Relatedly: We convince people that you -- yes, you -- need to sweat and find something burdensome in order to make the big bucks and make the world a better place. We do a poor job of clearly conveying how to add real value and how to capture some portion of that in the form of money in your own pocket.

It actively causes problems for talented people who often think of their talent as something "easy" or fun and wouldn't know how to charge for it or how much to charge for it.

We have all these proxies for providing value -- such as hours worked -- that I think of as "paying you to sweat" rather than paying you to be productive.

I don't know what the solution is but it's something we ought to be more actively working on.

The easiest way to get promoted isn't to work more hours, it's to manage other people. So leverage and scale of impact seems to be what society has decided is most valuable.

We tend to pay better for positions of trust. This may or may not involve more skill and such positions are often primarily given to people with certain traits, like upper class white males.

Certainly, some people have gotten the memo on how to line their pockets for less time and effort. But I think we generally do a somewhat poor job of elucidating how to get paid for the value you provide rather than for who you know, what you are, how many hours you clock, etc.

If we want a better world where good things happen, this is a problem. It actively creates social injustice and also maximizes for teaching people to get over rather than add value per se.

How I wish that stuff like this, instead of being worn like a badge of honor, was seen as a dunce cap.

Why _the hell_ would you work more than agreed to?

The people telling you to work hard and promoting that ideology are the ones who will benefit, not you.

A significant part of salary is basically payment for availability: for that when you need to do a specific job, you already have a person hired and onboarded which you can immediately assign the job to. As opposed to looking for a contractor on a short notice (and paying them more for this short notice).

But higher-paying jobs are all salaried rather than hourly, which seems to indicate that society has already decided pretty low on the scale that more valuable jobs and work has less and less of a correlation with your hours worked.

A quick google gets me this:

While 40 hours of work per week is considered full-time, the average salaried employee does not often exceed 45-50 hours per week. This is because, according to Upcounsel, “If a job requires 55-60 (or more) hours to perform, many would consider it a poorly-designed job.” Even then, The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that almost 10 million American employees in all industries work 60 or more hours per week.

https://www.bamboohr.com/hr-glossary/salaried-employee/

I don't know if I would use the word "trust". I'd probably characterize it more as "responsibility". You get paid more because you are the one responsible if those who report to you don't deliver. Your boss will only yell at you, not your reports. Management does not require necessarily _more_ skill, but still requires a skillset nonetheless. If you can make 100 people 10% more efficient, then theoretically you are worth 10 people. I _do_ believe that you need to be able to make your managers "trust" you in order to get promoted, but that's talking a bit more about how to actually move up in the corporate world.

I also don't know if it's really that much a mystery how to make more money. Move into management. Move into higher-paying industries, like finance and tech. Own your own business (half of it being defacto making yourself a manager). I think mostly people don't have the privilege that allows them such mobility. You can usually get promoted to shift manager pretty easily within retail by, um, just never being late. But moving higher probably requires various social skills (such as gaining trust mentioned above) that certain upbringings will give you a massive head start on. Many industries require advanced degrees that require a heavy initial cash disbursement. And so on.

Or are we saying, that you've chosen an industry that doesn't pay well because you personally like it, and want to get paid more? That's difficult if your company/industry just doesn't have that much excess money to throw around. Or are we talking about how to get paid more for your job without switching into management? There's probably an upper limit to what you'll get paid (usually companies have pay bands for each position), based on what the company considers to be the maximum value that can be provided by that position. So you want to make sure that you're getting paid commensurate with your output relative to your peers. And I guess that requires similar skills to getting promoted positions, but with a much lower bar, usually just around convincing your boss that you're generating the value that you are. If you've capped out that pay band, then your options are to convince the company to rethink their value system (generally impossible), switch to a different position, or switch to a different company.

The majority of my bosses were incompetent as hell from a technical or project management perspective and I always wondered how they could be in these leadership positions. And I have a feeling it's knowing the culture of management and the terminology, communication style, and hierarchy enough to build trust with those leaders above them. I had a pretty rough childhood and have always struggled with fitting in with this managerial group and wonder if partly because of that upbringing.

My upbringing only ever emphasized two approaches, do your job and be a good line employee, or own your own business and be your own boss It's only recently in my career, within the past 5 years, where I had a manager want to groom me and started showing me how companies work.

One of the fun ways of looking at things, is that a manager can only get promoted once they have nothing left to do. They need to delegate out all of their tasks and responsibilities, and once they have none left, they can start taking on new tasks and responsibilities at the next level above and get seen for promotion. That then also means that the fastest way for you to get promoted is to make your boss get promoted, so take as much as you can off of her plate, which then also has the dual effect that when her position opens up, you, being the one who's doing the majority of her title's responsibilities, would be the natural fit to slide right in to that promotion. Of course, it's not enough just to do all the work, you also want to make sure everyone knows that you're the one doing all the work and that everyone wants to vote for you to become the new boss.

Dilbert has done a number of comics mocking this. In one, he flicks his fingers at work and talks about "Look! I am getting paid to flick my fingers!" I think in another he is getting ideas for work in the shower and the comic makes the point that if you get paid for ideas, it's really hard to say when work ends and when it begins because you can't turn the brain on and off like that.

I currently try to do paid freelance work on a project basis because I don't like tracking hours. I also blog and do various projects online and I try to monetize that with Patreon and tip jars.

Out of respect for the many valid criticisms of online ads I have seen on HN over the years, I don't think I currently have ads on any of my sits. I also tend to not have Amazon links, though I think I did add one of those to something recently and I am not averse to using them. I'm aware of the criticisms, but it's not so much a "moral" stand on my part, like with the ads. It's more just that I have never figured out how that works.

If I were making sufficient money from Patreon, tips and other paid work, I probably wouldn't bother with Amazon links. But my income remains stubbornly below what I really need and it's an avenue I'm willing to try given how poorly other avenues are doing.

    1) pick a specialty, so you have little or no competition, in a field where your clients all have a lot of money to spend and then must spend it on someone (with their only option being you)
    2) have very skilled very connected sales people constantly getting your next contract, you need to have maybe a half year's worth of projects always lined up and ready to go
    3) build a reputation, so then even amongst your very few competitors, people ask around when they need a job done, and your name always come up near the top of the list

Now, if I was just on my own, I have no idea how I would be able to recreate those conditions. I don't currently have some kind of ridiculous specialty or reputation, so I'd just be nameless in an endless pool of candidates. Then with such a lopsided demand-supply balance, I'd get paid the minimum level humanly possible, and then even lower than that if they were willing to put up with remote workers from different timezones. There's no way I'm hiring a sales guy to build me a pipeline, and if I was that good at doing so myself, I'd be way better off just joining a company and get paid millions to sell much more valuable contracts instead. So, instead, probably once I find a client, I would probably want to maximize how many times I come back to them as a repeat customer. So then at point I'm basically now an employee of sorts, who gets paid as little as possible, and is actively trying to be replaced by someone cheaper at any time.

So, uh, yeah, that all just translates to, I'd always go for a salaried employee position. The calculus in the company's mind with regards to compensation just changes completely once you're at that point, more along the lines of what I've referred to previously.

But why? If your contract says 40/wk is expected, then just work that and set targets based on that. Why give your employer 500+ hours per year of your life that you don't owe them?

If there’s a crunch time or a production issue, I don’t mind going above some contractually obligated minimum that helps the company disproportionately compared to the drag on my time.

At the end of it all, I’ve also gotten promotions that I’m 100% sure I’d have not gotten if I timed each of my workdays with a stopwatch and clipboard.

Now, if I became no longer useful to them for whatever reason, I’m sure I’d get The Talk, but I don’t know why that shouldn’t be expected, normal, and OK.

If an employer pays Y for X, but gets X+1 for the price of Y, why would he then bump you up to Y+1 if they don't have to? You're communicating through your actions that this is an okay state of affairs. You might do a bit of that X+1 work for some time to give you leverage during EOY reviews, but that's because you want that salary bump. Whether it will actually result in one is a different matter.

Jobs aren't charity and business is business. There's nothing inherently noble about doing a disproportionate amount of free work for a profit making company, especially when you have other obligations outside of work. Believing it is noble is a kind of Stockholm syndrome. The very essence of companies is to provide a service or product for a price as a just exchange of goods. The very nature of your employment is that they need someone to help make the service or product to get the money they want in exchange for a just fraction of the profits. When employees stop caring about adequate compensation, this results in a creeping exploitation.

By all means, if you're being inadequately compensated or exploited, quit and find a new employer (assuming you're in software).

At least in tech, hours seems to be determined moreso by the societal norms (culture) of the company, which is then an extension of the "type" of company and what is normally expected of such. You might choose to perform above or below what those norms are, and might or might not see rewards/consequences for doing so. So these are things you might gauge by, say, the size of the company, asking various people before or during the interview process about the work culture, and so on. There are of course also variations across teams and departments within the company, so you'd probably get the best information from your future boss on what they expect.

For example, one tech company I worked at was very 9 to 5. People start shuffling out around 4 and the place would be a ghost town at 6. People are also not particularly prompt about showing up in the morning, maybe rolling in at 10 or 11. So there were certainly many people there working closer to 30 hour work weeks. Some definitely had an attitude of trying to have little responsibility as possible and do as little work as possible.

I personally like working hard on interesting problems, which I guess is what the article is referring to. So having problems that I can choose to spend as many hours I like working on sounds great to me. And when I've had enough enjoyment for the day, I pack it up, some days earlier, some days later. And if there's a pressing issue or deadline, then I'll gladly put in extra hours to match, because such accomplishment under pressure is enjoyable to me as well. So, this is the type of company culture I enjoy, where no one is asking you to put in hard work and hours, but everyone who works there is intrinsically gladly doing so anyways.

Tied in with that, then, is the type of company that would most get value out of such individuals, so they would presumably be ones where the individual impact is much more amplified. Which also means that you have a much more powerful enjoyment feedback loop, in that you more directly see the impact of your effort on the company itself.

If anything, society has abdicated its decision making responsibilities.

That a CEO is "worth" hundreds of millions is an artifact of a system that is owned and operated by those the system identifies as valuable. Hmmmm....

For me the "hard part" regarding mindset was learning sales and marketing. This is for me the solution to everyone struggling with charging more money for what they do.

But that makes the difference between growing to be an author and staying one of a million bloggers forever.

Then you go to compete with the best of other schools and it becomes harder. Then you go to compete with the best your country and you meet people that are amazing. Then you see people around the world that run circles around you.

And even if you manage to compete in the world's league, you start competing against the best in History, in Math you will compete with Newton and Leibniz, Gauss or Euler. Even if you are the best mathematician of your time, you are insignificant against them.

The advantage people have today is tools like computers and Internet that gives you and advantage over people of the past, but also gives you a disadvantage: It gives you access to the best works of humanity while also increasing distractions by levels of magnitude.

It gives you computational power people in the past could only dream about, but uses that to power games, sexual scams and casinos in order to divert your attention and resources.

Today there are more opportunities than ever to create something of value for Humanity, but doing it is as hard as always has been.

And even "hard" work does not guarantee you anything. If you sacrifice a lot in order to create something worth it, maybe you will get rewarded, but it is not guarantied.

I prefer to study how to work smart instead of hard, but that process in itself is hard work.

Imagine four intersecting circles depicting:

1. What you love to do 2. What you are good at 3. What you can get paid for 4. What the world needs

It's about finding a balance between these factors.

See http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/ikigai-the-happiness-of-...

and http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/...

What if #4 needs people to compromise on #1 if we want to have any degree of equity, as opposed to the lucky elite doing what they love and everyone else serving them to survive?

What if #4 needs people to not selfishly maximize #3, e.g. take the ethical job that pays enough rather than the unethical one that pays you much more?

Modern culture has come to be obsessed with self actualization and happiness, at the expense of meaning, love (by definition not self-centered), solidarity in both difficulty and joy, and integrity/honor.

I would LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS on this essay about Viktor Frankl, for whom "meaning came from three possible sources: purposeful work, love, and courage in the face of difficulty." https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/26/viktor-frankl-mans-...

Buddhist Economics: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/07/07/buddhist-economics-...

What the world needs is equity, shared responsibility, genuine good will and humanity. The world needs to NOT be dominated by exploitation and oppression, the amassing of wealth, power and advantage at the expense of other people, cynical politics, and environmental degradation.

A better Facebook is a Facebook that does not exist. The fabric of society should never be run be a profit-seeking firm, especially one whose means of profit is directly detrimental to that very fabric.

The world needs more teachers, and zero people who salary is paid by advertising. How many HN'ers would give up their comfy salaries and instead be teachers? How many would give up many material comforts if that was the best way to protect or planet and better share resources with the world's have-nots?

The world needs everyone to work as if we were a family. What kind of family would give one child steak, asparagus and chocolate cake for dinner while another child is left to beg in the streets? Gives one a wonderful home while the other is abandoned in a slum? Gives one wonderful childcare and schooling and leaves the other to sink or swim (most likely sink)?

The world is the way it is because most everyone is self-centered about #1 and greedy about #3, and only pretends to care about #4.

We'll find a job that maximizes #1 and #4, and never do the deep critical thinking about how that contributes to or undermines #4. We'll lazily and self-servingly claim that it must be what the world needs because the free market is paying top dollar for it.

Viktor Frankl might say that if we focused on #4, we would find deep meaning and shared joy and humanity, which would totally transform what we think #1 is. We might blow our own minds.

What are you thinking of when you say "unethical"? Is a job that has something to do with fossil fuels unethical? Corporate litigation support? The defense industry? Tobacco? Cannabis? Guns? Pharmaceuticals? Meat processing? Investment banking?

Or do you mean unethical in more of an old fashioned way, like participating in concrete crimes?

It seems to me that there's something wrong with judging anything as unethical in an unqualified way if it is currently necessary to sustain society. We may want to eliminate fossil fuels, but millions of people are dependent right now so they don't freeze in the winter.

> necessary to sustain society

We as a society have abdicated nearly all critical judgement about this and instead worship the market as the arbiter of truth, the "one true algorithm" that decides what everything and everyone is worth and what everyone must do. We've been doing this so long that we don't realize that the algorithm has transformed our world in its image, so deeply that what is now needed to sustain society in indistinguishable from what is needed to maintain the functioning of the algorithm.

It seems you took my comment out of context. Global energy policy is not relevant to 99.9% of the people employed in the energy industry, who must make decisions about whether their participation is ethical.

Joe or Jane Schmoe who is a project manager at Exxon-Mobil is not making global policy choices or even oil-company-CEO choices.

They are contributing a tiny bit to whatever good and bad things the company is doing, but it's likely to be very small and indirect.

There is no choice on a daily basis when developing an Excel spreadsheet "should this spreadsheet help people who are cold or instead the greedy materialists?"

The granularity of the choice that is made is, should I continue working for, say, Chevron? Should I go work for Exxon-Mobil if they are slightly more ethical by some metric? Should I go work for some company that has a much lower carbon intensity because it isn't in the same industry? Or one that has more ethical leadership according to some public opinion of someone?

It sounds to me as though you have made statements about ethical responsibility that aren't consistent with the limited choices ordinary people can make.

So it is, and so it will ever be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

> history is the result of material conditions rather than ideals

As with things like these, Ikigai is a tool. It may or may not be useful/relevant. Depends on the situation I suppose ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ YMMV

Frankl's thoughts are interesting but unfortunately he lost me at "Suffering is an ineradicable part of life". This seems true if and only if one identifies with one's body/mind. If one chooses to identify with say "life" and not a specific body/mind, suffering might be eradicable. Feel free to read up on the eastern wisdom traditions specifically Advaita Vedanta for a much better exposition than I can provide in this small text box :) Good luck!

"Do things that you like to do" is a subset of exploit your comparative advantage, and a significantly smaller one.

A segment:

if it doesn't come bursting out of you

in spite of everything,

don't do it.

unless it comes unasked out of your

heart and your mind and your mouth

and your gut,

don't do it.

I think this mode of thinking is useful for helping people identify passions... but as advice, I think it ultimately falls short in the same way that "follow your passion" does.

It just assumes that everyone has a passion- an economically viable one at that. What if you don't? What about simple people who don't want to focus on solving problems? This might be hard for most HN readers to sympathize with. People with technical backgrounds tend to be driven problem solvers. But I don't think most people are really like that.

"Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life." Making a living doing what you love sounds great, but I frankly don't think it's a realistic expectation for everyone to have and I worry that we're just setting people up for disappointment by encouraging it so strongly.

On /r/cscareerquestions there is a not infrequent subject of posting - people who get into software development and find that they really hate sitting in front of a computer or having to support and debug code.

When everything is going well, they enjoy writing code but as soon as the harder problems come, it's not enjoyable.

Personally, I love photography as a hobby. I've got (check Adobe Lightroom) 200 GB of photographs... a good chunk of those are from when I was shooting slide and scanning them. When I was unemployed in '09, I looked into what it would take to become a professional photographer - and I realized I really didn't want to do that. Clicking the shutter is fun, but the harder problems of being a photographer (scheduling, wedding photography, marketing, sales, etc...) I really didn't enjoy doing at all.

A sibling of mine went from being a manager of a yoga studio to being an RN (the hard work of being an RN pays better than trying to run your own yoga studio). Its not something that my sibling is passionate about (like yoga was) - but its hard work that my sibling is able to do, endure, and be well compensated for. Yoga? Its now more of a hobby (and there are other outlets for the passion).

From the blog post:

> I realize that "Find your passion" makes for a more compelling motivational poster than "What hard problems do you enjoy working on?" (and even that's a lot better than "What kind of pain are you willing to endure?"), but it might give some people a more realistic way to approach finding their life's work.

There are other parts of the workforce where someone can get a job that pays acceptably and probably something that people who don't want to be solving problems can find a job.

The advice for job seekers shouldn't be "maximize your happiness" but rather "minimize your unhappiness".

I don't know about that. If the the typical HN reader cared about solving problems they wouldn't switch jobs every two years and keep rewriting the same things over and over in the latest fad framework.

Quickly found out that enjoying the high school chemistry classes the most didn't translate to chemistry processes being what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. On the other hand, I fell in love with tinkering with the computer's software (first in windows, and then even more after I installed Linux) right away.

I stuck it out with chemical engineering for a year and half, before finally dropping out and starting fresh with systems engineering (more or less my country's equivalent to computer science) during what would have been my fifth semester. Haven't looked back since and, much like the author says, I love solving those puzzles.

I would say a big part of learning anything is getting accustomed to the thing and molding your own brain to function the way it requires you to. Having studied and worked in CS has made my brains a lot more logical with the probable wilting of the more feeling-based thinking patterns. Didn't happen overnight but I guess my neural pathways were already inclined towards it so the jump wasn't that huge.

Yet I think I could have been reasonably satisfied with any work with a layer of written abstraction (so writing in general) and some practical application to it. That's what I feel my natural advantage is.

With physical labor, I think I would fared just as well. But I think in that case I would have gotten less out of my capacity (brains and impact-wise).

I would say finding the thing that you can do what others deem too boring or tedious to do or learn with the intensity you are capable of, is where your best potential lies. This might also make it feel like "not-working" while you are doing much better than the average person. And if you feel like you _are_ working, then you should be doing great.

I mean I know he is a tenured CS prof (no small feat) but the way he talks about his method and its result would make you think he has won 2 Nobel prizes

Perhaps he will point to that in the future to say why he hasn’t won Turing awards. Or perhaps he makes more money from his “side hustles” as an author, blogger, and podcaster.

Or it’s a good match for “finding the hard work you’re willing to do”. He is willing to do the hard work to get tenured, but not the hard work to be the absolute best in the field.

Is this the academic version of " until I took an arrow to my knee"?

And more importantly, no one ever who does hard stuff thinks to themselves that they are doing hard stuff. Almost every inch of such work is a combination of interest and constraint i.e., you want to do it or you have to do it.

Secondly, you want emotions helping you here. Emotions evade this trap tactfully by being abstract in their appearance. Every person I know who works on hard mathematics is either a romantic who does it because of their love (interest) for mathematics or a foot soldier who does it because they have to. There is no way you can articulate your way into anything if there is no emotional vector involved(negative or positive). Hardness is just a detail that can be abstracted if you are emotionally aligned.