I have a hard time getting worked up about this. This is a team where the median engineer is probably approaching 7-figures total comp, working on a strategic project comparable to the iPhone—or at least Google sure thinks so.
They all have plenty of other options (albeit probably not as prestigious or high paying) if they want to level down their expectations.
Not a fan of how big tech has become the parable of the frog in slowly boiling water.
I'm sure most people wouldn't outright say that, but I have no doubt that many corporate leadership types think that way. After all, the C-suite has higher incidences of NPD and ASPD so it shouldn't be surprising. Along with being out of touch, some of them probably think their peons should have the means to do the same.
But he's also not recommending 40 hours, he's recommending 150% of that. Even then, I'd assume that when he says "sweet spot" he's also talking about a median, meaning you'll have to put in additional hours sometimes.
Obviously ageist, probably anti-partner. Does this include commute time, or is this gratis?
[1] https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/04/sergey-brin-amanda-...
Multi-billionaire says to work harder to make him richer faster. The sooner this attitude is recognised as a sickness the better.
Most frequent answer to this is: "But look we have all the high tech everyone of us can afford easily". But that cannot be the answer, because even if I choose to live like a luddite hermit while working 40h a week, I'm still not becoming super rich or can afford a house, which people my age could do 50 years ago.
So the productivity gains went elsewhere. The question is, into whose pocket? I guess into the pockets of those people who demand we should work even more than 40h a week.
What are we, as a society, gaining from working this much?
Billionaires is the only answer at this point.
randycupertino•47m ago