High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours(wsj.com)
wsj.com
High-Earning Men Are Cutting Back on Their Working Hours
https://www.wsj.com/articles/high-earning-men-are-cutting-back-on-their-working-hours-11674697563
299 comments
i'm tired of creating a disproportionate amount of value and reaping the same rewards and allowances as everyone else because anything more would be seen as unfair. no thanks. if the value i'm creating isn't directly correlated with my earnings, i'll go do something else.
I am feeling the same way.
Finished last year with the exact same performance review scores as my coworker..
someone who admits to never checking emails, ignoring assigned bugs, and refusing to check the ticketing system.
After hearing this person bragging about 'being an asshole stops people from asking him to do work' and the getting the same raise I did has caused me to rethink my work methods.
It is difficult to change, but being a hard working people pleaser seems to be no longer valued.
After hearing this person bragging about 'being an asshole stops people from asking him to do work' and the getting the same raise I did has caused me to rethink my work methods.
It is difficult to change, but being a hard working people pleaser seems to be no longer valued.
It never was valued. The circumstances didn’t change; the collective delusion is simply evaporating (“quiet quitting” colloquially). It was always about shareholder value.
You don’t get paid for working hard, you get paid at the intersection of what you can project as value delivered and what comp your employer is willing to part with to retain your role.
And if you’re working hard and not seeing more comp, why are you working hard? If you enjoy it, by all means, proceed. But don’t be shocked when others are optimizing for a paycheck alone. It is an economically rational decision.
You don’t get paid for working hard, you get paid at the intersection of what you can project as value delivered and what comp your employer is willing to part with to retain your role.
And if you’re working hard and not seeing more comp, why are you working hard? If you enjoy it, by all means, proceed. But don’t be shocked when others are optimizing for a paycheck alone. It is an economically rational decision.
You do that John Galt.
> we have now learned about the harm caused by absentee fathers
Can you expand on this, references etc? Up until now, I've only heard about the (substantial) harm caused by fatherless homes / single mothers (maybe single parents? not sure, it might be too small sample for single fathers).
Can you expand on this, references etc? Up until now, I've only heard about the (substantial) harm caused by fatherless homes / single mothers (maybe single parents? not sure, it might be too small sample for single fathers).
Traditionally the term absentee refers to a parent who is completely absent, or nearly so. However, there's a growing body of research into parents who are emotionally distant or unavailable. Especially as phones have enabled us to be present at work 24/7, which necessarily comes at cost to those who are physically present but ignored, it makes sense to examine the impact that can have on children.
A few hits for "emotionally distant parent research"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36176325/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14330237.2015.10...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319684673_Emotional...
A few hits for "emotionally distant parent research"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36176325/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14330237.2015.10...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319684673_Emotional...
I recall reading studies that suggested it was not the quantity of time spent with parents but the quality that seemed to correlate with long term results. Provided the actual needs of the child were taken care of by someone.
Hiring people in this current climate hurts shareholder value. It’ll be a long winter before that changes. Be prepared for employers to start blaming everyone internally when metrics aren’t met.
It will hurt even more if they don't hire and see those wages and demands for sustainable work loads as inconveniences to get rid of.
> "High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back, often by choice"
This seems like great news. I know several guys who've recently opted to earn less in exchange for more time off at home with their young kids. They are happier and the kids love it.
This seems like great news. I know several guys who've recently opted to earn less in exchange for more time off at home with their young kids. They are happier and the kids love it.
the last sentence of the article hints at the real reason it was written in the first place:
>But as staff cut back their hours, it costs medical organizations money
it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. I think the pandemic had a large effect on people in terms of
1. Having to face potential mortality much earlier than expected and thus putting lower priority on long term career stuff
2. Gave lots of people a glimpse of how much they miss out on due to commuting and being in office when in reality they can do most of their work from home and get benefits like more time with family, more time for hobbies, etc.
>But as staff cut back their hours, it costs medical organizations money
it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. I think the pandemic had a large effect on people in terms of
1. Having to face potential mortality much earlier than expected and thus putting lower priority on long term career stuff
2. Gave lots of people a glimpse of how much they miss out on due to commuting and being in office when in reality they can do most of their work from home and get benefits like more time with family, more time for hobbies, etc.
Companies have had numerous ways of tweaking engagement for office workers which are no longer effective. These tweaks ranged from mildly positive too awful. I suspect that people who were at firms using these tweaks are starting to simply find their own balance based on what they can/want to deliver relative to peers.
- Have team events/other activities which encourage the team to stay late at the office for social reasons.
- Off-sites where everyone is in the same place for 3-5 days.
- Stop by peoples desks and check on what they are working on.
- Walk around and see who has an editor open, ping people who don't for progress reports.
- Check if employees are actually putting in 8+ hours per day. Assign more work to those who seem to be leaving early.
In the remote world you really can't tell how many hours people are putting in. Some engineers do 12 hour days.. some do 4 hours. Some do 12 hours but get nothing done.
- Have team events/other activities which encourage the team to stay late at the office for social reasons.
- Off-sites where everyone is in the same place for 3-5 days.
- Stop by peoples desks and check on what they are working on.
- Walk around and see who has an editor open, ping people who don't for progress reports.
- Check if employees are actually putting in 8+ hours per day. Assign more work to those who seem to be leaving early.
In the remote world you really can't tell how many hours people are putting in. Some engineers do 12 hour days.. some do 4 hours. Some do 12 hours but get nothing done.
It is tried, my friends who do insurance sales have software on their laptops that monitors mouse and keyboard activity. Which leads people to buying usb sticks that send out fake mouse movements :)
They’re called “mouse jigglers.” I imagine sales have skyrocketed since the start of the pandemic.
It’s not their potential mortality. It is their mortality. Very real, and always imminent.
Once it stops becoming a “potential” thing, and it’s accepted as reality, then you start making real choices.
The outcome is telling but not surprising. It’s among the oldest human wisdom.
Once it stops becoming a “potential” thing, and it’s accepted as reality, then you start making real choices.
The outcome is telling but not surprising. It’s among the oldest human wisdom.
Doesn't everyone wonder if they're the first immortal to be born?
Is being certain of one's im/mortality similar to the Halting Problem?
I have found no evidence against it to date
Ahh, "immortality" strictly defined.
Mayhaps you have found evidence that you are not the earliest-born person to have eternal youth?
Mayhaps you have found evidence that you are not the earliest-born person to have eternal youth?
Yes, all the way until age 40. Then, reality.
That sounds like it is biased towards people who haven't lost their parents by age 40. For people (like me) who have lost a parent before hitting the age of 40 it becomes more real sooner.
I assume clarge1120 meant that people feel immortal until 40 because their body generally does not stop them from doing things until one’s 40s.
Hmm it seemed unclear. I guess I am totally unlucky as im 35 and my body is already acting that way.
Why no, the first immortal was born months before me.
Scientifically speaking, the human death rate is a surprisingly low 93%. This is the obvious calculation: the number of people who died divided by the number who were born.
>> it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work.
That depends on how many of these jobs are positional and therefore cannot be easily supplemented. In my kneck of the woods we are having an issue with judges. There are only so many jobs for judges. But in recent years more than half of them switched to reduced hours. That lost time cannot be just replaced with a part-timer. This is probably true for many senior doctors too. Not every profession has a substitute pool of qualified people to step in every time a senior person decides to not work Fridays.
That depends on how many of these jobs are positional and therefore cannot be easily supplemented. In my kneck of the woods we are having an issue with judges. There are only so many jobs for judges. But in recent years more than half of them switched to reduced hours. That lost time cannot be just replaced with a part-timer. This is probably true for many senior doctors too. Not every profession has a substitute pool of qualified people to step in every time a senior person decides to not work Fridays.
Is this artificial scarcity created by licensing associations?
For doctors, yes. For lawyers (the primary source of judges), not really.
There is a scarcity of judges created by (lack of) funding for courts. Which effectively erodes people's sixth amendment rights too.
There is a scarcity of judges created by (lack of) funding for courts. Which effectively erodes people's sixth amendment rights too.
> But more than half of them have switched to reduced hours.
Why are they switching to reduced hours? This sounds like the value/output equation is out of line. Why not pay more, or hire more judges to reduce the workload?
Why are they switching to reduced hours? This sounds like the value/output equation is out of line. Why not pay more, or hire more judges to reduce the workload?
A judgeship is often a specific job. They are paid good money and, like tenured professors, cannot have their salary easily reduced. It's like being the mayor of a town. If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference. Their income is protected. There can be only one.
> If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference.
You can vote them out; judges can be imoeached for nonperformance. You can increase the number of positions for judges (mayors are obviously different) to account for trends in capacity, to the extent that the reduced hours are appropriate and nonabusive. Etc.
You can vote them out; judges can be imoeached for nonperformance. You can increase the number of positions for judges (mayors are obviously different) to account for trends in capacity, to the extent that the reduced hours are appropriate and nonabusive. Etc.
… or the Mayor could hire a more capable city manager.
The obvious answer to this is not to allow the reduced hours - either do the full job, or do something else. Not exactly progressive, but then there aren't many jobs with these special conditions, so that's fine.
>> not to allow the reduced hours
Lol. Try telling a pregnant judge that she cannot reduce her in-the-office hours. Or a judge suffering long covid. Or an older judge with medical issues. The dynamic is very different when dealing with very senior and qualified people, especially ones unafraid of courtrooms. And any elected judges are basically untouchable.
Lol. Try telling a pregnant judge that she cannot reduce her in-the-office hours. Or a judge suffering long covid. Or an older judge with medical issues. The dynamic is very different when dealing with very senior and qualified people, especially ones unafraid of courtrooms. And any elected judges are basically untouchable.
This sounds like a specific cultural peculiarity - there should be no reason why judges aren't replaceable with temporary cover from further afield, or "understudies". I appreciate that might not be realistic in the US where judges are quasi-political figures, but that is a problem with your legal system, not a jobs problem.
>doing less unpaid work
Even with official work hours only, it's cheaper to hire, train, and manage one person for 40 hours a week than two people.
Even with official work hours only, it's cheaper to hire, train, and manage one person for 40 hours a week than two people.
I had 9 months off and then went down to three days/week 3 years ago, after the birth of my first child. Definitely happier, the kids love it, and both parents are less tired so we have more quality time. Also it turned out having kids are way cheaper than I thought so long as you're happy to buy everything second hand and don't need to pay for much childcare.
One reason for the decision was I figured in 20 years looking back, I doubt I'll regret sacrificing my career (to some degree), but I can imagine I'd seriously regret missing out on the time with my kids, which you can never get back.
Before I had kids, I remember someone on a podcast saying some thing like 'I'd give anything to go back and have another day with my kids when they were young'. It had quite a big impact on me, and I still think about it often (especially when we're having a hard day!)
One reason for the decision was I figured in 20 years looking back, I doubt I'll regret sacrificing my career (to some degree), but I can imagine I'd seriously regret missing out on the time with my kids, which you can never get back.
Before I had kids, I remember someone on a podcast saying some thing like 'I'd give anything to go back and have another day with my kids when they were young'. It had quite a big impact on me, and I still think about it often (especially when we're having a hard day!)
The impact of your decision will grow with time. Always getting better. The upside is immense. The downside is that very few people will understand or share your experience.
I have been deeply considering going part time to pursue a passion project that will likely never generate income but will at least leave me creatively satisfied in a way that a big tech gig never could.
I just had this conversation with a potential employer yesterday. I have worked hard at not working so hard (seeing a therapist for life coaching) and I am "guarding my calm" with looking for a job.
I see job postings with "must be able to multitask" and "high intensity environment" and I think the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back.
It's common knowledge - or should be - multitasking is a productivity loss, not gain. And the last thing the world needs is another headless-chicken culture where working hard and frantic is confused with smart and efficient.
Guard your calm...no one else will.
It's common knowledge - or should be - multitasking is a productivity loss, not gain. And the last thing the world needs is another headless-chicken culture where working hard and frantic is confused with smart and efficient.
Guard your calm...no one else will.
There will always be a need for some multi-taskers. Some are better at it than others. Not everyone is the same. Office secretaries/assistants/receptionists are the heartbeat of any business.
It's still a productivity killer. Full stop.
And unless the work is literally a matter of life or death, then excessive multitasking - to point you list it as a desired skill - is simply a sign of poor planning, poor priority setting, and so on.
The job ad might as well say, "Must enjoy working at a shit show, or at least has had a life-long dream of working at a circus."
And unless the work is literally a matter of life or death, then excessive multitasking - to point you list it as a desired skill - is simply a sign of poor planning, poor priority setting, and so on.
The job ad might as well say, "Must enjoy working at a shit show, or at least has had a life-long dream of working at a circus."
ahhh, but the planning and priority setting is a part of the multi-tasking. No one said multi-tasking must be a circus. That said, I am terrible at multi-tasking. But we really do need to do some to some degree.
My line manager multitasks so I don't have to.
You can't multitask deep work.
So what? Must work is not deep work.
Well, it's not (read: can't be)...if you're always multitasking.
Multitasking from the brain's POV is intensive and a form of distraction. If it's work, then chances are some level of focus and attentiveness is required.
Deep or not, work is work. And focusing the brain to be not-what-it's-wired-to-be is a proven fool's errand.
Multitasking from the brain's POV is intensive and a form of distraction. If it's work, then chances are some level of focus and attentiveness is required.
Deep or not, work is work. And focusing the brain to be not-what-it's-wired-to-be is a proven fool's errand.
We all know that multitasking reduces productivity, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's better to optimize for low latency instead of high throughput.
True, but you've mixed up the wording. Throughput is the word for speed at which the team delivers complete things, so you could say, "Sometimes optimising for low latency will cause higher throughput than optimising for personal efficiency."
Also sometimes your work is frequently stalled waiting on outside inputs (documentation reviews, approvals, client decisions etc.) If so you can’t just sit around waiting for the thing, you need to do something productive in the meantime.
What are some strategies for guarding your calm that have worked for the HN crowd?
With the risk of being fired, pushing back and saying no if your plate is full is an okay stategy. I think the stated risk is worth it
"the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back."
This phrase made me laugh out loud - literally. Thanks for this!
Also, this thread is spot on.
This phrase made me laugh out loud - literally. Thanks for this!
Also, this thread is spot on.
I am so glad the trend of bragging about multitasking from a decade or two ago has died out. I can't think of a bigger productivity killer that constantly context switching. I just quit a job and a lot of it was down to that, the system was so buggy that I could never focus for long before something broke and needed looking at.
The decline, by my math, is from 55 hours to 50 hours a week.
edit: Oops, that 5 hour decline is for the highest 10% of workers, not the highest 10% of earners.
Given that they are discussing the hours worked by people making 90th percentile income, I wonder how much of the shift is due to changes in the population that ends up being in the top 10% (there's similar declines in the 80th and 70th deciles, which sort of points away from that concern).
The guy in the article cutting back to 60-70 was and still is an outlier (during short weeks, still a long workday a week more than the mean).
edit: Oops, that 5 hour decline is for the highest 10% of workers, not the highest 10% of earners.
Given that they are discussing the hours worked by people making 90th percentile income, I wonder how much of the shift is due to changes in the population that ends up being in the top 10% (there's similar declines in the 80th and 70th deciles, which sort of points away from that concern).
The guy in the article cutting back to 60-70 was and still is an outlier (during short weeks, still a long workday a week more than the mean).
The linked article works hard to provide only meaningless personal anecdotes and promote speculation to avoid any actual answers while pushing pre-selected agendas. AKA, journalism in a nutshell. Sadly typical. Which is why almost no one reads that stuff anymore and no one takes it seriously anymore.
As a member of the group in question, I find the data easy to believe. Its less than two weeks work on average. If I get a new job its "normal" for me to take a week or three off, its all voluntary, I could see how in a court of law or as a weapon of propaganda my experience could get spun into being a part of the story.
As a member of the group in question, I find the data easy to believe. Its less than two weeks work on average. If I get a new job its "normal" for me to take a week or three off, its all voluntary, I could see how in a court of law or as a weapon of propaganda my experience could get spun into being a part of the story.
>The linked article ....
The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need.
> Which is why almost no one reads that stuff
Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead.
When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833
The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need.
> Which is why almost no one reads that stuff
Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead.
When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833
Hmm you've inspired an idea. For stories like this, wish there was some browser extension that would link the study (maybe through user submitted content?) That way, users can avoid clicking the link altogether and just go read the study.
The problem is most people aren’t qualified to correctly interpret scientific studies. Even if the abstracts are written in laypeople terms, the studies often contain important nuances.
In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…
In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…
Your issues are not really resolvable. The nuances are complex, so you either need to cover enough depth to convey the accuracy, which will lose or bore too many readers, or you dumb it down enough to make it consumable by less sophisticated readers, and lose the nuance.
And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.
And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.
The article was mostly quoting statistics from a linked study in the beginning, only quoting a few people to get a feel for why this may have changed. Anyway, people taking time off between jobs only applies to people who actually swapped jobs. Unless job hoppers started taking a month off it’s not going to result in these numbers:
The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market logged 77 fewer work hours in 2022, on average, than those in the same earnings group in 2019, according to a new study of federal data by the economics department at Washington University in St. Louis. That translates to 1.5 hours less time on the job each workweek, or a 3% reduction in hours.
The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market logged 77 fewer work hours in 2022, on average, than those in the same earnings group in 2019, according to a new study of federal data by the economics department at Washington University in St. Louis. That translates to 1.5 hours less time on the job each workweek, or a 3% reduction in hours.
[deleted]
Controversial opinion:
Men are concluding that women don’t care about money as much as they used to, and having an amazing career to snag a great woman is no longer the best (or even a good) strategy. In some ways, being a dedicated corporate employee makes you unattractive as a person.
I know a lot of guys in their late 20s that think this. And I know a lot of broke bar tenders dating great women.
Unless you are making huge money (> 600k), corporate careers steal from your life and the development of your personality
Incentive structures in society have changed, we are witnessing it in real time
Men are concluding that women don’t care about money as much as they used to, and having an amazing career to snag a great woman is no longer the best (or even a good) strategy. In some ways, being a dedicated corporate employee makes you unattractive as a person.
I know a lot of guys in their late 20s that think this. And I know a lot of broke bar tenders dating great women.
Unless you are making huge money (> 600k), corporate careers steal from your life and the development of your personality
Incentive structures in society have changed, we are witnessing it in real time
Nearsighted view that's probably not common among those raised with a long term values perspective.
Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating.
The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either.
And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in your 20s to someone who can buy a house and support a family in your 30s.
So what I hear in this story, is maybe someone who would otherwise do 130% to go from "director" to "senior director", doing 120% instead so they can play with their kid and extra few hours a week.
It's a very different choice than opting into broke loserdom.
Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating.
The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either.
And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in your 20s to someone who can buy a house and support a family in your 30s.
So what I hear in this story, is maybe someone who would otherwise do 130% to go from "director" to "senior director", doing 120% instead so they can play with their kid and extra few hours a week.
It's a very different choice than opting into broke loserdom.
I’d also argue that for young men - unless you’re an absolute unit and breathtakingly handsome… you’re always going to need to make more than your partner for a long term relationship. Being a bartender or taking a lower wage job is a surefire way to only being able to sleep around.
I’ve only met a few women who earn more than their spouse and can actually only think of one off the top of my head. Every other couple has the husband making significantly more even if their ages are exactly the same.
I’ve only met a few women who earn more than their spouse and can actually only think of one off the top of my head. Every other couple has the husband making significantly more even if their ages are exactly the same.
Yup.
When I met my girlfriend she was really clear that she didn't want to date someone who didn't have a similar level of accomplishment to her. It wasn't about money entirely, but money was a part of it.
She has a master's degree and manages a department of people at a fairly big company.
I only have a bachelor, and I don't manage people, but I earn more than her. So I guess it balances out?
She would never date a barista. Not because there is something wrong with being a barista, but I think because what she was looking for was a partner, and it's hard tp be partners if there is a large "success" imbalance between you.
Men are much more willing to "date down" imo because it's culturally more ingrained into us. Women used to not be able to own much, so the expectation was that men "date down" for a long time! We like to think that's all gone away now but it's still very much ingrained into our culture I think.
When I met my girlfriend she was really clear that she didn't want to date someone who didn't have a similar level of accomplishment to her. It wasn't about money entirely, but money was a part of it.
She has a master's degree and manages a department of people at a fairly big company.
I only have a bachelor, and I don't manage people, but I earn more than her. So I guess it balances out?
She would never date a barista. Not because there is something wrong with being a barista, but I think because what she was looking for was a partner, and it's hard tp be partners if there is a large "success" imbalance between you.
Men are much more willing to "date down" imo because it's culturally more ingrained into us. Women used to not be able to own much, so the expectation was that men "date down" for a long time! We like to think that's all gone away now but it's still very much ingrained into our culture I think.
Wow, I am sorry your girlfriend has such superficial values.
I don't think that "I want a partner who works as hard as I do to succeed" is superficial.
I think "I want a partner who is at least 6 feet tall" is superficial.
I think "I want a partner who is at least 6 feet tall" is superficial.
Low blow, dude!
Kids are a big consideration whether you know it or not. An ambitious professional has better odds of not making time for that, and unfortunately due to biology and the effects of parental leaves this is quite one-sided still. Getting better lately, but still imbalanced.
Kids are not in the picture whether we wanted to or not.
Really what it boiled down to for her is that she worked very hard to get where she was and if the choice was between dating someone who would be semi-dependent on her versus bring single, she'd have stayed single.
She didn't want to be paying for the majority of the house, the car, the groceries, the bills, etc.
Really what it boiled down to for her is that she worked very hard to get where she was and if the choice was between dating someone who would be semi-dependent on her versus bring single, she'd have stayed single.
She didn't want to be paying for the majority of the house, the car, the groceries, the bills, etc.
It's just different preferences. Men select on beauty and women select on success.
All of my higher earning men friends are married to similar higher earning (or accomplished) women, or they are single.
Maybe at the very high earning end, some are okay with an extremely attractive woman for the sake of being attractive, but from what I can tell in the engineer/lawyer/doctor/business owner demographic, people generally want someone at a similar achievement level (or at least that can pretend to be).
In my immigrant diaspora, I can see the change between older cousins married off in 90s and early 2000s, and younger ones married in the last decade. The older ones frequently have stay at home moms that never had a career. Almost all the younger couples are dual working professionals, with even men eschewing a partner completely if they cannot land a similar working partner.
Maybe at the very high earning end, some are okay with an extremely attractive woman for the sake of being attractive, but from what I can tell in the engineer/lawyer/doctor/business owner demographic, people generally want someone at a similar achievement level (or at least that can pretend to be).
In my immigrant diaspora, I can see the change between older cousins married off in 90s and early 2000s, and younger ones married in the last decade. The older ones frequently have stay at home moms that never had a career. Almost all the younger couples are dual working professionals, with even men eschewing a partner completely if they cannot land a similar working partner.
As long as she sticks by you if an accident befalls you and your career prospects shift to disability then I have no concerns with your partner's stance here.
Otherwise, "money is a part of it" takes a bit of a weirder tone, ya know? Life happens to people. Health issues are guaranteed to come up. Sometimes it's by chance and that's hardly the time for a life partner to abandon you due to perceived misalignment in values.
Otherwise, "money is a part of it" takes a bit of a weirder tone, ya know? Life happens to people. Health issues are guaranteed to come up. Sometimes it's by chance and that's hardly the time for a life partner to abandon you due to perceived misalignment in values.
Yes, that's a fair point.
However, I think someone is allowed to have certain standards when first looking for a partner, and a different set of standards after a meaningful relationship has developed.
However, I think someone is allowed to have certain standards when first looking for a partner, and a different set of standards after a meaningful relationship has developed.
"Success" is a part of it but that usually comes packaged with other things like similar level of education and similar type of things the two find interesting. Income is a good (but far from perfect) indicator of social compatibility.
I think “success” is also just code for class - to a large extent.
People I’ve known who mention wanting someone “successful” were often looking for Ivy League, rich family, etc. It often had little to do with accomplishments of their own doing and mostly to do with being from the same socioeconomic class/upbringing.
This is why guys pulling good money in blue collar work aren’t often getting women from educated backgrounds - even if they have all the markers of what success would mean to most people.
It’s classism - typically.
People I’ve known who mention wanting someone “successful” were often looking for Ivy League, rich family, etc. It often had little to do with accomplishments of their own doing and mostly to do with being from the same socioeconomic class/upbringing.
This is why guys pulling good money in blue collar work aren’t often getting women from educated backgrounds - even if they have all the markers of what success would mean to most people.
It’s classism - typically.
Maybe so, but like the person you're replying to said, there's a lot of other indicators about social compatibility.
For instance my city has a lot of blue collar workers making pretty good money, but as a group they have a terrible reputation. Tons of drug abuse and wasteful spending habits.
If you're looking for a dude to party with and who owns quads and snowmobiles and can afford to live large and wants to live large, you probably could date those guys.
And of course there are probably some that absolutely do not follow that behavior trend.
But if you're looking for a more responsible person who lives a quieter life, you're probably better off avoiding the rig pigs.
For instance my city has a lot of blue collar workers making pretty good money, but as a group they have a terrible reputation. Tons of drug abuse and wasteful spending habits.
If you're looking for a dude to party with and who owns quads and snowmobiles and can afford to live large and wants to live large, you probably could date those guys.
And of course there are probably some that absolutely do not follow that behavior trend.
But if you're looking for a more responsible person who lives a quieter life, you're probably better off avoiding the rig pigs.
Generally, that's just classism though. There are a ton of dudes in that work who are wanting to come home to a family. This doesn't change that the women don't want to be with those guys because what they do isn't considered educated work and isn't considered high status.
I mean - are we really going to ignore how poorly doctors spend their money? (doctors are notorious for living paycheck to paycheck!) What about guys in finance in NYC who waste all their money on hookers and blow? This is such a ridiculous argument.
People who spend in ways that many women don't want to exist everywhere. The way they spend the money is just different.
But if a man wants the same things that some other woman wants and she has a PhD and grew up in a rich family and he's only been working in the trades and is from a poorer background - she's not going to get with him even if he makes good money and has all the normal non-class-based traits that she wants from a partner. It's purely classism. I see this shit all the time. I know a lot of women like that - especially in NYC and SF.
I mean - are we really going to ignore how poorly doctors spend their money? (doctors are notorious for living paycheck to paycheck!) What about guys in finance in NYC who waste all their money on hookers and blow? This is such a ridiculous argument.
People who spend in ways that many women don't want to exist everywhere. The way they spend the money is just different.
But if a man wants the same things that some other woman wants and she has a PhD and grew up in a rich family and he's only been working in the trades and is from a poorer background - she's not going to get with him even if he makes good money and has all the normal non-class-based traits that she wants from a partner. It's purely classism. I see this shit all the time. I know a lot of women like that - especially in NYC and SF.
I think this gets at the crux of the thing I'm talking about.
Some people, compatibility is the most important thing. They want someone they can do everything together with, so they have to have very similar interests and day-to-day wants.
For me and my partner, we both wanted someone who wanted similar long-term things and were working hard to accomplish those things. We had very little activities in common when we started dating. I like videogames and DnD, she has very little interest in either. But we've found other things that we love to do together instead of only just adopting the things we both already liked.
Some people, compatibility is the most important thing. They want someone they can do everything together with, so they have to have very similar interests and day-to-day wants.
For me and my partner, we both wanted someone who wanted similar long-term things and were working hard to accomplish those things. We had very little activities in common when we started dating. I like videogames and DnD, she has very little interest in either. But we've found other things that we love to do together instead of only just adopting the things we both already liked.
I can think of several. It’s becoming quite common as significantly more women have been getting degrees than men.
Guys with flexible jobs and domestic skills can be very appealing to high income earning women. At one end a friend was doing raft tours and became a cook. A higher pay and status example is a PHD taking care of high end lab equipment married to a high end lawyer. I also know of several cases of women inheriting large sums and windows.
I think it’s fairly common you just rarely know, my grandfather’s second wife was much better off and I had no idea until someone told me.
Guys with flexible jobs and domestic skills can be very appealing to high income earning women. At one end a friend was doing raft tours and became a cook. A higher pay and status example is a PHD taking care of high end lab equipment married to a high end lawyer. I also know of several cases of women inheriting large sums and windows.
I think it’s fairly common you just rarely know, my grandfather’s second wife was much better off and I had no idea until someone told me.
I would guess that people date mostly "inside" their social bubble (or with a similar social prestige). A broke bartender probably did not go to university etc. and therefore the background is different to the accomplished women with an MBA. There should be studies about it, maybe there's a way to make the conversation more fact based? For example, all relationships formed at work will probably lead to similar backgrounds.
This in itself is a huge problem and addressing it requires some combination of: (i) regulation backed up with investigations and significant fines for violation; (ii) transparency into pay equity; (iii) corporate action, optimally because it’s the right thing, but pessimistically because you can’t ignore the prior two points.
Why is it a huge problem?
Why is it normal or acceptable that men earn more than women? It’s been studied for a long time and there’s evidence [1] of some closure across recent censuses, but we’re far from done.
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/what-is-the-g...
[1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/03/what-is-the-g...
> Why is it normal
It was the norm for generations because women didn't work at all and men were expected to earn all of the money for themselves and their family.
We are not as far removed from those days as people would like to think, expecting the attitude to have completely gone away by now is very optimistic.
> Why is it acceptable
Why would it not be acceptable?
Even in a society with zero bias in favor of men in the workplace, it's still possible that men wind up earning more due to other factors than just bias.
If men are earning more than women doing the same job while all other factors are the same, then that's unfair.
If men are earning more because they are working more hours, or because they are taking more dangerous or undesirable jobs that women choose not to pursue, or if men are choosing higher paid industries more consistently, then that's not unfair. That's economics.
It was the norm for generations because women didn't work at all and men were expected to earn all of the money for themselves and their family.
We are not as far removed from those days as people would like to think, expecting the attitude to have completely gone away by now is very optimistic.
> Why is it acceptable
Why would it not be acceptable?
Even in a society with zero bias in favor of men in the workplace, it's still possible that men wind up earning more due to other factors than just bias.
If men are earning more than women doing the same job while all other factors are the same, then that's unfair.
If men are earning more because they are working more hours, or because they are taking more dangerous or undesirable jobs that women choose not to pursue, or if men are choosing higher paid industries more consistently, then that's not unfair. That's economics.
Woke people like you see discrimination even where there is none.
Even in situations where people are paid by algorithms (i.e. only based on the work they perform, regardless of their sex), men earn more than women because they simply try to earn more (i.e. they optimise for earnings).
"Study of Uber drivers finds men earn more than women — for three key reasons"
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-gender-pay-20180...
The article above doesn't discuss it, but another reason is that men work more; so for the same hourly wage ("equal pay for equal work"), men would still earn more.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-repo...
Even in situations where people are paid by algorithms (i.e. only based on the work they perform, regardless of their sex), men earn more than women because they simply try to earn more (i.e. they optimise for earnings).
"Study of Uber drivers finds men earn more than women — for three key reasons"
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-uber-gender-pay-20180...
The article above doesn't discuss it, but another reason is that men work more; so for the same hourly wage ("equal pay for equal work"), men would still earn more.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/karinagness/2016/06/30/new-repo...
I think you misunderstood the poster you replied to. He's not talking about any pay disparity, he's talking about women's preference for high earning men.
Obviously plenty of women earn more than plenty of men. They don't, as a rule, chose to marry those men.
Obviously plenty of women earn more than plenty of men. They don't, as a rule, chose to marry those men.
The parent comment was arguing that women choose to be with men who earn more than them. This was in no way a data point for wage inequality, which you seem to be implying.
Given that women on average don't earn that much less than men, it can't be that rare for women to earn more than their male partner
It's rare not due to women earning less than men, but due to women's preference to be single rather that be in a relationship with a man who earns less than them.
It may be overwhelmingly positive that women are not dependent on men financially, but it doesn't seem dating preferences and cultural norms have kept pace.
It may be overwhelmingly positive that women are not dependent on men financially, but it doesn't seem dating preferences and cultural norms have kept pace.
That the people in your life have led you to believe that a man’s romantic value comes from his appearance or relative income is only evidence that you need to meet better people. The reality is that women who feel that way are never going to be happy with anyone. You should check out the first chapter of Don’t Trust Your Gut if you want to know what really matters in a successful long term relationship.
I was nearly laughing out reading this comment. It's so materialistic and conservative. I bet if it was the other way around you wouldn't care since the women just needs to find itself the right man who can support her!
> Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating.
it's like you wouldn't believe women care about other aspects besides stable careers. It's not all just meaningless fun and adventure. I know (professional) bartenders personally, working in more sophisticated bars. They are all very social, easy to talk to and confident. I can understand how they are successful on the dating market and able to have meaningful relationships.
> The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either.
That's so condescending. Is it because you think all great women are already married when they are 30 and home looking after the kids?
> And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in your 20s to someone who can buy a house and support a family in your 30s.
We are not in the 50s anymore. The women can have the career and support the family! But why would a successful women date a bartender? Maybe love is not guided by your pay grade and people can date whomever they want. And even if money is tight, a happy family is still possible. My family I grew up in ticked all your boxes and it just didn't work out in the end. I guess you will also make all decisions since you bring the money into the family?
> So what I hear in this story, is maybe someone who would otherwise do 130% to go from "director" to "senior director", doing 120% instead so they can play with their kid and extra few hours a week.
> It's a very different choice than opting into broke loserdom.
That's just mean and so primitive that I am sitting here smiling. Have fun with your 120% corporate job! Though, I hope you will see your kids in between. Maybe you can squeeze in some quality 1on1 time on saturday between your 20% extra work. But I guess that you've got the biggest house in your street and your car is also more expensive, that's all that's important, right?
This comment just feels like you consider yourself the superior man and you want to show it.
> Being a broke bartender is maybe cute in your 20s and maybe they are enjoying the "great women" they are dating.
it's like you wouldn't believe women care about other aspects besides stable careers. It's not all just meaningless fun and adventure. I know (professional) bartenders personally, working in more sophisticated bars. They are all very social, easy to talk to and confident. I can understand how they are successful on the dating market and able to have meaningful relationships.
> The problem is - once you hit 30 and beyond, being a broke bartender ain't that cute, and the kind of women stuck dating them aren't that *great" either.
That's so condescending. Is it because you think all great women are already married when they are 30 and home looking after the kids?
> And there's no easy leap from a broke bartender in your 20s to someone who can buy a house and support a family in your 30s.
We are not in the 50s anymore. The women can have the career and support the family! But why would a successful women date a bartender? Maybe love is not guided by your pay grade and people can date whomever they want. And even if money is tight, a happy family is still possible. My family I grew up in ticked all your boxes and it just didn't work out in the end. I guess you will also make all decisions since you bring the money into the family?
> So what I hear in this story, is maybe someone who would otherwise do 130% to go from "director" to "senior director", doing 120% instead so they can play with their kid and extra few hours a week.
> It's a very different choice than opting into broke loserdom.
That's just mean and so primitive that I am sitting here smiling. Have fun with your 120% corporate job! Though, I hope you will see your kids in between. Maybe you can squeeze in some quality 1on1 time on saturday between your 20% extra work. But I guess that you've got the biggest house in your street and your car is also more expensive, that's all that's important, right?
This comment just feels like you consider yourself the superior man and you want to show it.
I appreciate that my post tickled you this way :) I think there are two differences between where you and I come from.
First, you are talking about which things are possible. I agree all of the things you describe are possible - and happen sometimes. My assertion is that the kind of relationship you describe is exceedingly rare - and even more rarely happy - especially later in life.
Second - my post is preconditioned on a values statement about the long term, which includes the desire of raising up a family into the next generation. That's a values thing, you don't have to buy into that, but empirically as people grow up, they either tend to find their way into having a family, or regret failing to do so.
So yeah it's not the 50s and people can do whatever they want. But people still often chose to structure their life a certain way and attain what seems like better outcomes (I am talking about family formation)
For what it's worth I also came from a broke home and as consequence it took me until almost 40 to find a path to a happy family life, but I am glad I did.
I don't assert that I am a superior man, but I do feel great about having a family, and my ability to provide for my wife and kids is a part of that. My wife recently brought up cutting back on her work (she's an emergency room physician) and I am happy that that's an option I can help her materialize if she wants to.
First, you are talking about which things are possible. I agree all of the things you describe are possible - and happen sometimes. My assertion is that the kind of relationship you describe is exceedingly rare - and even more rarely happy - especially later in life.
Second - my post is preconditioned on a values statement about the long term, which includes the desire of raising up a family into the next generation. That's a values thing, you don't have to buy into that, but empirically as people grow up, they either tend to find their way into having a family, or regret failing to do so.
So yeah it's not the 50s and people can do whatever they want. But people still often chose to structure their life a certain way and attain what seems like better outcomes (I am talking about family formation)
For what it's worth I also came from a broke home and as consequence it took me until almost 40 to find a path to a happy family life, but I am glad I did.
I don't assert that I am a superior man, but I do feel great about having a family, and my ability to provide for my wife and kids is a part of that. My wife recently brought up cutting back on her work (she's an emergency room physician) and I am happy that that's an option I can help her materialize if she wants to.
I love how you cannot imagine a world where the women is the high earned, pretty insanely conservative to me.
Typically women don't like to marry down in income and earning potential. When they do, it's done reluctantly because the clock is ticking or they're tired of being forever alone and have lowered their standards.
Anecdotally, I've yet to see a marriage in my peer group where the woman marries down to last more than a handful of years.
Men almost always have no problem marrying down in terms of income & earning potential, as long as their partner is otherwise supportive (i.e. not just using them).
(Obviously unless they're looking to do FIRE or DINK or something: i.e. where dual income, retire early is the life goal)
Anecdotally, I've yet to see a marriage in my peer group where the woman marries down to last more than a handful of years.
Men almost always have no problem marrying down in terms of income & earning potential, as long as their partner is otherwise supportive (i.e. not just using them).
(Obviously unless they're looking to do FIRE or DINK or something: i.e. where dual income, retire early is the life goal)
Among our friends I can think of at least three immediately - partnered accountant (f) + teacher (m), some senior executive at a f500 (f) + professor (m), senior auditor (f) + line chef (m). The former two going for 5-10+ years with multiple kids, etc.
Probably could think of more if I asked my wife, because I don't keep track of who works where.
I think you were correct up until somewhere around 2015-ish, when there was an inflection point on who marries down more often (now it's women marrying down more often than men).
Probably could think of more if I asked my wife, because I don't keep track of who works where.
I think you were correct up until somewhere around 2015-ish, when there was an inflection point on who marries down more often (now it's women marrying down more often than men).
What percentage of your couple-friends is that?
Chances are you know many more couples that exhibit the opposite pattern.
Chances are you know many more couples that exhibit the opposite pattern.
Like about 30%
> I love how you cannot imagine a world where the women is the high earned
That doesn't necessarily imply they can't imagine a woman who earns decent money.
It implies that the women earning high salaries aren't dating men that have low salaries (either dating men who also have high salaries or are single).
That doesn't necessarily imply they can't imagine a woman who earns decent money.
It implies that the women earning high salaries aren't dating men that have low salaries (either dating men who also have high salaries or are single).
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+women+dont+date+down
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22407388
https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-havi... (Control-F “Slim pickings in partners”)
> Let’s start with the fact that professional women find it challenging even to be married—for most, a necessary precondition for childbearing. Only 60% of high-achieving women in the older age group are married, and this figure falls to 57% in corporate America. By contrast, 76% of older men are married, and this figure rises to 83% among ultra-achievers.
> “The hard fact is that most successful men are not interested in acquiring an ambitious peer as a partner.”
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22407388
https://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-havi... (Control-F “Slim pickings in partners”)
> Let’s start with the fact that professional women find it challenging even to be married—for most, a necessary precondition for childbearing. Only 60% of high-achieving women in the older age group are married, and this figure falls to 57% in corporate America. By contrast, 76% of older men are married, and this figure rises to 83% among ultra-achievers.
> “The hard fact is that most successful men are not interested in acquiring an ambitious peer as a partner.”
Unfortunately, the current trend is for women to marry around the same income/social class, so it seems by personal choice women are marrying these types of people.
The current trend? When has it ever been the trend for people to marry outside their income level or social class?
It's a very long trend
You can imagine it, but it isn't typical.
> Men are concluding that women don’t care about money as much as they used to, and having an amazing career to snag a great woman is no longer the best (or even a good) strategy
I disagree. It’s not that women don’t care about money as much as they used to. They actually still care! It’s that other factors are more important now than they used to be. Your looks is very important because women aren’t gonna die without a man (social media and dating apps hasn’t helped men either here). In older times, you needed a man or to be married to make a lot of things happen. We’re in a place now where women don’t need a man for financial purposes. This is a good thing but it comes with the downsides that now women are much more concerned with looks than they were in the past because they can be.
You’re still not going to attract women when you make less money than them. It’s still as important as it was before. For high earning women, the bar is even higher. You can’t just be income match - you often need to make significantly more. If she’s making $300k, you better be making $500k. If you don’t believe me - try getting on some dating apps and getting into a LTR with a woman in nyc or sf. You’ll find out that they care about money as much as they ever did.
Also, dating doesn’t mean long term.
I disagree. It’s not that women don’t care about money as much as they used to. They actually still care! It’s that other factors are more important now than they used to be. Your looks is very important because women aren’t gonna die without a man (social media and dating apps hasn’t helped men either here). In older times, you needed a man or to be married to make a lot of things happen. We’re in a place now where women don’t need a man for financial purposes. This is a good thing but it comes with the downsides that now women are much more concerned with looks than they were in the past because they can be.
You’re still not going to attract women when you make less money than them. It’s still as important as it was before. For high earning women, the bar is even higher. You can’t just be income match - you often need to make significantly more. If she’s making $300k, you better be making $500k. If you don’t believe me - try getting on some dating apps and getting into a LTR with a woman in nyc or sf. You’ll find out that they care about money as much as they ever did.
Also, dating doesn’t mean long term.
NYC or SF is hardly your average dating market, though. You're playing on hard mode.
NYC is easy mode due to the gender imbalance. Harder to attract women by flaunting income since there is a ton of money there. But there are more single women than men.
If only this was true. https://imgur.com/a/Ji6ZoMV
Only Manhattan has more women living in it. Once you account for how many men come into the city at night and date women in Manhattan - it's kinda irrelevant.
It's obviously better than SF for gender ratio but - tbh - it's not any better when it comes to realistic standards for a partner. I'd say it's worse if anything. Yes, the ratio is theoretically better but I find you run into more demanding women here who are constantly shopping around due to the sheer density of people.
Ratio might be good but it doesn't stop people from constantly looking for something better. I've never been in a city where more women in relationships are constantly shopping around - even when they've been with said partner for years and are on their way to marrying them. It's a bonkers place.
Only Manhattan has more women living in it. Once you account for how many men come into the city at night and date women in Manhattan - it's kinda irrelevant.
It's obviously better than SF for gender ratio but - tbh - it's not any better when it comes to realistic standards for a partner. I'd say it's worse if anything. Yes, the ratio is theoretically better but I find you run into more demanding women here who are constantly shopping around due to the sheer density of people.
Ratio might be good but it doesn't stop people from constantly looking for something better. I've never been in a city where more women in relationships are constantly shopping around - even when they've been with said partner for years and are on their way to marrying them. It's a bonkers place.
It doesn't matter how many single women there are when they are only targeting top 5% of combination of height/success/looks
I don’t think this is true. I’ve seen a lot of investment bankers in nyc struggling with women
Necessary and sufficient conditions are not the same thing.
Seriously? Interested to hear more details.
Unfortunately for the women making $300k, guys don't care that much about income in return, especially if it's only 60% what they make.
Women select on success. With success probably comes money, and a lot of people confuse the two when they think about how women select their partner. But it's clearly "success" or the potential of success.
How are you considered successful? When you're winning at some kind of game. Let's just say a successful soccer player. Or an actor. Or a musician. Or you have success in business. With that comes money, I agree. But when you're domination some kind of game, the women will follow.
How are you considered successful? When you're winning at some kind of game. Let's just say a successful soccer player. Or an actor. Or a musician. Or you have success in business. With that comes money, I agree. But when you're domination some kind of game, the women will follow.
Self-actualization in general gives you a confident, care-free attitude to life and social relationships that's often quite attractive to others. Plausibly, when women look for "successful" guys that's what they care about for the most part. If you pick your playing field carefully, it's often not hard to look "successful" in some way - couple that with a genuinely likeable, fun, confident attitude and you should do OK. Working 90 hour work weeks to "win" at some silly corporate career game is neither here nor there.
> Men are concluding that women don’t care about money as much as they used to
Is there evidence to suggest women lining up to date forklift drivers?
Is there evidence to suggest women lining up to date forklift drivers?
Probably the same amount of demand as for snarky tech workers.
I’d posit that women still care about money. But, they don’t need a man’s income to support themselves. They are generating their own income. And parallel/related, the social pressure to marry and settle down is less than ever.
broke bar tenders have always been cool
next penny-less musicians doing well too??
next penny-less musicians doing well too??
Bartenders can also make a lot of money in cash remaining with plenty of expendable energy to pursue other things in life that make them whole. All that together make up for and put in perspective to a stressed out engineer chasing to keep up to date with their skills at the expense of everything else.
The bartenders I know are very social, confident and, that's maybe just coincidence, good locking. They are easy to talk to and know how to command a room, even if it's full of drunk people. If we compare stereotypes, they would tick all the boxes that are not typically associated with engineers.
I know a few so hard "into the grind" that they are not bothering to learn the language, since it's always english at work and they do not really interact with people outside work. A different approach to life I guess, but probably not more successful on the dating market.
I know a few so hard "into the grind" that they are not bothering to learn the language, since it's always english at work and they do not really interact with people outside work. A different approach to life I guess, but probably not more successful on the dating market.
This is correct and im glad people are bringing this up.
Blind is too full of sad and chronically single dudes for "beta bux" to be as successful as it's claimed to be.
Blind is too full of sad and chronically single dudes for "beta bux" to be as successful as it's claimed to be.
> Unless you are making huge money
I don’t see how your statement becomes less true as income increases. More true if anything in my experience.
I don’t see how your statement becomes less true as income increases. More true if anything in my experience.
Actually I agree with you. But a lot of money can buy you a great life.
What do women care about instead?
Height, intelligence, and a sense of humor. You can often get by with just two.
Beyond a certain threshold, throwing money at women doesn't really yield more results. Or at least not the kind of results you'd want.
Beyond a certain threshold, throwing money at women doesn't really yield more results. Or at least not the kind of results you'd want.
If you are tall, smart, and funny, but can't pull in good money, you probably aren't so smart. Unless maybe you are ugly? But then does tall still help?
Tall always helps. Imagine you were short and ugly - tall and ugly is a big improvement.
Cosmetic surgery can improve ugly a little bit too. If you have all that money then you’re able to afford it as well. Even with little money - you can fly to Turkey and get operations for significantly less.
Cosmetic surgery can improve ugly a little bit too. If you have all that money then you’re able to afford it as well. Even with little money - you can fly to Turkey and get operations for significantly less.
Intelligence is multi-faceted. Could be witty, could be street-smart, could be emotionally intelligent. Either way, you don't need it if you have the other two (with "funny" being a euphemism for "not dull"). Height especially. I don't have a dog in that race as a gay man, but the way that "preference" bleeds into the way people treat you in the office and in social settings (and even in the classroom) is pretty frustrating. Short guys (and, to a lesser extent, women) have to be within a certain range of personalities to do well; tall guys don't have to have a personality at all.
Yes, those are all colloquially accepted meanings of intelligence, but what people in this thread mean is g, fluid intelligence.
Not really. Or at least it’s not what I meant.
Charisma (rizz) is closer, but on the opposite side of the fence.
You want to aim for charisma, not fluid intelligence. But getting there requires creativity and confidence, which often go hand in hand with intelligence.
In other words, if you have a high g spot, you’re in a good position. Fluid intelligence good to have. But you have to translate it into something social-facing: jokes, a hobby, something other than merely being a meat-based database of knowledge. People can get that from google.
Charisma (rizz) is closer, but on the opposite side of the fence.
You want to aim for charisma, not fluid intelligence. But getting there requires creativity and confidence, which often go hand in hand with intelligence.
In other words, if you have a high g spot, you’re in a good position. Fluid intelligence good to have. But you have to translate it into something social-facing: jokes, a hobby, something other than merely being a meat-based database of knowledge. People can get that from google.
Women don’t think like this
Is height a bigger deal than 10-20 years ago? I feel like I keep hearing about it.
I am guessing it is more explicitly stated as a preference than in previous decades. And globally, proportionally, a lot more people are taller due to drastic decreases in malnutrition, so there are wider variations in height.
I think it was always a big deal and kind of a key attribute women consider for physical attractiveness, but it was kind of not spoken about in general and in the internet age cat got out of the bag on psuedoanonymous forums and things like that okcupid data analysis got shared.
It might be perceived as a bigger deal simply because it's a hard, objective factor. In practice though, there's so many other things you can do to improve your chances that there's no point in even thinking about it.
I keep hearing that online dating had elevated the importance of outward appearance - which would include height - even higher than what it used to be.
So do I. I've been with the same woman for the last 20 years but before that I had no trouble dating online and I'm definitely not tall.
The thing with online dating is filters kill a lot of opportunities that earlier you could compensate for. Most people and women can't easily tell between someone 5'11 and 6' and subconsciously someone who is dominant is perceived as taller than they are. But on an app, women will set a hard filter cutting out men at the edges who might have a chance earlier. Interestingly, women have ensured there is no weight filter, so things are further stacked against men looking for fit partners.
Confidence, a large social circle, fun hobbies, dynamic/carefree attitude towards life, low stress psychological states, opinionated, makes money on your own instead of sucking up to some corporate master
(if you are asking this question ironically, I appreciate your sense of humor! If you are genuine, then I should tell you this is a pretty silly question to ask since everyone is different (and thus looking for different things in others), and even if that weren’t the case, asking “what do women want” in a male-dominated space like HN might not yield the most accurate responses :P)
Correction, - men are realizing that women never did (care about money) and just want to spend more time with their loved ones.
My bartender bought a house in the country a decade before I did. All those tax free tips add up over time.
Ha, what? Tips are income, and you need to pay taxes on those too. Sounds like your bartender was committing tax fraud. Not a great idea to cheat on your taxes, and then buy a house with it.
Agreed. Except that it goes further in that many men are forgoing the family aspirations in general. Women are also far less... motivating these days. Who's going to work hard to provide for overweight ladies who rant about how horrible men are? Save your money, save your time, and if you really want a family, the key isn't more money, it's to find women from cultures that value men and fathers, which isn't the West.
Key phrase: The top-earning 10% of men in the U.S. labor market.
So nowhere near the top 10% of income earners. The real top earners don't do much traditional "work", instead earning money thorough investment and/or family income streams. I would also quibble with the definition of "work", as many activities of top earners would not be considered work by the majority of people. I've been to my fair share of "conferences" that we attendees considered work but looked very much like vacation time to the people serving us drinks at the bar.
So nowhere near the top 10% of income earners. The real top earners don't do much traditional "work", instead earning money thorough investment and/or family income streams. I would also quibble with the definition of "work", as many activities of top earners would not be considered work by the majority of people. I've been to my fair share of "conferences" that we attendees considered work but looked very much like vacation time to the people serving us drinks at the bar.
I think the number of top earners that get their money from investments isn’t a very significant number compared to the top earners via labor. They might make a large percentage of the money in that top 10%, but there aren’t nearly as many of them.
Only if you remove real estate income. A great many of the top earners (say 100-200K/year) are pumping their money into property via mortgages on their houses. After say 30 years of work, what percentage of their net wealth will be from salary and how much from property appreciation? Then in their 30+ year retirement, how much will come from investments stemming from that original salary?
100-200k people a year is still a small fraction of top earners. You're looking at millions in the top 10% of earners.
Earned income excludes purely passive investment like capital gains. By defining it that way, you can attack "top earners" like doctors, lawyers, and SWEs without attacking the people who really own the country.
Conferences are a bad sample because they really are vacations. But it's not representative of how a professional works. My buddy is a neurologist who works 70 hours a week at a hospital. 2 times a year he goes on one of those boondoggles, but the other 50 weeks a year he's spending a lot of time in the ICU.
It's hard to lump high earners into one bucket. There are salesmen and some executives who probably work 30 hours a week at worst. And there are lawyers and IBankers who work 60 on a good week.
Conferences are a bad sample because they really are vacations. But it's not representative of how a professional works. My buddy is a neurologist who works 70 hours a week at a hospital. 2 times a year he goes on one of those boondoggles, but the other 50 weeks a year he's spending a lot of time in the ICU.
It's hard to lump high earners into one bucket. There are salesmen and some executives who probably work 30 hours a week at worst. And there are lawyers and IBankers who work 60 on a good week.
This is a myth, the 90th percentile income earner for men isn’t that high of a salary (iirc around 135k$) and most successful tech and finance careers would fall into that category.
For better or worse the passively rich now inhabit the 97th+ percentiles (probably worse if you look at the exponential increase in income above 90th)
For better or worse the passively rich now inhabit the 97th+ percentiles (probably worse if you look at the exponential increase in income above 90th)
This is true.
If you earn $85,000 and are 25-30, you're in the top 15% of earners in that age bracket in the U.S., iirc.
If you earn $85,000 and are 25-30, you're in the top 15% of earners in that age bracket in the U.S., iirc.
Your quibble is addressed via the word “earning.” Money made via investment or inheritance is unearned.
>> Money made via investment or inheritance is unearned.
I think a great many startup founders might feel that their stock-related income is "earned", especially those who don't pay themselves much of a salary in early years. And every actor/singer/songwriter earning passive income from past artistic works. So too every homeowner or pensioner taking money without actually clocking in on a factory floor. I don't have the numbers, but it may be that the majority of income in the US comes from "investment" or other passive not-earned means.
I think a great many startup founders might feel that their stock-related income is "earned", especially those who don't pay themselves much of a salary in early years. And every actor/singer/songwriter earning passive income from past artistic works. So too every homeowner or pensioner taking money without actually clocking in on a factory floor. I don't have the numbers, but it may be that the majority of income in the US comes from "investment" or other passive not-earned means.
> I think a great many startup founders might feel that their stock-related income is "earned"
Perhaps you know this, but just in case and for others, in the US there is a legal distinction between earned and unearned income in relation to taxes. The post you quoted was using the terms in this sense.
Perhaps you know this, but just in case and for others, in the US there is a legal distinction between earned and unearned income in relation to taxes. The post you quoted was using the terms in this sense.
> I don't have the numbers, but it may be that the majority of income in the US comes from "investment" or other passive not-earned means.
I'm curious to see your numbers, because I can't imagine how this could possibly be the case. I think you may be living in a bubble.
I wonder even how many of these top non-income earners get their money from inheritance rather than your examples of startups and artists.
I'm curious to see your numbers, because I can't imagine how this could possibly be the case. I think you may be living in a bubble.
I wonder even how many of these top non-income earners get their money from inheritance rather than your examples of startups and artists.
Earnings from inheritance have almost certainly dropped as a percentage of total income. Inheritance is generational. The huge number of millionaires and billionaires created in the last thirty years haven't had time to die and leave that money to their kids. A few million inherited 40 years ago, mostly in family real estate, is now worth 100s of millions. But that new money probably hasn't yet passed to the next generation. All those tech entrepreneurs (Musk, Gates etc) are also still alive, their money not yet fully inherited by anyone.
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/0dee8dce-en/index.html?i...
Looks like about 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, and the proportion has been climbing.
Looks like about 60% of wealth in the US is inherited, and the proportion has been climbing.
Do we have to constantly remind people here that wealth != income? Inheritances are wealth. They might have grown in income terms simply because interest rates are on a secular decline (recent short-term raises notwithstanding) and low interest rates boost the value of assets. Comparing wealth stocks and income flows makes little sense in general.
I would say were on a secular decline rather than are. Pre-Covid some yields were nominally negative and approaching real zero. There was very little left for them to fall before hitting the carrying cost of cash.
Inherited wealth is different than income. If I inherit a million dollar house, then sit on it for twenty years until it is a 10-million dollar house, I have 10-milion in inherited wealth but only 1m of "income" (IRS taxable income). The next 9 of income will only come if/when I sell the house. So comparisons between inherited wealth and actual income across decades are very very tricky.
[deleted]
I think the self-employed would not be considered as being part of the employment market. So you could in fact be earning plenty of money through your work without this article applying directly to you.
AFAIK they're considered as part of the employed market as soon as they draw money from their incorporations as income
> High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back
Many men discovered over the course of the pandemic how much they actually loved spending time with their family and how unrewarding office life is.
Unfortunately the powers that be have decided that this realization is incompatible with how the economy is set up to work, commuting office space work lunches and dinners etc. and so back to the office we will be forced to go.
Unfortunately the powers that be have decided that this realization is incompatible with how the economy is set up to work, commuting office space work lunches and dinners etc. and so back to the office we will be forced to go.
Possibly.
The work attire for technical professionals shifted from suits and ties to jeans and t-shirts because the power shifted from Wall Streeters to Silicon Valley hippies as the value added to the economy by computers grew.
This smells like another work-cultural element that could shift easily if several startup-types declare four-day work weeks and find themselves enough runway money to get to revenue-positive.
Maybe it's impossible. But if the folks who champion productivity-through-focus are to be believed, those firms should be X times more productive than five-day firms or crunching firms, the numbers will show it, and the industry will follow.
The work attire for technical professionals shifted from suits and ties to jeans and t-shirts because the power shifted from Wall Streeters to Silicon Valley hippies as the value added to the economy by computers grew.
This smells like another work-cultural element that could shift easily if several startup-types declare four-day work weeks and find themselves enough runway money to get to revenue-positive.
Maybe it's impossible. But if the folks who champion productivity-through-focus are to be believed, those firms should be X times more productive than five-day firms or crunching firms, the numbers will show it, and the industry will follow.
I have one massive rebuttal to that. Suits were not wrapped in CMBS tranches threatening the collapse municipal and national economic sectors.
People are being forced back to the office because the banks and the fed fear an economic crisis. They are demanding mass layoffs to destabilize the worker leverage earned in the pandemic and force them back into spending habits that might bail all these cmbss out. Suits never needed to come back. Office space must.
The bailout in 2007 was paid for with our taxes. The bailout of 2023 is being paid with your time and happiness. Never forget it.
People are being forced back to the office because the banks and the fed fear an economic crisis. They are demanding mass layoffs to destabilize the worker leverage earned in the pandemic and force them back into spending habits that might bail all these cmbss out. Suits never needed to come back. Office space must.
The bailout in 2007 was paid for with our taxes. The bailout of 2023 is being paid with your time and happiness. Never forget it.
Arguably, suit and ties aren't clothes, they're costumes. They were bound to phase out eventually.
Yep. Suits, Patagucci vests, jeans+hoodie, etc. Its all costumes used to signal tribe membership.
I spent most of last week in all-day meetings with executives, senior consultants, and engineering managers. Each group dressed distinctively. It’s been 3 years since I attended such meetings in person and I’d forgotten…
Execs - suits with open collar/no tie, dress watches (Tag, Rolex, etc)
Consultants - slacks and jacket. Casual shoes (but not sneakers). Apple Watches.
Engineering - jeans and sneakers. Apple Watches.
Not hard and fast rules, but definitely a pattern.
I spent most of last week in all-day meetings with executives, senior consultants, and engineering managers. Each group dressed distinctively. It’s been 3 years since I attended such meetings in person and I’d forgotten…
Execs - suits with open collar/no tie, dress watches (Tag, Rolex, etc)
Consultants - slacks and jacket. Casual shoes (but not sneakers). Apple Watches.
Engineering - jeans and sneakers. Apple Watches.
Not hard and fast rules, but definitely a pattern.
There's something to be said for wearing suit and tie. It's a handy way to look "smartly/fashionably dressed" in a general context, that you have to put literally zero effort in thinking about. It's also, to some extent, an overt signal that you're committing to being professional and considerate of others - an often dismissed 'bourgeois' norm that's nevertheless a building block of society, if perhaps one that most people like to take for granted.
A suit is a signal of being considerate of others? Since when?
Since the suit became popular as informal clothing in the Western world, starting from the mid-19th to the mid-20th c. Look at old photos from that era and you'll see pretty much everyone wears suit-style clothes in public, even and perhaps especially folks we would consider "lower class" today. There was a reason for that, and it had a lot to do with signaling respect and being considerate to others.
Oh come on, there’s a leap of logic if I ever saw one
It's signalling class, not respect. People can be assholes in any clothes. It's a tool for getting a certain type of person to respect you.
It was not signaling class historically. There's plenty of old photos showing lower-class folks who did wear suit-style clothes, and took pride in what that meant to them. It only devolved into signaling class when basic norms of mutual respect began to be widely connoted as a "middle-class/bourgeois" thing, which started in the mid-20th c. in much of the West and continued to the present day.
Yes, because there are often incentives for lower-class people to signal higher class. That doesn't mean it's not signaling.
When you cut out 90 minutes of commuting a day it's pretty great to be able to do school drop-off, pickup, and help your kids with homework after school.
I think there's a lot of value in face to face interaction with coworkers, but it's hard to want to go into a office when the trade off is less time spend with my family.
I think there's a lot of value in face to face interaction with coworkers, but it's hard to want to go into a office when the trade off is less time spend with my family.
Women have done the same. The dirty little secret of the current "labor shortage" is that the worker bees are no longer willing to over do it, for the same pay.
The commitment to work is still there, but now more and more have reasonable boundaries.
The commitment to work is still there, but now more and more have reasonable boundaries.
That's the optimistic take. But there is also another grim reality in that some have simply given up (to some degree) and simply stopped caring as much. Less diligence.
Is that so grim? I didn’t set up society so that I’m required to expend most of my energy and a large chunk of my day to work for some random corporation I don’t care about. After 15 years of this it is very clear to me that this is a trade of my time for money. Nothing else. I’ll do everything I can to make that trade more in my favor.
I also have many other uses for that time. My kids won’t be small for long, I have many hobbies I like to do, etc
I also have many other uses for that time. My kids won’t be small for long, I have many hobbies I like to do, etc
yes, that's the optmistic view. I'm just pointing out the flip side. There does seem to be a less diligent workforce of late. That has a lot of different side effects.
Fair enough. But to me, those people should update their CVs and start looking. You're not a slave. No one owns you. Life is too short embrace "no meaning" as a means to make it through the word day.
There's not a relationship in the world worth self-subverting for.
There's not a relationship in the world worth self-subverting for.
yes, there are a lot of bullshit jobs from a decade of easy money. A whole generation of people has yet to experience a true recession. No one likes to be laid off, but recessions have some long-term benefits. It forces companies to reallocate resources into jobs that are more effective.
While I agree with your assessment isn't there also a labor shortage caused by accelerated retirement of boomers + people passing away due to the pandemic? There are other factors as well such as wages not keeping up but I think that falls under your reason.
So don't go! We have the power.
I know it's easier said than done, but anyone who has the means to do it should try.
I know it's easier said than done, but anyone who has the means to do it should try.
Individual actions won’t really lead to any societal change though. Your change won’t change your future jobs.
You need worker solidarity at a large class level.
You need worker solidarity at a large class level.
Maybe. But (at least in the short term) we can make them pay for our obedience. You want me to come into the office? Fine, but you'd better be willing to double my salary, or I'm going to one of the other dozens of opportunities that don't require a commute.
Out of all the different types of workers, devs have the most power. But we often don't exercise it. It's so tempting to just go along with whatever your work decides is best, because you've started to think of them as "your group." Once you identify as a part of a group, you're subjected to lots of peer pressure -- from yourself, no less.
Out of all the different types of workers, devs have the most power. But we often don't exercise it. It's so tempting to just go along with whatever your work decides is best, because you've started to think of them as "your group." Once you identify as a part of a group, you're subjected to lots of peer pressure -- from yourself, no less.
Single devs acting in isolation don’t have any power over their $N billion employer with M hundreds of lawyers. unless they’re really specialized or brilliant like John Carmack or something. It doesn’t matter if you think of devs as “your group”. If you don’t act as a group, you get picked off. Devs as a coordinated bloc have a shot at power, working together.
> Unfortunately the powers that be have decided that this realization is incompatible with how the economy is set up to work
I hope this becomes widespread just so I can point and laugh at those thrust into poverty because their pensions required that young men hoodwink themselves into overwork to be solvent.
I hope this becomes widespread just so I can point and laugh at those thrust into poverty because their pensions required that young men hoodwink themselves into overwork to be solvent.
I kind of miss the office. Got a dog now, so it's not all bad.
This speaks to me, but I also wonder if part of it is the business cycle is ending so the opportunity to work hard seems less lucrative.
I can work harder and take on more responsibility for a $20k-$40k increase in salary.
Or I can take it easy, let some of the team take on some of the load, and make sure I do enough.
Working harder and working for someone doesn't make you rich or wealthy. It can make you comfortable. I'm already comfortable.
The real money is in ownership. So I'll put less hours in working for someone else and keep my mind fresher and more open to opportunities of ownership that may arise.
Or I can take it easy, let some of the team take on some of the load, and make sure I do enough.
Working harder and working for someone doesn't make you rich or wealthy. It can make you comfortable. I'm already comfortable.
The real money is in ownership. So I'll put less hours in working for someone else and keep my mind fresher and more open to opportunities of ownership that may arise.
Also, it't not even a bad deal for employers. Binding time spent to money taken home like everyone is a blue collar worker where output is approximately linear (or, an a moving assembly line, actually ideally linear) doesn't work for knowledge based jobs, especially if they involve creativity. Productivity goes down the longer you work.
I switched to a 32 hour week and I don't feel like my productivity is impacted beyond not being able to attend some meetings, most of which were superfluous anyway. If it's really important I will make the time elsewhere, but that has happened once or twice in ~8 months.
I switched to a 32 hour week and I don't feel like my productivity is impacted beyond not being able to attend some meetings, most of which were superfluous anyway. If it's really important I will make the time elsewhere, but that has happened once or twice in ~8 months.
I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to move to a 4-day, or 80% (or even part time) position for a few years now. Most companies have no real support for it, or want to do it in a backwards or messy way (“we’ll negotiation more vacation time”). You’d figure I’d be able to capitalize on a FANG resume but so far no real luck.
I don’t want to earn more in my career. I’m already rich. I want to work less and do my own thing more. I would think companies would see this in engineers like me and make it a forefront to a recruiting effort.
I don’t want to earn more in my career. I’m already rich. I want to work less and do my own thing more. I would think companies would see this in engineers like me and make it a forefront to a recruiting effort.
Try contracting / consulting. I feel like contracting has a different set of expectations, there's more of an expectation that contractors kind of do their own thing. There's also an expectation that contractors are a bit flaky, so a reliable contractor at 80% time is still a solid asset, whereas an employee at 80% time is communicating "I'm not 100% invested". I guess the difference is that with contractors the relationship is clearly understood by both sides to be "we're exchanging money for services" whereas employees are expected to be "resources that we rent". You don't expect your apartment to disappear 80% of the time, but in exchange there's a soft guarantee that the rent is sort of semi-permanent. (Hence why everyone is so upset about layoffs, it reveals that the deal is actually "I expect you to be there 100% of the time, and I'm going to pretend that this is permanent, but I may terminate the deal at any time". The contractor approach is just clearer for everyone.)
Contracting sounds nice but you have to be making a LOT more than W2 for it to be worth it. Health insurance, HSA, your portion of self-employment tax, 401(k) matching are things you no longer get. Also you have to start doing things over and above that you didn’t have to as an employee, like finding clients, billing, accounting, fighting clients for payment. You need to charge enough to make it worthwhile.
This is very true. On the money side just note that your employer is also not paying any of those extras so you need to roll them into your rate. You’ll still cost about the same to them at the end of the day
A lot of people in the medical field (of both genders) I know cut back their hours once they can control their schedule in private practice - if you're still going to be making 3-5x of what would be considered a good salary working 50-75% of whatever is considered full time (usually in the 30-35 hours a week range), it just makes sense.
Then again, this applies less to technology and other knowledge work where it's harder to turn off the background thought tasks.
Then again, this applies less to technology and other knowledge work where it's harder to turn off the background thought tasks.
Yep. I have found that some folks get too caught up on the salary number, and wait too late to discover their hourly wage is not as high as it could be since they are working far more than the standard 40 hours each week.
It’s definitely a trade off—work more hours to advance more quickly and make more money—but working 60 to 80 hours per week is cutting your effective hourly wage by 25 to 50 percent.
It’s definitely a trade off—work more hours to advance more quickly and make more money—but working 60 to 80 hours per week is cutting your effective hourly wage by 25 to 50 percent.
Are there any doctors actually in private practice now? I've found most have already sold their practices to hospitals or some kind of provider network, and they are told the patient load they must provide. It's just not economical to stay independent and reduce your workload.
Assuming that this is US-based, but I would wager this is more related to the incredible byzantine health insurance system created to leech profit off the overall system without delivering useful services.
Most doctors don't want to engage with a crazy actuarial accounting, hence they outsource it, which can be a reasonable tradeoff.
Nuking that system from orbit with universal single payer would solve this, and also have the beneficial side effect of eliminating the coercive practice of employer-linked health care, which would lead to reduced barriers to entrepreneurial activity.
Most doctors don't want to engage with a crazy actuarial accounting, hence they outsource it, which can be a reasonable tradeoff.
Nuking that system from orbit with universal single payer would solve this, and also have the beneficial side effect of eliminating the coercive practice of employer-linked health care, which would lead to reduced barriers to entrepreneurial activity.
> Nuking that system from orbit with universal single payer would solve this
Just when has a government administration led to a less byzantine system? From experience, it can very well make it much worse. For one, there would be no competition for dollars from providers. (Not that there is much of that now.) Plus you would have a cap on doctor's salaries. Early retirements and a severe doctor shortage has become a real problem.
Just when has a government administration led to a less byzantine system? From experience, it can very well make it much worse. For one, there would be no competition for dollars from providers. (Not that there is much of that now.) Plus you would have a cap on doctor's salaries. Early retirements and a severe doctor shortage has become a real problem.
> Since this group already put in longer hours than the typical U.S. worker—and women at the highest income levels—these high earners had longer work days to trim
> Before the pandemic, Eli Albrecht, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area, says he worked between 80 to 90 hours a week. Now, he says he puts in 60 to 70 hours each week
Key lines from the article, which give important context and invert what many people's expectations about the situation will be.
> Before the pandemic, Eli Albrecht, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area, says he worked between 80 to 90 hours a week. Now, he says he puts in 60 to 70 hours each week
Key lines from the article, which give important context and invert what many people's expectations about the situation will be.
TBH For me the line about Eli only begs for more context. Having done it for a while in the games industry, I know first hand that 80-90 hours/week is next to unliveable for long stretches, and the difference between 80 and 90 is enormous (working 80 leaves you with almost 50% more waking non-work-time than 90, assuming 8 hours of sleep). Some people really do work that much, and Eli might be, but 80 means you cut more or less all social activity from your life, even family, and 90 probably means you’re cutting into your sleep permanently. The may be mitigating factors for Eli, if he works from home, for example, or if he is measuring his hours via start and stop time but still taking family breaks or social lunches during the day. A normal amount of self-maintenance like a small amount of exercise, grocery shopping, brushing teeth, and reading news or watching a few minutes of tv or youtube, these things alone will add up to all of the time you have left after working 90 hours/week. It took me a decade or two to realize the overtime I worked was actually trading my entire life for a small amount of money, and that it wasn’t nearly enough money.
Many people also over-estimate their own work hours. I had an employer who measured and also surveyed employees and compared the two results, and found most people claiming 75 hours/week were actually pulling more like 55-65. Some people who thought they were doing over 50 were actually under 40. A lot of people in the company I was in were (perhaps subconsciously) factoring in their commutes as work time, and a lot of people come in a bit late during crunch time but mentally feel like they’re starting work at 9am on the dot, and estimate work hours that way.
Many people also over-estimate their own work hours. I had an employer who measured and also surveyed employees and compared the two results, and found most people claiming 75 hours/week were actually pulling more like 55-65. Some people who thought they were doing over 50 were actually under 40. A lot of people in the company I was in were (perhaps subconsciously) factoring in their commutes as work time, and a lot of people come in a bit late during crunch time but mentally feel like they’re starting work at 9am on the dot, and estimate work hours that way.
A lot of people also associate being at work with working even if they are sitting there reading HN.
I noticed this about myself so I started tracking my time. Has really helped my productivity and the mental drain of feeling like I’m always working. Now I recognize how many other activities I actually do.
I noticed this about myself so I started tracking my time. Has really helped my productivity and the mental drain of feeling like I’m always working. Now I recognize how many other activities I actually do.
People vastly overestimate how many hours a week they work: https://qz.com/16899/that-friend-who-says-he-works-75-hours-...
Right. This isn't about four day work weeks. It's mostly about people who were working insane hours cutting back to merely long hours.
I do not believe the 80 to 90 hour work week claims. Might be at the office 80 to 90 hours, but I doubt even 60 hours of work was or is being done regularly.
Good.
It has become clear that the rich aren't going to give the rest of us any of the profits gained as automation makes things more efficient. The only way normal people gain from improvements is if we collectively refuse to work more than we're paid for.
This also smooths the transition to a future in which all work is automated and no one needs to work. That future it far away but it is coming. As less and less human labor is necessary to provide for our survival needs, people should be working fewer and fewer hours and still being able to survive. The alternative is more and more unemployment, with the unemployed being unable to survive, and a ruling class that doesn't work yet touts the need for work because they benefit from labor.
It has become clear that the rich aren't going to give the rest of us any of the profits gained as automation makes things more efficient. The only way normal people gain from improvements is if we collectively refuse to work more than we're paid for.
This also smooths the transition to a future in which all work is automated and no one needs to work. That future it far away but it is coming. As less and less human labor is necessary to provide for our survival needs, people should be working fewer and fewer hours and still being able to survive. The alternative is more and more unemployment, with the unemployed being unable to survive, and a ruling class that doesn't work yet touts the need for work because they benefit from labor.
Automation isn't going to take anyone's job. People using automation will push out people who lack the skills to use automation. The people who fall behind won't benefit because they don't contribute.
The future where people can work very little to survive is already here, but it's only for those who can produce great value with very little effort.
The future where people can work very little to survive is already here, but it's only for those who can produce great value with very little effort.
> People using automation will push out people who lack the skills to use automation.
This is an understandable sentiment because it's been true for all of the history of automation, but I really don't think you're grokking the implications of truly pervasive automation. The using of automation can and will be automated, so the skills to use automation will eventually not be useful skills.
> The people who fall behind won't benefit because they don't contribute.
People don't accumulate resources by "contributing" them. The people who benefit the most from automation are those who use automation to accumulate more resources (including more automation).
The people who accumulate the most resources generally have some projects which create the impression of being prosocial, but the mental illness which causes one to amass huge amounts of wealth, makes one unsuitable to be in charge of prosocial projects. For example, I fully support space exploration, but I really don't think the guy who thinks we should put slaves on Mars is the guy who is best suited to be in charge of that.
The future I fear is one in which the same sociopaths who have been sucking all the resources out of society for themselves no longer need to even pretend to care about the rest of us, because they no longer need workers, since workers are automated.
This is an understandable sentiment because it's been true for all of the history of automation, but I really don't think you're grokking the implications of truly pervasive automation. The using of automation can and will be automated, so the skills to use automation will eventually not be useful skills.
> The people who fall behind won't benefit because they don't contribute.
People don't accumulate resources by "contributing" them. The people who benefit the most from automation are those who use automation to accumulate more resources (including more automation).
The people who accumulate the most resources generally have some projects which create the impression of being prosocial, but the mental illness which causes one to amass huge amounts of wealth, makes one unsuitable to be in charge of prosocial projects. For example, I fully support space exploration, but I really don't think the guy who thinks we should put slaves on Mars is the guy who is best suited to be in charge of that.
The future I fear is one in which the same sociopaths who have been sucking all the resources out of society for themselves no longer need to even pretend to care about the rest of us, because they no longer need workers, since workers are automated.
> That translates to 1.5 hours less time on the job each workweek, or a 3% reduction in hours.
A search for “statistically significant” yielded no results. So why am I not to assume, especially given the source, that this is more of that “Americans are lazier and less productive” thing that plays out daily in right-leaning media?
A search for “statistically significant” yielded no results. So why am I not to assume, especially given the source, that this is more of that “Americans are lazier and less productive” thing that plays out daily in right-leaning media?
Marc Benioff is a progressive and has been quoted many times saying the same thing about his own workers.
But statistical significance? I like anecdotes as much as the next person, but we’re talking “truth” and stuff here, right? This paper is out to critically inform me, right?
The article wasn't talking about right-leaning media, OP said that. Most of the business owners in tech aren't right leaning, and most of them are saying junk like this. Which is my point, right-leaning media runs around with a bullhorn saying this stuff, but the people firing everyone aren't right-leaning.
It's because people work in their own self-interest, and the interest of large business owners is always in conflict with their employees. Business owners want to extract maximum value from workers for minimum pay.
It's unwise to think of business owners as left or right leaning, or to think their espoused politics are any indication of how they will act when push comes to shove. Owners are always perpetuating class war against workers.
It's unwise to think of business owners as left or right leaning, or to think their espoused politics are any indication of how they will act when push comes to shove. Owners are always perpetuating class war against workers.
Business have values and use politics to their advantage. Business owners are the same. Trying to eschew, or more directly what you're doing - excuse, the bad things people of a certain groups do while calling out anither isn't helpful.
My bad, I wasn't trying to excuse anything. Perhaps a better way to put it is that all business owners will use right-wing politics to their advantage, and to think that a purported "left-wing" owner of a large business will treat you better is naive in the long run.
> Most of the business owners in tech aren't right leaning
I disagree: tech leaders may be left-leaning on social issues, but they are not left-leaning fiscally. Corporate America as a whole - tech and media included (Fox, NYT, CNN, NBC) are center-right on fiscal issues. Tech companies may dress up their logos in Pride colors at the right times since that's free and earns goodwill.
I disagree: tech leaders may be left-leaning on social issues, but they are not left-leaning fiscally. Corporate America as a whole - tech and media included (Fox, NYT, CNN, NBC) are center-right on fiscal issues. Tech companies may dress up their logos in Pride colors at the right times since that's free and earns goodwill.
Yeah, those right-leaning media companies and their constant bashing of the checks notes top 10% earners.
There's nothing that the right likes more than bashing lazy elites.
The lazy elites working 70+ hours per week? I must've missed all those smear campaigns against upper management, investment bankers, corporate lawyers etc.
Anything to stoke the “culture war”
All the while decrying "identity politics"
The source being WashU economists? Is that a right-wing think tank?
Well, do they say these numbers are statistically significant?
I’m over 40 and cut my hours to zero. I quit four months ago. I’m sure I’ll Need to find another job and I don’t know if can find another job that pays what old job paid with one month PTO but oh well. My sanity was too important.
Good for you. Better to yank the ripcord too early than too late, the after effects of a burn-out can take many years to heal (if ever). I wished more people had your level of courage.
There are dozens of us, friend.
I think 4 weeks including company holidays is doable.
When I was 27 my I had 5 weeks PTO and I have never had that much since. All these unlimited PTO places barely get you 3 in most cases. And unlimited is just a scam to not have to pay out when you leave.
I think 4 weeks including company holidays is doable.
When I was 27 my I had 5 weeks PTO and I have never had that much since. All these unlimited PTO places barely get you 3 in most cases. And unlimited is just a scam to not have to pay out when you leave.
Same. Last day is Tuesday. Life is too short, friend.
A couple of years ago I moved from a more structured (not exactly slower paced in the job I was in) employer to a FAANG-like employer. I was making more money (base salary wasn't that different, stock and bonuses were). As I got more integrated and started wanting to make more of a difference, I started having to work longer and longer hours. It became obvious to me that I was on a path to essentially only working and sleeping. It was also physically wearing me out as I'm NOT in my 20's anymore. So essentially, I'd be making more money, but wouldn't have the time or energy to do anything but work. AND ... I'd have to start paying other people to do things for me that I normally would do myself - which then eats into that financial difference. I don't have young kids anymore so technically had the free time, but came to realize that I really didn't want to be forced to spend it solely on work. So I made a change to (again, a bit lower paying) but more structured environment.
We’re exhausted and there’s little real upside. Makes sense to me to cut back.
Agree. I used to work 60+ hours to make a huge impact on my firm and our revenue. Now I am like fuck it. Down to 30.
Same, earlier in my career I was excited by the impact I make, but then it dawned on me, that impact has almost zero impact to my own bottom line. And I failed to come up with reasons why I should kill myself over making other people rich.
You probably feel that way as there was little benefit to you for working 60 hours/week. It is really unfortunate that companies cannot seem to find ways to reward people that enjoy working hard. Sure there are OKRs, etc., but too hard to tie that to the bottom line.
What would you say are some of the positives and negatives that have come about from this change?
Positives - more time with family. We could finally have second child after 7 years of not being able to due to being so busy could even think about it. Domestic / marriage life is much better.
Reduced drinking and late night outings.
Less stress. Focused high priority work Now instead of needing to play politics i many fronts to form alliances to move up.
Time to think retirement and plan for it.
More reading and entertainment. Focused on kids education.
Picked up trading with good returns.
Actually watched sports first time in 10 years.
Reduced drinking and late night outings.
Less stress. Focused high priority work Now instead of needing to play politics i many fronts to form alliances to move up.
Time to think retirement and plan for it.
More reading and entertainment. Focused on kids education.
Picked up trading with good returns.
Actually watched sports first time in 10 years.
Why do you describe exhaustion as a collective “we”?
I’m saying we as in people working more than 60 hours a week, as referenced in the article.
I was an absolute workaholic at my previous gig. Now I'm making the same money adjusted to inflation + ~10%, which puts me in the 96th percentile or so. However I'm working way less these days, something like 10 hours less a week. My employer cannot really pressure engineers into working overtime, since the engineer / employee ratio is very low, and every resignation has been a big blow to our roadmap.
Yeah, turns out I don't like money as much as I thought I did when I don't have time to use it.
I don't know how to define 'high earning men' in real, but mathematically, earning up to 170K paying 24% tax is a fine spot, after that the tax becomes 32~35%, stretching yourself for decreasing return is not very exciting, why not taking a step back and enjoying life more instead.
I don't think you have actually done the math on taxes if you think that.
First off, the 32% bracket kicks in at 170k of taxable income, which is going to be at least 183k of actual income because of the standard deduction (probably higher because of itemized deductions).
Second, the 6.2% social security tax stops at 160k of income, so your income in the 32% bracket is really only taxed at 1.8% more than most of your income in the 24% bracket.
First off, the 32% bracket kicks in at 170k of taxable income, which is going to be at least 183k of actual income because of the standard deduction (probably higher because of itemized deductions).
Second, the 6.2% social security tax stops at 160k of income, so your income in the 32% bracket is really only taxed at 1.8% more than most of your income in the 24% bracket.
Minus 401k contributions and bad investments which could be another 25k off your income. And like too many people seem to not understand, your whole salary won’t be taxed at that rate - only the amount that goes over the limit
That means nothing by itself. "Stretching yourself" might pay +10K, +50K, +300K, or even negative. I care about take home, not tax rate.
It's better way off to see what has been hidden from someone in a relationship, no one would want if he or she is been cheated on, for this reason taking a few extra steps in getting what would serve as a proof for leaving a toxic relationship isn't a bad idea, yes that's me justifying myself. This is because sometimes ago I was searching for an app that would serve me the purpose of monitoring and spying on my spouse's phone, unfortunately the apps I laid my hands on wasn't giving me much of what I needed, but a review about a person who could help me out changed the scenario. After I read that I could send a mail to [email protected] com, where I could use the help of an expert who will help in getting me information and track my spouse's real-time location, I did in a good faith and fortunately it was what I wanted, I had to explain how I want to see all information that has been deleted, access to the real time location and calls from my spouse's phone, it was within hours when I got a mail back from the expert, giving me access links and how to make use of them in getting all I requested. I decided to share this because information is power, if I had not read someone's review about the way out, I could have been in the dark for God knows when, but I'm glad that's not the case.
The article talks about top 10% – $175k+/year https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
That’s a fun grey area where you’re making a lot but not a lot. And the path to making more is paved with leverage, not with hours. You absolutely cannot get to the top 1% by just grinding away.
I can’t find the study right now, but I remember reading that “work for money” tops out at about $400k. The highest average income in USA goes to car wash owners.
That’s a fun grey area where you’re making a lot but not a lot. And the path to making more is paved with leverage, not with hours. You absolutely cannot get to the top 1% by just grinding away.
I can’t find the study right now, but I remember reading that “work for money” tops out at about $400k. The highest average income in USA goes to car wash owners.
Agree 100% ... "You absolutely cannot get to the top 1% by just grinding away"
And if you are grinding away then you might not have the energy and time to create the real opportunity to help yourself.
And if you are grinding away then you might not have the energy and time to create the real opportunity to help yourself.
I'm not sure this true. For example, [1] claims that for an individual earner, 400k puts you in the top 1%. That number is definitely achievable just on a salary. the article you cite is listing average numbers for top 1%, so isn't really useful here.
According to [2] a household needs to earn 570k. This is in line with [3] which claims a household needs to earn 590k. It's definitely feasible for a couple to earn that on salary alone.
[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ [2] https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/ [3] https://smartasset.com/data-studies/what-it-takes-to-be-in-t...
According to [2] a household needs to earn 570k. This is in line with [3] which claims a household needs to earn 590k. It's definitely feasible for a couple to earn that on salary alone.
[1] https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/ [2] https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/ [3] https://smartasset.com/data-studies/what-it-takes-to-be-in-t...
Clearly some people make more than 400k and work a normal W-2 job. I’m well into 7 figures and slave away. I struggle daily on whether it’s worth it.
Make a list of goals (including things like protecting one’s self from health risks, legal risks, etc), pencil out how much it your annual expenses are, and project your cash flow until age 100.
If your investments can afford your goals, then quit or scale back. Head over to Bogleheads forums where this situation is frequently addressed.
If your investments can afford your goals, then quit or scale back. Head over to Bogleheads forums where this situation is frequently addressed.
> The highest average income in USA goes to car wash owners.
Is that an euphemism for money laundering (Breaking Bad) or make car wash owners really that much money?
Is that an euphemism for money laundering (Breaking Bad) or make car wash owners really that much money?
Not a euphemism. Yes you have higher variance in other fields (like tech) where you can become a billionaire. Car washes, by comparison, have low variance but reliably make mid 7-figures per year.
The market is super fragmented and localized so it doesn’t really matter how many other successful car washes exist. People won’t drive too far out of their way just for a car wash. This puts a ceiling on competition.
Starting a car wash is a big but not huge investment. This also puts a ceiling on competition, but remains accessible to fairly regular people. Starting a car wash also doesn’t require any specialized knowledge.
And because the business is profitable, but not that profitable, it has (afaik) escaped the clutches of private equity consolidation. This keeps money in the hands of local owners thus improving average/median outcomes and keeping variance low.
The market is super fragmented and localized so it doesn’t really matter how many other successful car washes exist. People won’t drive too far out of their way just for a car wash. This puts a ceiling on competition.
Starting a car wash is a big but not huge investment. This also puts a ceiling on competition, but remains accessible to fairly regular people. Starting a car wash also doesn’t require any specialized knowledge.
And because the business is profitable, but not that profitable, it has (afaik) escaped the clutches of private equity consolidation. This keeps money in the hands of local owners thus improving average/median outcomes and keeping variance low.
Can you provide a citation? All I find are generic SEO ad sites.
$1M+/year? $4M+/yr? In profit? On average? And no big company has bought them all out?
$1M+/year? $4M+/yr? In profit? On average? And no big company has bought them all out?
It’s from an early People I Mostly Admire episode but I can’t remember which one and their archive is difficult to search.
I can’t remember the incantation to find the underlying paper they were talking about either. And as you noted, Google has become bad at this sort of thing because most people don’t want those sorts of results.
I can’t remember the incantation to find the underlying paper they were talking about either. And as you noted, Google has become bad at this sort of thing because most people don’t want those sorts of results.
While I’ve never been a workaholic (was pretty good at keeping 40hr boundaries), this article describes me. Remote work, despite its flexibility, burned me out for the lack of in person interaction. I left a good job to consult and work part-time. Anecdotally, I know I’m not alone and I have a lot of friends and contacts, both women and men, who are doing the same. When you consider how much wealth has been created in tech over this 10 year bull run, it makes sense a lot of people are pulling back and finding more balance in their lives.
When I was a researcher in academia, I worked practically all day, every day, including at least one of the two weekend days.
It became normal to think about research all the time--"it is so much fun", academics tell themselves and others--and being mostly self-directed, the work is endless: there is always a new model or parameter value to try, a new angle from which to look at the results.
After a few years of grueling intellectual work, I had an episode of semi-burnout; I use semi- and not full- because it was 50 percent psychophysiological and 50 percent wondering, "What am I doing with my life?"
I then left academia and at this point have been working in the technology sector for a few years as a salaried employee, which in some companies means working 9-to-5, in others 9-9 including weekends, and in some means working at most a couple of hours per day.
I am not ashamed to admit that I work as little as possible and take on new assignments as reluctantly as possible as well. Saving as much time and energy for myself as I can, while keeping an eye on my career progression and not negatively affecting my colleagues with my rather lackadaisical approach to work, is the guiding principle of my professional life. I am a cynic, or a successful pragmatist, as I like to call myself.
I now have time to read, write, think, exercise, hang out with friends and enjoy life. Self-recommended.
I then left academia and at this point have been working in the technology sector for a few years as a salaried employee, which in some companies means working 9-to-5, in others 9-9 including weekends, and in some means working at most a couple of hours per day.
I am not ashamed to admit that I work as little as possible and take on new assignments as reluctantly as possible as well. Saving as much time and energy for myself as I can, while keeping an eye on my career progression and not negatively affecting my colleagues with my rather lackadaisical approach to work, is the guiding principle of my professional life. I am a cynic, or a successful pragmatist, as I like to call myself.
I now have time to read, write, think, exercise, hang out with friends and enjoy life. Self-recommended.
From 2012-2018 I worked a corporate job that I really loved, getting several promotions and increasing my compensation significantly. Worked a lot of hours bc I enjoyed the work so much but still what I considered reasonable, and I promoted healthy work life balance for all my teams. I had 3 young kids at home and was still able to do what I thought was my fair share of housework and raising the kids. Then I went through a divorce, 2 six-month stints at startups that were a mess, unemployed for another 6 months while volunteering for a political campaign then another 6 months of 80 hour weeks working for that campaign. when the campaign ended I was ready to find the next stage of my career, but covid had just arrived in the US and I had to scramble to find a job bc I was basically broke from earning 1/5 of my typical salary over the previous year. I ended up taking a job running DevOps for a small SaaS business. not really what I had in mind and the comp was decent but still a good 30% less than what I had been making previously. but the expectations were low, I got great reviews and made important impact in the areas that they needed from me. Probably only required 10-20 hours/week, and I didn't mind coasting, and my kids were growing up fast and I liked the flexibility to prioritize them over career. This week I'll have been coasting here for 1000 days. But recently I've been itching to get back into the kind of job I had before, where I could really sink my teeth into interesting problems, nurture high performing teams and build great products. I do wonder if I can find that environment again, or will everywhere I look be filled with people who have also gotten used to coasting and not really striving for excellence.
Why can't you just apply for your previous job?
my old boss reached out to me last year to see if I wanted to apply for a senior opening, but the finances of the company haven't been trending great, cost cutting culture (including engineering/product) has set in, and most of the team that I built have accordingly since moved on.
In the 80's the place where I worked incentivized employees to start working fewer hours. In the IT department we looked at the request in bafflement: "How many hours would you like to work?". We put in '40' and somewhere between HR and our bosses it was straightened out.
That's because the 40 hour work week is for factories, not knowledge work.
If you're interested in fractional work, I'm building a community for it called FRCTNL: https://frctnl.xyz
If you're interested in fractional work, I'm building a community for it called FRCTNL: https://frctnl.xyz
I cut back way more than that. I got tired of having such a large percentage of my earnings taxed at 50%. So when my passive earnings from years of saving and investing responsibly started pushing most of my employment income into the 40% + range, i said screw it and cut work way back to the equivalent of one day a week. If income tax ever gets set back to a level that more closely approximates the value ( sub 40% max for my estimate) i will work more again. In the mean time i am enjoying raising my family and employing less people.
Women too. My partner With her masters just accepted a 4 day a week position, and is stoked to work less and live more. Down the road she will shift to 3 days a week
> The average male worker put in 2,006 hours last year, while the average female worker logged 1,758 hours.
Is this ever factored in when we look into the gender pay gap?
Is this ever factored in when we look into the gender pay gap?
There is no wage gap. It's an illusion arising from myriad differences in life choices such as this.
Of course not.
They went from working 51.5 hours to 50 hours a week… could this be driven by less commuting more work from home? Same amount of work done in less time?
I wonder if remote work is attributed to it. HCOL puts a lot of financial stress on you, leading to a need to work hard to keep the standard of living. Mortgage + daycare + food is easily near 10k/month for many. With remote work you can about half that expense and there’s simply less financial pressure.
When I started work at my current company, I used the salary negotiation process to secure a 4-day work week for 80% of the offered salary, and I think more people should do this. Gives me enough time to seriously pursue an avocation and keeps me more engaged with my work overall.
The math makes sense for top earners. If I can get my salary for time off that's usually worth it.
Example: If I can get paid 80% as much money for a 4-day workweek, then I will take home 20% less money but I get 50% more days off. It's a good deal.
Example: If I can get paid 80% as much money for a 4-day workweek, then I will take home 20% less money but I get 50% more days off. It's a good deal.
That argument makes no sense. The units don't match. Why not get paid 40% less for +100% days off? 60% less for +150%? -100% for +250%?
If you can get paid 40% off for 100% days off then take it.
I chose 80% for a four day week because you’re working 80% as many days. Your hourly rate hasn’t changed in this hypothetical.
My income just went up a tax bracket. This new job is 9-5, but my mental stamina is only half of that. I'd reduce my working hours too, if I could.
... which gives them more time to think about rent seeking strategies and how to make their money work against the rest of us.
Now there will be no "wage gap".
Surprising that the WSJ would openly admit this, but I guess people have kind of figured it out by now.
[deleted]
So will the people taking their place also be high-earning?
[deleted]
Who is John Galt?
Yeah, nah.
I hired an engineer that I can best describe as lazy, and not in the good way.
Thanks to drinking the agile kool aid, it’s easy for engineers to coast and I have to remind the engineers individually that when someone else coasts they all suffer.
Context: 8 hour days and correct estimates are all I ask for.
I hired an engineer that I can best describe as lazy, and not in the good way.
Thanks to drinking the agile kool aid, it’s easy for engineers to coast and I have to remind the engineers individually that when someone else coasts they all suffer.
Context: 8 hour days and correct estimates are all I ask for.
Can you fire them?
It turns out it's not sustainable to spend every waking hour working or thinking about work and that people need to have lives outside work. This is even more important for /men/ in particular, because we have now learned about the harm caused by absentee fathers, and it is no longer acceptable for conscientious men to neglect their families in favor of work, as was the way things were done for the last 60+ years.
Sounds like companies should suck up the "loss of money" from not being able to overwork people and hire more. There's plenty of people who would like these high-earning jobs, and our society cannot continue to chew up and spit out people, leaving broken homes and mental health crises in its wake so some investor can make an extra 20 cents in dividends a quarter.