Indeed, thinking that people and the way they extract money from the environment is same is ridiculous and i've been teaching my kid from childhood that it's just wrong. We've been conditioned to think that way from the industrial era. I hope now people will finally learn to think different.
50% of your waking hours are spent at work. The person you are revolves around your working hours, the problems you solve the concerns you have, the money you make the persona you display at work.
Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
Maybe you wish to be more than your working self. That’s honorable and desirable. Just declaring it isn’t going to cut it though.
I only ever feel like "me" when I'm not at work. I work in retail, and every minute I'm at that job I feel my soul dying just that little bit more. But I go there because I like to not starve, which by the way I've done and lemme tell ya: it ain't fun.
This was obvious to those who value their time over the job given to them and all the office politics, performative meetings and the blame-game that comes with it.
When you meet someone, you assess them on two dimensions. The first is warmth - do you believe they mean you well? The second is competence - do you believe they're capable?
Well, sometimes.
At other times, the assessment may be based on signalling, tribalism, perception of status, personal connections, career connections, transactional goals, or other criteria.
Some people don't have or can't show warmth. Or they don't have the ability to "crack a joke at the right time" or make small talk. Should that be held against people when making assessments?
I want to thank everyone who hates work, is mentally checked out of their jobs and quiet quitting etc.
It makes it much easier for me to distinguish myself as a hard worker who cares about the business being successful. It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
When you are old and have lots of formative experiences that are not work-based, we can shake hands and mutually appreciate each other's motives and respective outcomes.
There’s an old aphorism: “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”
I worked in tech, because I love tech. No other reason, really. I accepted a job, making maybe half of what I could make, elsewhere, because of the personal satisfaction I got from it, and the relationships I made, there.
When I retired, I have continued to develop software, and am currently “leaning into” AI-assisted development.
During that time, I’ve also had plenty of time to be human.
I don't know if it's so universal. My opinion is rather that most jobs will make your passion become dull.
I knew some airline pilots who loved flying, but didn't feel so much like it after decades.
I got into aerospace engineering because I liked all aspects of it. A couple decades of end-to-end meetings and "TPS reports" later, I'm not as passionate anymore. Some time ago I was excited about solving a practical issue by coding some new tool myself, a year of exchanges with management and IT has made me look forward to move on.
By all measures my company is pretty good in my industry, but the corporate life just has a way of sucking away passion.
I love tech. Reading tech books is something I do on a daily basis. I work on personal side projects, learn new ways of solving things, languages, frameworks, libraries, etc.
But I have to say that as I grow older, I like less and less the tech my boss makes me work on. And that applies to perhaps the majority of potential bosses out there.
>My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things. [links to long bike trip]
Ok that's cool and all but many of us have bills to pay. Bike trips don't pay the bills. Software people have been economically advantaged up until now that they can go and do stuff like that.
Software is just another job in many countries, making pretty normal middle class wages. Job loss will hit us the same as any other middle class worker.
Agreed with the title and some of the broad sentiment, but two things stood out.
> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known
Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.
> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to
There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.
For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.
With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.
Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.
>For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by
Part of the problem is that the current system doesn't provide a great way to taper off, at least not by default. I suspect there would be a lot more people who'd keep working if it was simple to get a comparable job at 30 hours per week 25 weeks out of the year. But for those who are traditionally employed instead of contracting, the choice is often between full time or nothing.
> Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far.
What rich country are you talking about? Most developed countries have elected to have social safety nets, and that includes the US to some extent. "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.
Also what does "we" mean in that context? To me, it looks like you’re passing your opinion as a well-accepted fact.
The company has ex Fly.io people:;dissent is flagged. What a surprise. Fly.io will still end like Starfighter, where abusing HN for marketing did not work.
People don't need self-help advise, they need a fair redistribution of increased productivity.
We don't make a big deal of our jobs because we are stupid - it's the society that assigns this or that income to this or that job, and income determines lifestyle or in worst case the survival.
>People don't need self-help advise, they need a fair redistribution of increased productivity.
The increased productivity is pretty much entirely coming from AI researchers and the companies investing in huge amounts of GPUs, and they are the ones receiving most of the windfalls, how's that not fair?
Some people indeed identify too much with their jobs, but for many others getting replaced by A.I means on very practical terms - a huge hit in salary, it means possibly retraining - maybe for years, means stress to the family (mortgage, bills etc) perhaps even stress to the marriage.
I disagree that the people near you only love you or need you for your presence; they also rely on your paycheck. Your daugher may love you for you but she needs that check to the private school, that money for nice clothes and gadgets like her friends all have and paying for that apartment in the nice neighborhood.
I know it's hard, but I guess it's a good idea to live below your means in case something happens, and also save considerably to face moments of uncertainty. People with tech salaries can do it. Most of the world (and country, independently of where you live) live with much less.
As well, your point of view and it would seem the general default assumption in articles like this, is that people have families. We are in an unprecedented time of lonliness, there will be many people who if they lose their job they will have no support. Financial, emotional or logistical.
I’m sorry you had trouble with this, but I don’t understand the problem. I really don’t.
I am a tester. I’ve been a tester for 39 years. I’ll be a tester until I die, whether or not anyone pays me for it. At some point, you believe I am going to… collapse or something?
I have been burned out. Before I was a tester, I was a video game developer. I didn’t get the vitamins from that for the nourishment of my soul, and I DID collapse. In my experience, burnout has nothing to do with ego investment. It has to do with forcing one’s self to do something that isn’t a fit.
Once I learned about staying within my limits, I ceased having trouble with burnout. It had nothing to do with investing my identity into my chosen work.
BTW, I am a tester. I am also a father, a husband, an American, a philosopher, and a teacher. All these things are in me. As I turn 60, I am also beginning to embrace a new identity: old man.
One's job and the rest of one's life are not clearly delineated. Best friends and spouses are often met through work, which is inexplicably linked with one's actual performance on the job. This article treats them as if they are isolated. Also, it's worth noting that one's sense of purpose (as in career) is important to happiness, just as being part of a strong social network in one's personal life is. Balance is key.
I also took the route of finding a new hobby (biking, all things bike mechanics, even politics) but of course it's not paying any of my bills. That's the point. While I helped making other people very rich, I never owned shares or got a bonus after an exit.
> You are not your job. You're a person first. Your ability to connect, be present, and make people feel understood is what makes you irreplaceable to the people around you, which is the only market that counts.
True, but losing your job is still a big deal. It often means that you lose your income, your health insurance (in the US at least), many (if not most) of your daily interactions with other people, and your social status.
> My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things.
As others have noted, it's great to not actually need the paycheck you are working for.
You are what utility you deliver to others. I doubt they'll keep feeding, dressing and sheltering you for your ability to connect, be present and whatever.
Yes, it's true one needs to eat, have a roof over one's head, etc. Of course you can even like what you do, make friends at work. But never forget the nature of the relationship. It won't love you back.
Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury. If a person can't provide for themselves the rest goes out the window fast.
The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves.
The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we value about ourselves are generally not that valuable to others. I love my own personality and humanity, my soul if you will, but nobody's paying me for it, and so I have to value it accordingly.
Hell, let me go even darker: there are billions of souls on this planet. They're not a rare thing like say, gold. They're very easily produced, by two people getting it on. That leads to a harsh conclusion: human beings aren't that valuable as individuals. We are in fact very disposable and replaceable.
Those living in the first world have been shielded from that harsh reality for some time, but it's starting to show up on our doorstep and we don't like it, and due to our inexperience with it we haven't learned how to adapt to it.
It scares me too, but I refuse to be in denial about it.
I mean, if you are willing to sell your personality, humanity and your soul, I am sure you will find a lot of bidders. Thats literally why slavery was a thing.
There is a definite economic value to it. What does not is your consioisness that you experience since nobody else can use it.
> there are billions of souls on this planet. They're not a rare thing
> like say, gold. They're very easily produced, by two people getting it
> on. That leads to a harsh conclusion: human beings aren't that valuable
> as individuals. We are in fact very disposable and replaceable.
I appreciate the perspective you're offering here, and I don't entirely disagree, especially from an economic angle. But I do want to offer a counterpoint:
Lumps of gold are largely interchangeable. It's just a mass of gold atoms that we don't differentiate between, so one lump of gold is as good as another. But people are not like that. If you were to painstakingly transform a lump of gold into a beautiful sculpture, it would be worth more than its face value. And if a person transforms from the lump of flesh they are born as into a unique individual, they are worth something more, too. Two gold sculptures would not be interchangeable, to an art aficionado, and two people are not interchangeable in that way, either.
On the gross large scale, yes, we're all lumps of flesh squidging around on the planet; a uniform slimy patina on a tiny ball of dirt. And our various large-scale systems and policies (economic, political, etc) treat people in this way, too, in varying degrees.
But you are living your one and possibly only life (just like everyone else). And you have taken a unique path through that life (just like everyone else), and I'd just encourage you and/or others reading to cherish that, both in yourself and others, even if (or especially if) the systems in which we live don't seem to. It is something that can't be taken from you, because it is intrinsic to you, and that is a value beyond "what someone will pay for."
I mean, Jack London was pretty famously a professional hobo, wandering the country looking for a place to stay. He got good at storytelling so that he'd have something to give to the families who took him in and fed him.
Eventually Jack London writes Call of the Wild and becomes stupidly rich.
Was Jack London the famous author, living off of all the money (writing less popular stories, like White Fang) more valuable because of all the money he made? Was Jack London the hobo less valuable because he didn't write the bestseller Call to the Wild yet?
Or maybe, the entire concept of valuing people off a monetary lens is just bullshit.
> Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job (our means of survival) is a luxury.
Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job is the examined life. It what makes life worth living.
We should be incredibly skeptical of a social system whose default is to have individuals primary identify by the work they do. That necessarily sets people up for continuous identity foreclosure and psychic famine in a self re-enforcing feedback loop.
Frankly it's cringe to primarily identify by profession.
> there are billions of souls on this planet. They're not a rare thing like say, gold. They're very easily produced, by two people getting it on.
You've clearly never been through childbirth. Women go through incredible amounts of pain, and good parents make incredible sacrifices for their kids. They're not doing that because they're guaranteed some payoff.
> The harder version is asking yourself: if my job title disappeared tomorrow, would I still be me?
This part, though, misses an important point: status and wealth. And I think it’s especially directed at those.
It can be beautiful to identify yourself with your job if you are a professor or a social worker. The problem is identifying yourself with the social status provided by your job (paycheck and power), not the work itself.
104 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 90.7 ms ] threadSaying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.
Maybe you wish to be more than your working self. That’s honorable and desirable. Just declaring it isn’t going to cut it though.
And you are what you do for other people.
Besides providing support and entertainment for our friends and families, the concrete things we do that bring value to society are through our jobs.
Society doesn't run on hanging out or hobbies.
I really don’t think this is true
Well, sometimes.
At other times, the assessment may be based on signalling, tribalism, perception of status, personal connections, career connections, transactional goals, or other criteria.
Some people don't have or can't show warmth. Or they don't have the ability to "crack a joke at the right time" or make small talk. Should that be held against people when making assessments?
It makes it much easier for me to distinguish myself as a hard worker who cares about the business being successful. It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.
When you are old and have lots of formative experiences that are not work-based, we can shake hands and mutually appreciate each other's motives and respective outcomes.
I worked in tech, because I love tech. No other reason, really. I accepted a job, making maybe half of what I could make, elsewhere, because of the personal satisfaction I got from it, and the relationships I made, there.
When I retired, I have continued to develop software, and am currently “leaning into” AI-assisted development.
During that time, I’ve also had plenty of time to be human.
I knew some airline pilots who loved flying, but didn't feel so much like it after decades.
I got into aerospace engineering because I liked all aspects of it. A couple decades of end-to-end meetings and "TPS reports" later, I'm not as passionate anymore. Some time ago I was excited about solving a practical issue by coding some new tool myself, a year of exchanges with management and IT has made me look forward to move on.
By all measures my company is pretty good in my industry, but the corporate life just has a way of sucking away passion.
But I have to say that as I grow older, I like less and less the tech my boss makes me work on. And that applies to perhaps the majority of potential bosses out there.
Ok that's cool and all but many of us have bills to pay. Bike trips don't pay the bills. Software people have been economically advantaged up until now that they can go and do stuff like that.
> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known
Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.
> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to
There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.
For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.
With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.
Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.
Part of the problem is that the current system doesn't provide a great way to taper off, at least not by default. I suspect there would be a lot more people who'd keep working if it was simple to get a comparable job at 30 hours per week 25 weeks out of the year. But for those who are traditionally employed instead of contracting, the choice is often between full time or nothing.
What rich country are you talking about? Most developed countries have elected to have social safety nets, and that includes the US to some extent. "Caring for everyone" in your message looks like some form of utopia where no one would have to work, but that has never been advocated anywhere.
Also what does "we" mean in that context? To me, it looks like you’re passing your opinion as a well-accepted fact.
We don't make a big deal of our jobs because we are stupid - it's the society that assigns this or that income to this or that job, and income determines lifestyle or in worst case the survival.
The increased productivity is pretty much entirely coming from AI researchers and the companies investing in huge amounts of GPUs, and they are the ones receiving most of the windfalls, how's that not fair?
You are not your job. Do not put your ego in what you do. That’s something I discuss a lot during my 1:1s.
I am a tester. I’ve been a tester for 39 years. I’ll be a tester until I die, whether or not anyone pays me for it. At some point, you believe I am going to… collapse or something?
I have been burned out. Before I was a tester, I was a video game developer. I didn’t get the vitamins from that for the nourishment of my soul, and I DID collapse. In my experience, burnout has nothing to do with ego investment. It has to do with forcing one’s self to do something that isn’t a fit.
Once I learned about staying within my limits, I ceased having trouble with burnout. It had nothing to do with investing my identity into my chosen work.
BTW, I am a tester. I am also a father, a husband, an American, a philosopher, and a teacher. All these things are in me. As I turn 60, I am also beginning to embrace a new identity: old man.
Gradually, we are succeeding.
This leaves us with two options:
a) Decouple the value of human life from economic output
b) Watch as the value of human life rapidly approaches zero
True, but losing your job is still a big deal. It often means that you lose your income, your health insurance (in the US at least), many (if not most) of your daily interactions with other people, and your social status.
> My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things.
As others have noted, it's great to not actually need the paycheck you are working for.
https://youtu.be/NR1g30pQi4I?t=106s
Yes, it's true one needs to eat, have a roof over one's head, etc. Of course you can even like what you do, make friends at work. But never forget the nature of the relationship. It won't love you back.
The only way to ease the anxiety in people isn't with fluff about their 'human worth', but rather to help them envision other tangible and plausible ways in which they can provide for themselves.
The cold reality, in my opinion, is that the things we value about ourselves are generally not that valuable to others. I love my own personality and humanity, my soul if you will, but nobody's paying me for it, and so I have to value it accordingly.
Hell, let me go even darker: there are billions of souls on this planet. They're not a rare thing like say, gold. They're very easily produced, by two people getting it on. That leads to a harsh conclusion: human beings aren't that valuable as individuals. We are in fact very disposable and replaceable.
Those living in the first world have been shielded from that harsh reality for some time, but it's starting to show up on our doorstep and we don't like it, and due to our inexperience with it we haven't learned how to adapt to it.
It scares me too, but I refuse to be in denial about it.
There is a definite economic value to it. What does not is your consioisness that you experience since nobody else can use it.
Lumps of gold are largely interchangeable. It's just a mass of gold atoms that we don't differentiate between, so one lump of gold is as good as another. But people are not like that. If you were to painstakingly transform a lump of gold into a beautiful sculpture, it would be worth more than its face value. And if a person transforms from the lump of flesh they are born as into a unique individual, they are worth something more, too. Two gold sculptures would not be interchangeable, to an art aficionado, and two people are not interchangeable in that way, either.
On the gross large scale, yes, we're all lumps of flesh squidging around on the planet; a uniform slimy patina on a tiny ball of dirt. And our various large-scale systems and policies (economic, political, etc) treat people in this way, too, in varying degrees.
But you are living your one and possibly only life (just like everyone else). And you have taken a unique path through that life (just like everyone else), and I'd just encourage you and/or others reading to cherish that, both in yourself and others, even if (or especially if) the systems in which we live don't seem to. It is something that can't be taken from you, because it is intrinsic to you, and that is a value beyond "what someone will pay for."
Just my 2¢
Eventually Jack London writes Call of the Wild and becomes stupidly rich.
Was Jack London the famous author, living off of all the money (writing less popular stories, like White Fang) more valuable because of all the money he made? Was Jack London the hobo less valuable because he didn't write the bestseller Call to the Wild yet?
Or maybe, the entire concept of valuing people off a monetary lens is just bullshit.
Being able to see ourselves as something beyond our job is the examined life. It what makes life worth living.
We should be incredibly skeptical of a social system whose default is to have individuals primary identify by the work they do. That necessarily sets people up for continuous identity foreclosure and psychic famine in a self re-enforcing feedback loop.
Frankly it's cringe to primarily identify by profession.
You've clearly never been through childbirth. Women go through incredible amounts of pain, and good parents make incredible sacrifices for their kids. They're not doing that because they're guaranteed some payoff.
> The harder version is asking yourself: if my job title disappeared tomorrow, would I still be me?
This part, though, misses an important point: status and wealth. And I think it’s especially directed at those.
It can be beautiful to identify yourself with your job if you are a professor or a social worker. The problem is identifying yourself with the social status provided by your job (paycheck and power), not the work itself.