I presume this is the same advice you’d give to someone considering taking a non-management job in a sweatshop somewhere. And it carries the same drawbacks: what are these better options you speak of? It’s a much more actionable warning to say what to do, rather than what not to do.
To the extent that I am representative of your audience, you lose credibility when making hyperbolic statements like “they couldn’t pay you enough” (though I agree with “they (s/definitely/probably/) won’t”) or “these lives are not worth it”. These lives are positive value, and some of them do make enough to consider it worth it.
If your message is just “money doesn’t buy happiness”, fine, but that’s about overall life strategies (and still only true on some margins), not about these specific corporate jobs. I presume you’re NOT saying “drop out of college, focus on your music, get rich that way.” You’re saying “for some of you, you can make nearly as much on average, if less at the top end, without giving up as much of your time/energy/integrity”. How?
I thank you for this comment because it is important to know when something is being interpreted in this kind of fashion, and to what extent. If no one ever thinks you’re using hyperbole, you’re some combination of not using enough rhetorical flourish and spending way too much time obsessing over your work. Swarriner uses hyperbole too when noting that they can not imagine anyone taking this seriously, although I don’t think it’s a real issue. I think this line’s current form is doing a lot more work than harm, and versions that were longer and more careful would not do the same work, but this type of thing is unusually toxic to LW.
As you note, I am not saying that anyone’s life has non-positive value, regardless of profession (to themselves, as opposed to their impact on others, which varies widely). I’m also not saying they couldn’t pay you enough in some theoretical sense of if a large enough truck was backed up and I was asked to spend a year at the Widget Corporation as a manager, or even five years, there is a point where I do it (I know $1 million/year doesn’t do it, but $1 billion/year is massive overkill), although the path and incentives there are so different that the situation would not have the same toxicity. When I say couldn’t, I (of course) mean won’t, and their internal politics and policies and shareholders would prevent them from doing so even if the CEO wanted to.
When I say these lives are not worth it, I mean compared to the better options available, not to non-existence. I will lay out my advice to people in more detail two posts down the line (so, Wednesday or so), but one key thing that differentiates sweatshop from maze is that sweatshops hire people without good alternatives or skills, so the best alternative can be very, very bad. Mazes don’t do that. To be a manager in a maze requires highly marketable skills (a point I likely should edit that post to make more explicit, so thank you again). At a minimum, you can certainly work lower level positions and/or at smaller places that offer reasonable pay but do not put the psychic burden on you, at the cost of scaling back your lifestyle but not endangering one’s ability to survive.
Although, if you already have F-U money saved up from working in mazes, and music is what you care about, yes, absolutely focus on your music.
I shouldn’t have led with the complaint about hyperbole, I apologize. My point is more that money _IS_ actually important to a lot of people, and it seems likely that these kinds of jobs are the best known option for some people.
It’s been a long time, and the world is different now, but the memory remains of worry that I wouldn’t ever get a “real job”. At the time, I would have jumped at one of these jobs had it been offered. It’s sheer luck that I got far enough in smaller companies to realize that I have better options before getting into bigger companies.
That me would have laughed and then cried and swore at you if you said that a managers salary isn’t worth it. I agree with you ONLY because I have enough income and savings to afford to agree safely.
If I could rephrase your advice, to something I can get behind, it’s “there’s a big variance in management (and non-management) jobs. You should change companies (and industries if possible) at least a few times in your first decade, to see how universal the experiences are.”
I’ll agree that “they couldn’t pay you enough” is technically hyperbole but I can’t imagine taking that sin seriously enough that it damages the credibility of the argument.
As for the message, here’s how I interpret the thesis: “immoral maze work environments have large hedonic costs of a type that are not well offset by monetary compensation (or other promised rewards)”. Which is distinct from, although related to, “money doesn’t buy happiness”.
I also disagree that all advice has to be positive to be actionable. Most people are aware of a variety of career paths they might pursue depending on their situation and talents; it’s perfectly adequate to say “don’t pursue middle management at a large corporation” because the reader can just update towards their other options.
The usefulness of money is that it allows you to take options that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to take. It provides a certain kind of freedom.
If all of your time is spend at your job and all of your social bonds are related to status competition at your job you you lose a lot of freedom and there’s no net freedom gain from the job.
I presume this is the same advice you’d give to someone considering taking a non-management job in a sweatshop somewhere. And it carries the same drawbacks: what are these better options you speak of? It’s a much more actionable warning to say what to do, rather than what not to do.
To the extent that I am representative of your audience, you lose credibility when making hyperbolic statements like “they couldn’t pay you enough” (though I agree with “they (s/definitely/probably/) won’t”) or “these lives are not worth it”. These lives are positive value, and some of them do make enough to consider it worth it.
If your message is just “money doesn’t buy happiness”, fine, but that’s about overall life strategies (and still only true on some margins), not about these specific corporate jobs. I presume you’re NOT saying “drop out of college, focus on your music, get rich that way.” You’re saying “for some of you, you can make nearly as much on average, if less at the top end, without giving up as much of your time/energy/integrity”. How?
I thank you for this comment because it is important to know when something is being interpreted in this kind of fashion, and to what extent. If no one ever thinks you’re using hyperbole, you’re some combination of not using enough rhetorical flourish and spending way too much time obsessing over your work. Swarriner uses hyperbole too when noting that they can not imagine anyone taking this seriously, although I don’t think it’s a real issue. I think this line’s current form is doing a lot more work than harm, and versions that were longer and more careful would not do the same work, but this type of thing is unusually toxic to LW.
As you note, I am not saying that anyone’s life has non-positive value, regardless of profession (to themselves, as opposed to their impact on others, which varies widely). I’m also not saying they couldn’t pay you enough in some theoretical sense of if a large enough truck was backed up and I was asked to spend a year at the Widget Corporation as a manager, or even five years, there is a point where I do it (I know $1 million/year doesn’t do it, but $1 billion/year is massive overkill), although the path and incentives there are so different that the situation would not have the same toxicity. When I say couldn’t, I (of course) mean won’t, and their internal politics and policies and shareholders would prevent them from doing so even if the CEO wanted to.
When I say these lives are not worth it, I mean compared to the better options available, not to non-existence. I will lay out my advice to people in more detail two posts down the line (so, Wednesday or so), but one key thing that differentiates sweatshop from maze is that sweatshops hire people without good alternatives or skills, so the best alternative can be very, very bad. Mazes don’t do that. To be a manager in a maze requires highly marketable skills (a point I likely should edit that post to make more explicit, so thank you again). At a minimum, you can certainly work lower level positions and/or at smaller places that offer reasonable pay but do not put the psychic burden on you, at the cost of scaling back your lifestyle but not endangering one’s ability to survive.
Although, if you already have F-U money saved up from working in mazes, and music is what you care about, yes, absolutely focus on your music.
I shouldn’t have led with the complaint about hyperbole, I apologize. My point is more that money _IS_ actually important to a lot of people, and it seems likely that these kinds of jobs are the best known option for some people.
It’s been a long time, and the world is different now, but the memory remains of worry that I wouldn’t ever get a “real job”. At the time, I would have jumped at one of these jobs had it been offered. It’s sheer luck that I got far enough in smaller companies to realize that I have better options before getting into bigger companies.
That me would have laughed and then cried and swore at you if you said that a managers salary isn’t worth it. I agree with you ONLY because I have enough income and savings to afford to agree safely.
If I could rephrase your advice, to something I can get behind, it’s “there’s a big variance in management (and non-management) jobs. You should change companies (and industries if possible) at least a few times in your first decade, to see how universal the experiences are.”
I’ll agree that “they couldn’t pay you enough” is technically hyperbole but I can’t imagine taking that sin seriously enough that it damages the credibility of the argument.
As for the message, here’s how I interpret the thesis: “immoral maze work environments have large hedonic costs of a type that are not well offset by monetary compensation (or other promised rewards)”. Which is distinct from, although related to, “money doesn’t buy happiness”.
I also disagree that all advice has to be positive to be actionable. Most people are aware of a variety of career paths they might pursue depending on their situation and talents; it’s perfectly adequate to say “don’t pursue middle management at a large corporation” because the reader can just update towards their other options.
The usefulness of money is that it allows you to take options that you otherwise wouldn’t be able to take. It provides a certain kind of freedom.
If all of your time is spend at your job and all of your social bonds are related to status competition at your job you you lose a lot of freedom and there’s no net freedom gain from the job.