I'm kind of suspicious whenever I hear the phrase "work/life balance". It strikes me as something that seeks to reinforce the industrial-revolution-era idea that my (week)days should be broken into thirds: working (not fun but pays bills), playing (fun but costs money), and sleeping.
Sure, that's definitely better than working 12 hour days, but is that really the goal? It seems that most of the fun-loving and happy people I know, regardless of their financial situation, don't operate in such a world.
A good friend and startup founder (who you might think would tend towards free-market/libertarianism, since he works very hard and surely wants to be compensated for it) asks me: we can feed and clothe and house everyone, so why don't we? Why isn't work optional? People who work hard to make a dent in the universe will anyway, and people who just mess around don't really get much done at work anyway, so why keep up the charade? How many great ideas (or works of art) are stuck in somebody's brain simply because they don't know how to make that idea pay the rent?
I'm a programmer -- or at least, of all the things I've done in my life, that's the one I've been paid the most money for. But personally, I hate that it's always indoors and sedentary. It's unfortunate that society places so much value on an activity that is arguably bad for my physical and mental health. So why are virtually all programming jobs (ostensibly) full-time, i.e., 40 hours? A programmer's salary is great, but why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary? Out of all the possible ways of dividing up my time, spending all daylight hours indoors writing code is perhaps the worst I can imagine.
I know I don't have all the answers, but I think that after a decade of work, I'm starting to know what questions to ask. If I find myself asking about "work/life balance", I've already lost, because it means I'm admitting that the "work" is something I know I won't love doing. Certainly some people have no problem breaking their day up like this, but I can't, and I suspect I'm not alone.
People who work hard to make a dent in the universe will anyway, and people who just mess around don't really get much done at work anyway, so why keep up the charade?
This is typical libertarian claptrap, from the Skilled White Male litany. The only thing of value appears to be making a dent with your special skills, and no consideration is given to the huge numbers of unskilled jobs required to keep 'the universe' running.
The point is that society supports far more shitty retail jobs than universe-denting programming jobs. Those shitty jobs need to be done, and it's hard to excel in them. What kind of dent can a convenience store clerk make? They're still necessary though - and for people in those jobs, work is not particularly fun.
In terms of your hand-wringing about full-time programming work, there are all sorts of ways you can work part-time in programming and part-time in something else. That you can't see this shows you haven't really thought about the problem seriously.
Hell, if you really are a 'denter' and have skills that are in demand, you have a good chance of simply going up to your boss and saying that you only want to work part-time now. Frequently they'll still want to keep you on for your dentable skills.
> This is typical libertarian claptrap, from the Skilled White Male litany.
Perhaps I was understanding or explaining it poorly, but my understanding is that it's close to the opposite of the "typical libertarian claptrap", which I take to mean something close to "we need the concept of money (and a free market) to get people to work" (and consequently, if you don't work, you get no money, and therefore none of the stuff you need). The position I was talking about is very explicitly that, whether or not you work at all, you deserve food/shelter/healthcare/education/etc.
The point was not whether you can change the world with your work (I think that'd more accurately be the "G. H. Hardy claptrap"!), but why you do what you do, or not, e.g., I know someone who works in a bookstore who would be there even if salaries did not exist.
> shitty jobs need to be done
This statement has been the case for all of human history, and yet the mechanism by which these jobs manage to get done has changed rather drastically many times. Even assuming the current set of "shitty jobs" isn't changing, I see no reason the mechanism couldn't change again.
> In terms of your hand-wringing about full-time programming work, there are all sorts of ways you can work part-time in programming and part-time in something else. That you can't see this shows you haven't really thought about the problem seriously.
You are welcome to accuse me of being stupid, or to point out that these opportunities are incompatible with my other (unstated) requirements, but it's not fair to claim that I've not thought about the problem seriously.
The position I was talking about is very explicitly that, whether or not you work at all, you deserve food/shelter/healthcare/education/etc.
I misread you then. What you wrote sounds like the typical libertarian spiel of 'skilled work = hard work' and if you're not skilled, then by definition you don't work hard, with the corollary that you are then not deserving of wealth or esteem.
You are welcome to accuse me of being stupid, or to point out that these opportunities are incompatible with my other (unstated) requirements, but it's not fair to claim that I've not thought about the problem seriously.
I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you're hand-wringing (that is, not serious about doing it) if you're having trouble figuring out eays of doing it.
I'm sorry but this is BS. You don't deserve food/shelter/healthcare/education etc. You only deserve what you go out of your cave, kill, and bring back home.
Food, shelter, healthcare, and education are all things that require someone else to do something to provide. Why should I have to go to work to pay for your X that you think is a right so that you can sit on your couch or plant trees and be happy. That's absurd. That bread you find at Kroger, somebody had to work to make it appear in your cart.
> That bread you find at Kroger, somebody had to work to make it appear in your cart.
In any community there is likely to be someone with a passion for something. Whether that something is making bread, helping the sick, or teaching children.
It's true that there are some jobs which people aren't naturally inclined to do, but in the society being described I think that communities would become smaller, and more cohesive. Some the of the jobs required to maintain a large city no longer need to be done, and those that do still need doing become less of a strain and can be distributed amongst people.
we've tried utopian societies before. they have never worked. we've tried socialism and it mostly doesn't work that well. communism looks great on paper and it has been a failure. why do people still continue to believe this is the way things should be?
>I'm sorry but this is BS. You don't deserve food/shelter/healthcare/education etc. You only deserve what you go out of your cave, kill, and bring back home.
Yes. That's what we did when we lived in caves.
When man grew into civilization (neoliberals excluded), we collectively decided that people deserve food/shelter/healthcare/education. Not in every country, mind you. But then again, there are countries so backwards that they still have the death penalty...
>This is typical libertarian claptrap, from the Skilled White Male litany.
No it isn't. That's straight-up Socialism. The phrase who you might think would tend towards free-market/libertarianism doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
The idea that people who make dents are the only ones that work hard, and people who don't make dents don't want to work/don't work hard is part of the worldview of libertarians.
No libertarian is going to suggest that the guy out laying asphalt isn't working hard.
You seem to have confused libertarians with some sort of ultra-elitists, whom I don't think exist in any significant number.
Only a very small fraction of mankind is actually making a dent in the world. Are you saying that libertarians believe that only 0.01% of people are actually working hard?
You are correct, no libertarian will say that as a direct comment. However, it is implicit in the way many of them present their points - if you're not getting ahead in the world (usually this means accruing enough wealth to live comfortably), that's due to 'not working hard/smart enough'.
Most of the libertarians I have talked with on the web are skilled white males, largely unaware/unaccepting of the advantages they've had in being able to gain the skills they do, and basically assume that if you don't have marketable skills, it's solely due to your own effort. Big subscribers to the Just World Fallacy. They offer no mechanism for either levelling the playing field nor systematic assistance for those whom catastrophe strikes. There's very much a subtext of "you only deserve to be comfortable if you're like me" in libertarianism.
Only a very small fraction of mankind is actually making a dent in the world. Are you saying that libertarians believe that only 0.01% of people are actually working hard?
I think we have very different ideas of what 'making a dent in the world' means.
I must note, however, that it's interesting you use 'mankind' - another trademark I find libertarians use frequently, hence why I specify "skilled white male" above.
Group A--believes the best way to help the poor is by allowing the free market to lift everyone, and allowing private charities to fill the void.
Group B--believes the best way to help the poor is by taking a small percentage from everyone who can afford it to guarantee basic human necessities for everyone who can't.
You can debate the effectiveness of the methods of Groups A and B all you want. And that's what you started to do, but then you went directly to questioning the motives of Group A.
Since they don't agree with your methods, you've decided that libertarians believe that the poor get what they deserve and have no interest in helping them. You've moved them from the "wrong" category to the "just plain evil" category.
If libertarians really believed that the poor get what they deserve, why would they donate to charity? If your model were correct, one would expect self-professing libertarians to donate considerably less money to charity than other idealogical groups. I can't find any statistics to back this up.
>'mankind'
You have enough sample data to associate the word "mankind" with libertarians? Or are you more likely to take notice of the word's use when engaging with libertarians?
Of course they do. Libertarians in general believe that private charity should replace the government safety nets. Private charity is the first response most libertarians will give to the question of what do we do with the indigent.
You're confusing libertarians with Ebenezer Scrooge.
The ones I have come across have generally stated that they will engage in private charity if the government stops taxing them. It holds all the value of an election promise. But if you're not on the poverty line and you're not already giving to charity, you won't magically become charitable with the application of more money. It's just not how people work.
And certainly, if you're not giving to charity now out of some sense of 'cave deservedness' like clarky07 above, then nothing will make you give continuously to people in lifelong need of financial support.
Yes, they do. For libertarians the big sticking point isn't this or that thing should be done. It's whether or not people have the social obligation to help the poor or the legal obligation.
"Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more"
>Since they don't agree with your methods, you've decided that libertarians believe that the poor get what they deserve and have no interest in helping them.
Most folks I've debated who claimed to be libertarians have pretty much stated just that, and handwaved away the problem of those in need as 'supportable by private charity' (as you have suggested in A). Like I said, libertarianism provides no mechanism for levelling the playing field - those born into poverty are frequently not even aware that they can better themselves, let alone how. Libertarianism does not address this issue, instead promoting a system that sounds nice on paper, but significantly benefits those born into privilege.
The slogans of libertarianism are nice and catchy, but the devil is in the detail. If you're not skilled, white, male, and healthy, there's a good chance of falling through the cracks.
>If libertarians really believed that the poor get what they deserve, why would they donate to charity?
The one and only libertarian I've debated that did mention that they personally gave to charity did so as a boast ("I supplied two trucks full of stuff to Katrina victims", within the context of 'this is more than you gave'). No other libertarian I've talked to has mentioned giving themselves, it's always a shout-out to faceless 'private charity'. I'm not saying that libertarians don't give, but they don't seem to be great at giving positive examples of libertarian charity.
>I can't find any statistics to back this up.
Can you find any statistics to refute it? If not, you're only making half an argument. I can't find any references saying that astronauts didn't land on the sun, does that mean they did?
>You have enough sample data to associate the word "mankind" with libertarians? Or are you more likely to take notice of the word's use when engaging with libertarians?
I was raised by a feminist and have been noticing the word 'mankind' stick out like a sore thumb for over 20 years. I've only known about libertarianism as a philosophy for about 10, so it's fair to say that no, I don't just notice it more with libertarians. Libertarian dialogue is frequently sexist ('mankind' and 'rights of man' are common) and commonly makes no acknowledgement of issues that affect women (like what happens to mothers, who bear the vast brunt of the parenting load and have less opportunity to skill up).
The thing is, libertarianism promotes itself as being fair and egalitarian - if it were really about this, libertarians would self-police their own dialogue about this overtly sexist crap. They don't, and when called on it, they get defensive (as you have) and explain it away, rather than say 'my bad' and admit that they weren't being egalitarian. I personally find that this is just more support to the idea that libertarianism is really - perhaps subconsciously - about preserving existing privilege.
I don't know if you're a libertarian or not, but you are making some of the logical errors that libertarians do.
Even as I share your distaste for (parts of) the libertarian ethos, I think you're largly blind to your own ideological faults. To wit, poor people are not stupid, and using "man-kind" in a sentence is not an attack on woman-kind.
I don't buy this idea that we have to educate the poor about their options like they are primitive tribes (note the code appearing here). "They" are perfectly intelligent and aware of their options in aggregate... just give them more options and more of a safety net. Or better yet, ask them what they need...
Likewise, I doubly don't buy the idea that every use of a word containing "man" is a form of patriarchal oppression. The same as I dont view sports analogies as oppressing those who dont play, dont watch and dont like sports.
I espose libertarian claptrap all the time, I also try to work as little as possible by ensuring I provide as much value as possible.
The hardest jobs in the world also happen to be the worst paying, hard work is generally for suckers. Smart work is where the money is, eventually the money works for you.
> why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
I have often wondered about this myself. I think I could be equally productive as a programmer on 20 hours a week, since I spend a lot of time on the web and generally doing things that we programmers do when we need to give our minds a break. I really don't think anybody can actually do 40 hours of programming a week.
I'm going to lazily posit the law has something to do with it. I had my own business for a while, but never really made enough money at it (I'm a lousy entrepreneur). Even if I weren't making more money for about the same time investment, I might have fled from business ownership simply because I didn't like having nightmares that I did the taxes wrong—and I never had an employee. It's probably as hard and as expensive tax-wise to hire someone for 20 hours a week as 40 and probably a lot harder for more than 40.
Another possibility is that it's just what happens in our society.
These answers don't feel all that satisfying to me.
You have no idea how much time I spend fake-working in the office. If I have to build something new, it usually gets done within a certain time range (that could be over the course of a day, several days, and I often dabble with it at home. Once it's done, it's done. I have to fake-work for the rest of the week.
Now, I guess I could manage my work habits so that project takes the span of a week (not working late, not taking work home), but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. If anyone passes by my desk on fake-work days, I look like a real slacker asshole.
Interesting. My experience with Java is that the only thing that gets in the way of programming in Java is the verbosity, which an IDE with powerful refactoring tools (eclipse, IDEA, eclim) gets around nicely. I would argue that in many ways, Java is easier to program in than a lot of other currently hot languages because there is so much tooling around it (although I would trade basically any python package manager for ivy any day), it is statically typed, and its behavior is generally boring but extremely predictable, and not hard to reason about, excluding the threading library which is not super fun. What have you found is frustrating about using Java?
Maybe because I'm not used to java anymore I constantly find myself wanting to do things that are "bad" in Java. I want my function to return more than one variable and then accept it on the other side like x,y = getCoordinates(); Yes I can do something almost like that in java with an array or collection but it's considered "wrong."
Sometimes, I want to have a module with just functions, not an a class.
Writing the long list of setters and getters that just return and set themselves is really frustrating to me, knowing that in other languages I would just have properties. And working around this in java by making them all "public" is considered "wrong."
And while I agree that java has excellent tools, the one tool that doesn't work as well or as easily for me is the interactive console. Perhaps it's java's verbosity, or maybe this tool hasn't been as fleshed out as it has been in python, javascript and even php (phpsh), but I haven't found one that works as easily for me.
I agree, writing Java without powerful refactoring tools is a bore--that's why it's great to use Eclipse's "Generate Getters and Setters based on Fields" refactoring tool.
Interestingly, I've never really felt the pain of not having a good REPL for java, although I often use it in other languages. Although Java isn't interpreted, unlike the other languages you mentioned, Scala is both interpreted and compiled, so it's not a great argument for why it doesn't have a good REPL. I think eclipse's very strong autocomplete somewhat obviates the need for it, because I know that I mostly depend upon bpython/ipython for the easy access to docstrings and information about arguments.
I wonder if part of the reason why I've never felt the need for a REPL in Java is simply because there isn't one built in, so it isn't a tool that I ever reach for. REPLs are great for prototyping, and for learning, but I've found that the more I learn about a language, the less I tend toward using the REPL, so perhaps it's simply that I got used to being able to edit my code instead of having to type it all in again.
If you'll be programming in a language like Java, it really helps to familiarize yourself with the tools. I don't remember the last time I had to write boilerplate getters and setters for member variables. In Eclipse, for example, you simply declare the member variables, click on Source -> Generate Getters and Setters, and viola, all the boilerplate code is inserted for you.
If you were writing this in C, you'd return a point as a struct. The Java equivalent of a struct is a class. Write a class to wrap those values and return an instance of that class. Yes, there's overhead there that a struct strictly avoids, but it's the way the language was designed, and it's a much better solution than indexing into an array or collection.
As for multiple return, I've never once seen a need for it that couldn't be solved by creating ad-hoc MethodReturnValue classes that wrapped everything I wanted to return multiply.
> A programmer's salary is great, but why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
My company does this. Work half-time, get paid 50% of full-time programmer's salary + health insurance.
My anecdotal impression is that "productivity" is much higher than 50% of a full-time person, but everyone feels less busy, less stressed and more relaxed. Ends up being a great deal for both employer and employee I think.
Anyway, if you're a Rails dev in the Bay Area drop me a line, we're hiring.
Anecdotally, I seem to get at least as much work done during a two-week sprint in which I have taken a few days off. Programming is not a linear process. On the other hand, there is something to be said for being immediately available to handle issues that arise during work hours, I suppose.
> A programmer's salary is great, but why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
You can. You need to become a contractor and only accept 20 hours of work a week.
I know that the guy that teaches yoga and step at my gym is a programmer as his "day job". That's one way to stay healthy.
Become a consultant. You get wide freedom in how you spend nonbillable hours.
There exist many people working 1,000 hours a year or less. We all know this. At some point we started believing they must not be successful members of the professional class. That is observably false.
All of the labor laws have been set up around the model of people with life-long careers working at a factory (or equivalent). That is no longer the norm, and the impedance mismatch between outdated laws and the modern workplace has become greater and greater.
Why is 40 hours the norm? Why is working a single job all the time the norm? Why are all of your health insurance and retirement options tied to your current employer? In every case it's due to an accident of history.
Why are all of your health insurance and retirement options tied to your current employer? In every case it's due to an accident of history.
Indeed. If you look outside the US you'll find many countries that aren't set up that way. It's going to be interesting to see how that effects the way jobs evolve in the future. Mine aren't in the UK for example - and I imagine that if they had it would have had quite an impact on the risk/benefit of some of my work decisions over the years.
> Why are all of your health insurance and retirement options tied to your current employer? In every case it's due to an accident of history.
I won't deny that it's an accident of history, but I'm not sure if it's related to the same accident of history that made single full-time jobs the norm. After all, most other countries where single full-time jobs are the norm don't have that particular problem.
It's certainly related. At many points in the history of US labor people have sought for the appropriate "resting point" for various responsibilities (such as pensions and retirement investments) and often they've come to the employer, because through a certain viewport during a certain period of time it seemed like a sensible solution.
The problem is that there does still exist a whole lot of jobs that require people to do them that are not easy to motivate people to do. Some of these jobs are required so that we can house, clothe, and feed them.
If nobody actually had to work, would we really have enough people building homes, farming food, and making, and distributing food such that we could continue to feed, clothe and house everbody? I don't know what the answer is, but you must admit that there is a serious possibility that the answer is No. I agree everybody should have the right to food, clothes, and shelter, but I'm not sure that the approach of giving it to everybody for free will actually be sustainable, at least not without some additional thought into the infrastructure.
The basic idea being discussed is very close to a "Guarunteed Minimum Income" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income ). Essentially, everyone regardless of work is supplied with a certain minimum, but with enough work they can earn far more than that minimum.
I do not believe it has ever been fully tried in practice (though a strong social safety net comes somewhat close in a piecemeal fashion). But there is no reason in principle it cannot work and some respected thinkers such as Thomas Paine have advocated it. There would be enough people motivated by a combination of the love of the job and the desire to earn more than the low-guarunteed minimum to ensure necessary societal functioned.
It may have some undesirable side effects, but in principle it could be made to work.
Well we enjoy the effects of the "social" engine of grouth in Spain now a days(among the other problems as a construction bubble, etc..)
Basically you have people trying all sort of tricks to recieve a salary from the government just because they deserve it. That way they don't have to work anymore. People tend to look at this as a right and the ones who go and earn their money with their effort are regarded as "dumb", after all it makes no sense to work if you don't need to. Maybe this is a cultural thing, but I find dangerouse to reinforce people in receiving money with out contributing with their job.
I don't know if people should receive actual money, but it makes sense to me that they receive access to safe housing, food, healthcare and education. I don't think this can work in poorer societies, but in ones which can afford it, well, it seems most humane. If you aren't working, and can, well you won't be able to brag to your friends about having the latest ipad, but you should still have a place to sleep and food to eat. I think most people don't like sitting idly by all day long and since a lot of fun things cost money, they'd be willing to sacrifice some of their time to be able to afford those other things.
I have been to Norway a few times and I liked the way they managed to balance things out there. Also, I recently watched this TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
How economic inequality harms societies and I thought it was interesting.
I agree in the part, that is more human to share with those that don't have. But giving all the basics to those able to work will back fire ( as it currently does in countries like spain), people will go to great lengths to cualify as a "payable non worker".
As politicians earn their possition with votes, they tend to buy votes increasing this "social" solutions. Over time money spent in this piles up and reaches unreasonable sizes(and fuels corruption aswell)
A completely different scenario are the health care, housing and education of on-risk population, I meen kids and old or ill people. Here in Spain the system has been abused (mostly by the lack of value that people gives to Free stuff felt as a IS their right to enjoy no matter what, on oposite to Ariely's studies).
I still find great that anybody may have access to the latest cancer treatment or heart surgery( while the per capita cost of health is lower than in the US).
I don't think we can afford a guaranteed minimum income unless it's too small to live on or health care isn't included. Health care is expensive. Right now the system works (in every first world country) by transferring money from young, healthy people to older sick people. Give younger people the opportunity to slack off, and a great many of them will.
I think the idea is great, and there is probably a way to make it work. I also just think that it'll end up being more complicated then we imagine in order to build it in a stable manner.
> why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
I would gladly give up 20% of my salary to take Fridays off entirely.
True. I'd also not be drinking water, using a parking space, or any of the other office facilities, and if I shut down my PC I'd be using less electricity.
I'd of course still be receiving benefits and taking up space on the mail server, and my desk would sit there unused.
This is what the German Pirate Party has in it's manifesto:
11 Right to secure livelihood and social participation
Each person has the right to a secure livelihood and social participation. Respecting and protecting human dignity is the highest commandment of the German Basic Law. People can only live in dignity if their basic needs are met and their social participation is assured. In our monetary economy, this requires an income. If an income can only be achieved through work, we must assure full employment to protect all people’s dignity. This is why full employment has been a major goal of our economic policy in the past. There are two paths by which we try to achieve this goal: Through economic measures which aim to create jobs or through publicly financed jobs with the main goal of securing people’s livelihood. These are both detours which require substantial public funding. If public funds are used, however, this must be done as efficiently as possible. Since the goal is to secure an income and a livelihood for everyone, this income should be guaranteed directly to each individual. Only this way can we protect the dignity of all people without exception. Just as we provide public security, traffic routes and large parts of the educational system without a direct compensation, a secure livelihood must also become a part of our infrastructure. We Pirates are convinced that the overwhelming majority of people will seize the chances provided by a secure livelihood to develop their full economic and social potential. A secure livelihood creates room for self-determined education, research and economic innovation. It enables volunteerism, e.g., taking care of relatives and children, independent journalism, political activity or creation of art and free software. This benefits our entire society. This is why the Pirate Party supports solutions which guarantee unconditionally a secure livelihood and social participation while sustaining and enabling economic freedom. We want to prevent poverty, not prosperity.
Well here's an idea. Imagine a company where you get hired with a probation period, and if you manage to automate a significant aspect of your job during that period, you get to keep it. That is, if you make yourself obsolete, you get to keep the pay. If you then do the same for another task, you get to keep the pay for the higher-paying of the two AND you get to give the lower-paying one to a person of your choice.
This gives you both incentive to take crappy, menial jobs as a technology expert (a robot could do that crap - no human should be so punished) and the most valuable thing of all - free time without worrying about income. And if you like automating human-degrading jobs, you can move up while giving people you care about the same thing.
Just an idea I'm throwing out there, it's my best answer so far for how to deal with the problem.
Interesting idea, but what happens to the older or less-educated workers who could have handled jobs similar to those? You might eliminate the need for drudgery, but you'd need a way to bring lower-end workers up to the levels needed for jobs that were previously 'beyond' them, and place them in those jobs.
It's the eternal problem of Luddism (aka technology is taking away our jobs and we aren't getting better ones).
Well, they can be gifted an income source from one of the more proficient ones and that gives them a chance to develop themselves with all the newfound free time.
> why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
Health care is mostly not insurance, is tied to employment for a purely historical reason, and is precisely the largest issue preventing people from ditching safe but boring jobs and going after something new.
(And YC clearly understands this: look at the age of YC founders. Young, healthy, able to depend on someone else's healthcare or none at all for a year or so. Oh, and no mortgage.)
This is a standard answer that everybody gives, but for the most part it just isn't true. People hear the occasional horror stories and assume it is difficult for everybody without trying to source it themselves. I am leaving my current job at the end of the month and will be freelancing/starting my own business. I bought health insurance with no problems. I was approved in less than 2 weeks. I am married and have 3 small children and pay a little less than 300 a month.
You are fortunate not to have any pre-existing conditions in your family and i wish you not to ever have any. If you were to develop a serious condition while on individual or or a small business(<10 people) group plan, you will eventually be priced out of your insurance by your carrier raising your rates. This risk is generally spread out over large group such as a big company with several thousands of employers such as Google and thus their medical costs are same regardless of your medical history.
Furthermore once you or your family member develops a "preexisting medical conditions", you may not be approved next time you decide to to from corporate plan to individual. My wife was denied by one carrier for having chronic migraine for which she was taking prescription drugs and not seeing a doctor more than once a year.
With a current state of healthcare/insurance, I will only be able to leave my current employer and start a startup for as long as COBRA and CAL-COBRA allows. After that I will be forced to either join a larger company or have my family be without healthcare if a carrier decided to deny us coverage for preexisting conditions.
> You are fortunate not to have any pre-existing conditions
THIS. Although in many states there is a high risk pool that you can sign up for, when insurers deny you. I know someone who's done this in California and while there was a 6-9 month waiting list, and the coverage wasn't great, it was much much better than no coverage at all.
You actually can do all of the things you want to do.
The only thing that is stopping you is the risk / uncertainty of changing your situation.
One thing I've come to believe is that there is never enough time for anything. And so you have to make time.
If you're serious about adjusting your life to fit more outdoor or social interactions, there are part-time jobs and activities that can fulfill that. And there are plenty of contract jobs to fill up 20hrs a week, probably even several part-time contracts.
"I'm a programmer -- or at least, of all the things I've done in my life, that's the one I've been paid the most money for."
Nice. Pretty much how I see myself. Also, FYI. After many years in the industry I realised I was stagnating so I decided that something needed to change.
After a lot of thinking I managed to negotiate a 4 day week with my employer. I wanted an extra day to work on other projects and to learn new things. Eventually I signed up for Uni and am now working on a masters part time.
I'm thinking about pushing for a 3 day week next semester.
Just remember that anyone can do this. If you are a good worker most employers will do what they can to keep you around. More often than not, you can do in 4 days what 2 juniors can just manage in 5 (you may not realise this, I didn't).
> A programmer's salary is great, but why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary?
You can. You just have to learn to negotiate.
I currently work 4 days a week, with the other day being split between helping with a youth club, and Open Source hacking, and throwing a mountain bike down hills. I had to spend more time looking when I last changed jobs, but that also ended up with me in a job that I love for other reasons as well.
Why do you think the proportions of "try" and "don't try" are fixed? Evidence suggests environment and culture affect how hard-working and curious are a group of people. There's no evidence that unlimited unemployment for as many as want it is financially possible or good for anyone's physical or mental health. You want nobody to go hungry or homeless; this is noble but it can't be solved by only having programmers, stock traders and artists go to work.
> I hate that it's always indoors and sedentary. It's unfortunate that society places so much value on an activity that is arguably bad for my physical and mental health.
You should invent a computer specifically designed to allow you to work outdoors, including while walking. I'm on that same mission for the same reasons. http://bit.ly/vergence-singularity
we can feed and clothe and house everyone, so why don't we?
There are already communities where everyone has the absolute right to food, shelter, healthcare and education. Those who live there could, if they wished, devote themselves full-time to self-improvement and community work.
"It's unfortunate that society places so much value on an activity that is arguably bad for my physical and mental health. "
IT IS NOT, I work as a programmer(I 'm engineer) too. You are the person responsible to be healthy, you don't have to work sitting down. You can(You should) go out every single day and exercise.
Do not blame your job,your girlfriend or your wife, your parents or society. It is your responsibility.
Don't feel that I'm trying to criticism you. On the contrary I'm taking the time to write(the only time I use for reading news I won't read today) this because I want to help you. I don't know you but I would have loved someone telling me in the past.
I could not believe the change I experienced when I started doing it myself. Believe me, there is scientific reasons for that. I read a lot of scientific papers and entire books explaining the reasons. Your veins get bigger, your brain gets more oxygen, your cells get more food and evacuate waste much much better(read about the lymph system), your sugar is used and not converted into fat, your insulin gets lower level(you feel less anxious)... there are entire books about the details, but long story short, your life improves and you feel better, you work much better.
When you work sitting down, your body remains in a passive state, it has to do with blood pressure that change a lot when you stand up(proportional to height from your toes). The body "reacts" to standing up as it is a signal to activate for daily activity.
We are made for moving a little every day, but no so much. You only need moderate exercise every single day.
You will be much more energetic, more capable, optimist, people will love to be with you... you will work without counting the time because it feels great.
It is not a single step, it takes years of continuous improvement, but it is worth it. You need to experience it yourself to believe or actually seeing other people much better than you(that is the way I changed, when I stopped being in denial seeing other people do much better than me).
What you should not do is blaming others or other things(your job) for not being healthy.
About doing 20 hours as programmer, 20 hours as a designer or teacher... well YOU CAN. Who is putting the gun in your head telling you what to do or not?. You are a grown up person, Aren't you?(maybe you are a teenager that started programming at 6, I don't know) It doesn't matter, you can do real(not reading HN or facebook) 40 hours of programming a week(I do) once you know how to manage yourself.
Read "the power of full engagement" just for starting to get it. It will take a while for you to break bad habits from years of bad training.
Another invaluable audiobook:" The Now habit"
but the first step is stop being in denial of where you are first. I expect a lot of people to downgrade this post because there is a lot of population in HN that do it wrong, that martyrise theirselves into work because they don't know how to do it better.
>I'm kind of suspicious whenever I hear the phrase "work/life balance". It strikes me as something that seeks to reinforce the industrial-revolution-era idea that my (week)days should be broken into thirds: working (not fun but pays bills), playing (fun but costs money), and sleeping. Sure, that's definitely better than working 12 hour days, but is that really the goal? It seems that most of the fun-loving and happy people I know, regardless of their financial situation, don't operate in such a world.
Maybe. But isn't it also obvious that not all jobs are the kind of jobs required for the above to be true (people, generally, do not "love" flipping burgers, for example), and that, actually, jobs you "love" are in the minority (and we absolutely need the majority jobs too).
There's nothing wrong in your job NOT being your "passion" --and that is not constrained to burger flipping but also to IT and every kind of environment. If we only insisted on people working on their "passion" we wouldn't have things like technical documentation (unless many people exist that like to devote their life to writing 500 pages of SGML for other people's programs).
> ...why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter...
Here's one reason: you'll accumulate experience at half the pace of those programming 40 hours a week, which means you'll probably lag behind others in terms of usefulness and salary.
But you'd be awesome at writing code for agricultural applications! My point is that there is value in acting as a conduit for knowledge between disciplines. In fact, most "breakthroughs" consist of someone porting an existing technique from one discipline to another.
Sure, that's definitely better than working 12 hour days, but is that really the goal? It seems that most of the fun-loving and happy people I know, regardless of their financial situation, don't operate in such a world.
A good friend and startup founder (who you might think would tend towards free-market/libertarianism, since he works very hard and surely wants to be compensated for it) asks me: we can feed and clothe and house everyone, so why don't we? Why isn't work optional? People who work hard to make a dent in the universe will anyway, and people who just mess around don't really get much done at work anyway, so why keep up the charade? How many great ideas (or works of art) are stuck in somebody's brain simply because they don't know how to make that idea pay the rent?
I'm a programmer -- or at least, of all the things I've done in my life, that's the one I've been paid the most money for. But personally, I hate that it's always indoors and sedentary. It's unfortunate that society places so much value on an activity that is arguably bad for my physical and mental health. So why are virtually all programming jobs (ostensibly) full-time, i.e., 40 hours? A programmer's salary is great, but why can't I work 20 hours as a programmer, and 20 hours as a tree-planter, or teaching rock climbing to high school kids, for maybe 55% of a programmer's salary? Out of all the possible ways of dividing up my time, spending all daylight hours indoors writing code is perhaps the worst I can imagine.
I know I don't have all the answers, but I think that after a decade of work, I'm starting to know what questions to ask. If I find myself asking about "work/life balance", I've already lost, because it means I'm admitting that the "work" is something I know I won't love doing. Certainly some people have no problem breaking their day up like this, but I can't, and I suspect I'm not alone.