I wish I had the option to have... any kind of flexibility in my life.
I'm forced to go to work at a certain time, which means I have to get up at a certain time.
I also eat at work, both lunch and dinner, so if I skip those then there's almost no time for me to eat.
I have to do chores when I get home for about an hour or two, then I have about 2.5 hours of "free time" before I have to go to bed and repeat the process.
Being able to have any kind of flexibility is an extreme luxury I think people take for granted.
This is one of the ways income inequality and systemic discriminations can drastically alter the life of people or groups of people. No time to think, to time to breathe.. no time to dream. The mind can die (or at least enter a sort of coma) long before the body in these circumstances. And it's incredibly hard to help yourself while in there, which is why the empathy and kindness of others matters so much too.
The story you're referring to was about a CEO who was looking for some relief from burnout and depression. He wanted the structure as an antidote to a specific feeling, not as a general desire.
All else being equal, I think the vast majority of people would prefer self-direction and autonomy to rigorous top-down order. People's choice and actions throughout the ages seem to reinforce this. I wouldn't mistake someone's personal choice to temporarily self-impose some structure as an example of "grass is always greener".
It is fascinating, how some people crave structure and yet cannot achieve it - and some are enslaved in structure and dream of freedom. Some are probably very happy within a given structure. Others prefer to create their own structures to live in. Myself, I suffocate in any structure, especially calendars and clocks.
Do you have kids or otherwise responsible for anyone? If not, one or two hours of chores per day is insane. Take a step back and examine if the chores you are doing are actually worth doing.
Obviously if you have kids or are a carer that probably does not apply.
> then I have about 2.5 hours of "free time" before I have to go to bed and repeat the process.
When I was younger, I switched to a 4x10s schedule for this exact reason. The limited time left after commute (long at the time) and other obligations at the end of the day felt wasted.
Somewhat surprisingly, I felt better when I decided that my 4 work days per week would be solid work/chores/obligations from morning to night. It no longer felt like I was missing out on anything because I wasn't trying to squeeze some hobby or social activity into a tired 2-3 hour slot at the end of the day. My free time and my work time were as separate as they could possibly get.
Even intra-day flexibility doesn't really solve the problem of having too much to do. My solution was to squish all of the to-dos together and leave my off days 100% flexible.
Even now, I try to finish errands and chores on weekdays for this same reason: Keeping weekends open is extremely valuable.
> If you don’t get what you want: it’s due to your decisions.
Asking genuinely, because I struggle with determining how much of what I don't get can be attributed to me:
What if I wanted to be healthy, but have $<any number of chronic, debilitating conditions with no clear identified cause, mechanism, and or cure>? I recently listened to a podcast where two people try to follow life-advice books and determine if it actually helped them, and one of the hosts had an extremely distressing time trying to attribute why her abnormal mammogram result wasn't being followed up on by her doctor, despite daily calls for two weeks, was something that was due to her decisions.
[How does this apply to being abused as a child? Being a domestic abuse survivor? Being the victim of a hate crime, displaced due to war or other disaster?]
Not the OP but I typically hear such advice in the form of thinking of oneself and one's circumstances as being entirely one's responsibility.
>What if I wanted to be healthy, but have $<any number of chronic, debilitating conditions with no clear identified cause, mechanism, and or cure>?
Then the person in the hypothetical would need to decide to define healthy realistically for their condition. While it may be something you want, wanting something impossible is a non-starter.
>one of the hosts had an extremely distressing time trying to attribute why her abnormal mammogram result wasn't being followed up on by her doctor, despite daily calls for two weeks
Great example, in this case the host can decide to call another doctor's office to get a second opinion. Or following up in person. Or escalating to that doctor's leadership/board.
The host actually did follow up in person and tried to escalate. There wasn't another doctor's office to send them to, because the tests were explicitly called by a specific doctor and there would need to be authorization to transfer the tests... authorization from the doctor who wasn't responsive. Like I said, this was extremely distressing to hear about the host needing to apparently decide that this was their fault and the resultant distress the host was experiencing when after two weeks and many attempts from many angles, they were unsuccessful, and according to the advice they had no one to blame but themselves.
I'm afraid I don't understand how any of what you said has anything to do with attributing events in my life to my decisions. It just sounds like strategies to make decisions for future things, which isn't relevant. Could you explain?
Yes, I'm asking precisely how to think about external circumstances. If your thinking is that outcomes are because of your decisions, it means if a doctor blows you off after a cancer screening returns abnormal results you must've decided something to result in this. The podcaster decided the only logic there is that if you didn't want the doctor to blow you off you shouldn't have decided to proactively screen yourself for cancer.
Personally, I struggled with thinking about events in my life and my decisions leading to those events precisely because of seeing other people try to take that logic and apply it in good faith, resulting in horrible conclusions. That someone could've prevented their fibromyalgia and therefore they are at fault for getting sick. That someone's child abuse was something they need to take responsibility about.
Don't worry too much about trying to make sense of that advice. It's a bad take that only comes from people who've had the privilege of all of the problems they've known in life being self-inflicted[1]. (That's for the original commenter. The person you're responding to now is engaging in a major moving of the goalposts.)
Here's what I've been prone to tell people instead: you know how to always get what you want—always? It's by wanting what you're going to get.
Some people misunderstand this. It's not about settling or doing nothing. It's rather the opposite. It's to get people to go through the process of interrogating themselves about their wants in a way that engages the logical part of their brain—which is ultimately most likely to be the thing that leads to working out a path to whatever that want is, so long as it's reasonable to think that they can actually get it. In the extreme case you present: "Is it unreasonable for me to want to the abuse to stop?" The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. There's no need to stop wanting that.
In figuring out whether it is reasonable or unreasonable, the question becomes: what is required in order to actually get it?
Hmm. I am taking this comment at face value and not as a sarcastic response.
Even if you prioritize flexibility, if your position is at the bottom of the totem pole, you will find it exceedingly difficult to get even minute changes in it. Those employees are increasingly monitored to the point I would not have accepted as a kid, but it seems a more and more common practice today.
I guess what I am saying is that what you do matters, but not nearly as much as you give it credit for. Some of it is just dumb luck.
I mean you can say the luck argument about literally everything. It's not a reason to dismiss making choices.
Not having kids/pets is a huge choice to make to have flexibility. If you don't have dependents you don't need to spend time looking after them. You also don't need to make as much money so you can take a lower paying job. By being in the position to take a lower paying job, you can negotiate more flexibility etc.
Obviously that doesn't apply if you were forced to drop out of highschool to get a minimum wage job to take care of your sick parents/siblings.
Some people are less lucky than others, but I'd be willing to bet that a large percentage of HN readers that finds themselves with no flexibility have made many choices to end up where they are.
On average, as related to HN, you are probably not wrong. I still hate averages, because they tend to hide the reality ( and individual plight ) based on its extremes. I have no real data to back it up other than anecdata.
I count myself as ridiculously lucky that I am where I am doing what I do. Here I am mid-day, discussing non-work related items in my down time. I have the flexibility ( and a pet and a kid although that is basically like having two kids ), but I am unable to dismiss the idea that it is not just me factor that got me to that point. Looking back, there were tons of things that could have gone wrong that would put me on the wrong track ( and as is often with life, some things did ).
Otoh, I am not that much smarter than my sister and yet we are in very different places despite having the same upbringing, access and so on. You could argue that she is not on HN, but I would say that is a self-selecting process..
Like the sibling comment, I feel like we are talking about different things. You're talking about right and wrong paths and careers.
I'm talking about choices like kids, prioritizing salary over flexibility etc. I am not arguing that people in tech are there purely based on merit and no luck.
I am saying people that are already in tech make choices that give them more or less flexibility. Chasing a job at FAANG to get a massive salary and then using the salary to get an expensive car and massive mortgage is the wrong choice if you want flexibility. But it probably is the right choice if you want an expensive car and expensive house.
This sort of approach sounds useful on paper. People should indeed make better choices. In reality, however, this solves nothing because we are looking at societal problems as varied and complex as climate change, obesity, rising house prices, degree inflation, regular inflation, global uncertainty, constant digital surveillance, and so on. Even a person who has made "good" choices such as becoming a SWE is still at the mercy of macroeconomic changes. Maybe next year's AI will nuke front end work just like it's nuking other white collar job markets. Maybe the market will by nuked by actual nukes. The modern day careers depend on so many conditions that are outside of our control and can't be fixed on an individual level, even if it's still a good idea to make good choices.
I feel like we are talking about different things.
I'm talking about not having kids/pets (which is applicable to everyone) as a choice to make for more flexibility where as you are talking about careers.
Also you're talking about good VS bad choices. I don't think having kids is necessarily bad or good, it just depends on what you want or priorities are.
Kids/pets are good example as it would make my argument a bit clearer. Today we have a sizeable portion of the population that has no dependents, made good choices (had an education, worked hard etc.) AND is still stuck financially and professionally to the point where they can't really have that much flexibility or make many more tradeoffs. It's a lot worse in countries like China or Korea but it's still pretty bad in the West. There is a reason why fertility rates are plummeting, and it goes beyond the classic demographic model of higher development for lower fertility.
In other words, though it's true that outcomes are linked to choices, just the ability to make real choices (flexibility vs. salary or family, to name one) is predicated on a large dose of prior luck.
Being successful isn’t about knowing CS. It’s about navigating relationships. Tech skills are now table stakes. Do yourself a favor and diversify your skills.
I was dealt a shitty hand and rose above it. Emotional and sexual abuse. I blame no one.
I spent a decade reading and studying psychology to rise above it. I’ve shared too much. Do what you will with my advice. The common denominator is my perseverance to survive.
I made a choice to follow something better instead of losing hope. It will get better through constant incremental improvements.
If you have no hope find other people with the same problem. Talk to them. Hire a life coach. Literally do anything other than give up or feel outrage and cast hate.
Yah, when I visited North Korea I asked them why didn't they just decide not to live there, grow more food or get a better job? I say maybe they should travel a bit in order to broaden their perspective on life. Try meditation or use a pomodoro timer to get focused! Get your head straight and prioritize that flexible lifestyle and the options are endless!
> I have to do chores when I get home for about an hour or two
How is this possible? Are you counting exercise as a chore? I probably do 2 hours of chores in a week and that includes a lot of things related to cooking which you don’t do
You can quit your job, move somewhere else, and live a different life. Your daily routine is your choice. Technically, you don’t have to do anything at all.
This comment shows such a lack of understanding of how most of the world lives. OP could be working to support aging parents or be a single parent or live in a place where the ability to access social services are dependent on where you were born (as in China). They could also just not make enough money to afford to move and be stuck in a cycle where most of what they make is spent on maintaining life essentials.
Technically they could quit it all and walk off and become homeless, but is that realistic? This idea of endless choice, especially that without any potentially dangerous consequences, it's reserved for a small number of people.
Which country do you live in in which this is the case? Everywhere I've lived there have been jobs that are 9-5 and jobs that are less rigid, ranging all the way to self employment.
I have worked for years and made great efforts to get to a point in life where I have a say in what time I do my work. Most jobs I have had I did not have a choice. In the United States.
Yeah, obviously he meant "forced" as in "within the context of this job, if I want to keep it".
Taking too broad a view of what "forced" means just nullifies the term. Of course nobody could then ever be "forced" to do anything when suicide is an option.
It's hardly a luxury to pick a different job, this is complete and utter bollocks. There are people up and down the income and educational spectrum that do it, of every race, etc.
The narrative that people are forced to work a specific job is false and should not be reinforced.
> The narrative that people are forced to work a specific job is false and should not be reinforced.
Do you not know many people or are you 21? Those are two situations where your take wouldn't be confusing. It's not a narrative that people can't pick different jobs, it's a narrative that people can just get up and go work somewhere else. This can be true in any industry, unless you have a very scarce and in-demand set of skills and qualifications. Even then, your regional circumstances and any number of other things have a bearing on whether you can leverage that.
Sure, if you are single, young, and an extremely proficient software engineer with the paperwork to prove it and no dependents, and everything else in your life is totally arbitrary and can be rebuilt anywhere you are, then ya it's totes easy to just get a new that perfectly fits your lifestyle.
