That’s a thing the corporation does, I guess.
Seriously, my last two roles at startups have been the most work of my career (including earlier work at startups). Everyone I know is pretty frequently working nights and weekends to make sure everything gets shipped. The “mindless code” is mostly written by AI so, at least for me, most of the code I’m writing requires a white board to work out that the math is correct. At the other end of my current company people are physically managing warehouses; certainly looks like work to me.
I’ve had cushy jobs that the author is mistaking for “all jobs”, but my experience is that these places are in decline and when layoffs come, get ready to work hard if you want another job.
I’ve had cushy jobs that the author is mistaking for “all jobs”, but my experience is that these places are in decline and when layoffs come, get ready to work hard if you want another job.
Once you pass 1000 engineering headcount, this starts to happen.
Especially once the org is old enough that the 2-year tenure people start to be in the 50th percentile of seniority.
Especially once the org is old enough that the 2-year tenure people start to be in the 50th percentile of seniority.
Crazy to read this managing 6 soon to be 7 projects at a startup but actually just working like 20 hours a week
I checked and my average over the last 3 months is 5hr16min *(cry emoji)
You should be getting a full 8. Dont neglect your health at this age. Youth is one thing you cannot get back.
I'm trying desperately, trust. I also have central sleep apnea, its very hard.
> Most of his time is spent mindlessly coding
Okay. So he’s working. What do you want exactly?
Okay. So he’s working. What do you want exactly?
[deleted]
As a product design director who runs teams where each individual is responsible for 100s of millions in revenue I can promise you. Every person on my team is working all the time.
Most of your analysis comes from low motivation grunt level coders here. Then beyond that you classify everything that isn’t deep breakthroughs not work.
Are a lot of engineers at big tech under utilized? Yes because they are often last on the line do what their told types. Could they do more? Sure. Are they not working? No.
This essays is at best naive, and at worst laughably stupid.
Most of your analysis comes from low motivation grunt level coders here. Then beyond that you classify everything that isn’t deep breakthroughs not work.
Are a lot of engineers at big tech under utilized? Yes because they are often last on the line do what their told types. Could they do more? Sure. Are they not working? No.
This essays is at best naive, and at worst laughably stupid.
> The clients love Brenda – she is young and in tune with Gen Z culture. She offers unique insights like “Instagram DMs are out” and “Being cringe is cool”. Her boomer clients run every piece of marketing material by her to avoid the never-ending cultural landmines and to be perceived as cool.
Maybe I'm getting old and out of touch myself, so maybe someone marketing-adjacent can tell me: is this sort of person actually real and employed in a typical corporation these days? This sounds like an obnoxious minor character in a poorly written Netflix Original.
Maybe I'm getting old and out of touch myself, so maybe someone marketing-adjacent can tell me: is this sort of person actually real and employed in a typical corporation these days? This sounds like an obnoxious minor character in a poorly written Netflix Original.
Maybe I am out of touch, but I don’t believe token gen Z influencer is a highly paid job like SWE is.
There are lots of do nothing jobs out there (bureaucrat, HR, excel guru, receptionist, etc) where you can coast doing maybe an hour of real work per day, but you are not getting paid the $100k-$300k the article quotes.
You can find out there SWE jobs around $100k that you can get away with doing nothing as the organizations tend to not be technically strong and therefore the organization is not able to or does not measure your output. I used to work in such a job, but got bored and wanted more money. I climbed several rungs up the salary ladder, but now my output is much more carefully measured and I do actually have to work the full day. I think the jobs that pay $300k and you don’t have to work are basically nonexistent now, that was a product of zirp. Maybe back in 2022 you could get a cushy job and rake it in, but not any longer.
There are lots of do nothing jobs out there (bureaucrat, HR, excel guru, receptionist, etc) where you can coast doing maybe an hour of real work per day, but you are not getting paid the $100k-$300k the article quotes.
You can find out there SWE jobs around $100k that you can get away with doing nothing as the organizations tend to not be technically strong and therefore the organization is not able to or does not measure your output. I used to work in such a job, but got bored and wanted more money. I climbed several rungs up the salary ladder, but now my output is much more carefully measured and I do actually have to work the full day. I think the jobs that pay $300k and you don’t have to work are basically nonexistent now, that was a product of zirp. Maybe back in 2022 you could get a cushy job and rake it in, but not any longer.
Both quotes are real.
This phenomenon has nothing to do with the details of the anecdotes and everything to do with Coase's ceiling. This is the threshold above which an organization is paralyzed by internal friction and can no longer execute any mission; all it can do is just be an organization. The anecdotes follow from the realization that everything the organization does is meaningless, therefore "LOL nothing matters".
Is there any actual basis for any of what you wrote? Or are we supposed to think that your manufactured examples and numbers reflect reality for any reason?
[deleted]
> 1000x employees are present in all companies
There are 168 hours in a week, which is the max available for 1000x robots. So by OP's definition, a typical 1x employee works only for 10,08 minutes, and TikToks the rest of the week.
There are 168 hours in a week, which is the max available for 1000x robots. So by OP's definition, a typical 1x employee works only for 10,08 minutes, and TikToks the rest of the week.
[deleted]
What an interesting article I have no idea what to do with.
Now we're introducing the notion of a 1000x employee? I call BS. The 10x employee is a bit of a unicorn, but I have known such people and the biggest thing I've noticed about them is their ability to identify BS work and not work on it and thus carve out time to focus on bigger issues whose solutions really propel the organization or project forward.
The reasons not everybody can be this 10x employee is two-fold:
1. People are content with busy work just to appear busy and don't really care if they get anything meaningful accomplished.
2. For those who are better at managing their time to focus on more impactful issues, they lack the ability to actually resolve those issues in a way that has meaningful impact.
That's why the 10x employee is so difficult to find. But a 1000x employee? Get out of here!
The reasons not everybody can be this 10x employee is two-fold:
1. People are content with busy work just to appear busy and don't really care if they get anything meaningful accomplished.
2. For those who are better at managing their time to focus on more impactful issues, they lack the ability to actually resolve those issues in a way that has meaningful impact.
That's why the 10x employee is so difficult to find. But a 1000x employee? Get out of here!
I once optimized some configs around dm-crypt block devices which increased IO throughput by 15-20% across tens of thousands of nodes. I am maybe 1 of 2 people at the company who could have done the profiling and implemented the optimization. That change was about a day or two of work for me.
I think there actually exists infinity-X employees which perform work that could not be done by infinity 1x engineers. At some level, deep technical experience is not something that can be achieved by throwing more engineers at it.
So depending on how you define it, I do legitimately think 1000x engineers exist.
I think there actually exists infinity-X employees which perform work that could not be done by infinity 1x engineers. At some level, deep technical experience is not something that can be achieved by throwing more engineers at it.
So depending on how you define it, I do legitimately think 1000x engineers exist.
Is this AI-generated conspiracy theory slop? Does this even say anything? At all?
Making up a guy to get mad at [longform]
[deleted]
What is mindlessly coding and how does that work? Seems like the author is dismissive of meetings and some coding tasks.