
Craftsmanship – The Alternative to the Four Hour Work Week Mindset (2018) - rpkoven
http://dantawfik.com/craftsmanship-the-alternative-to-the-four-hour-work-week-mindset-1
======
adim86
I think the source of this issue is as recent as the industrial age. People
grow up wanting to be "Managers". We grew up watching our parents have a skill
and working at a corporation, but then looking for that promotion to become a
Manager. Somewhere along the line people are like, why don't I skip the whole
working my ass off part and just hack resources together and manage it
(Especially with the rise of the startup life). We lost the notion that there
is a value to hard work, that there is a value to failing and picking yourself
up. This is further compounded by the corruption we see in our governments,
societies and money markets where people move around shares and numbers on
excel sheets and become millionaires. It feeds further into the idea that
people who work hard or develop a skill are losers

------
Antoninus
I'm not a great developer by today's measurements. I struggled throughout my
degree and the first 4 years of my career. Especially, when it came to
computer networking and algorithms. 7 years into this profession and few
projects high-profile projects later, I feel like I'm just getting my legs
going. What keeps me going is adopting the mindset that software development
is a lifelong craft from posts like this and HN community.

~~~
artsyca
The software profession has been corrupted and utterly misdirected by the
entire management industry that has been built around it -- it sounds like
you've got the beginnings of enlightenment brewing inside of you and I invite
you to use your critical reasoning outside of the facts of your `craftmanship`
and see how the algorithms and concepts of computer science apply directly to
one's pursuit of ultimate understanding and personhood

Look to the history of computer science and the greats that brought us to
where we are now, like Alan Turing and ask yourself if this is the future they
had envisioned for our calling?

~~~
NotSammyHagar
There was no 'calling' as those mathematicians and electrical engineers in the
pre-computer ages saw it. They wanted to solve problems and build amazing
machines. They did not imagine some mystical future of benevolence for
programmers.

~~~
artsyca
Yes I'm sure that's what was going through Turing's mind when he solved the
enigma -- let me save freaking Western civilization so I can be forced to
suicide and all these millennials can come and get free lunch from their
benevolent corporations

------
agota
"4 hours work week" mindset and a craftsman mindset are not at odds with each
other.

If you can build a business that you can maintain in four hours a week while
generating enough profit to pay the bills, why not?

That would free up a lot of time that you can then spend pursuing interests
that are unlikely to ever pay the bills (mathematics, music, painting,
creative writing, whatever).

If your business is a means to that end, are you still a hack or are you a
craftsman?

This disdain for lifestyle businesses is absurd. It's both sad and gross that
some people are unable to see that it's possible to have ambition that is not
tied to making money. A lifestyle business can give you an experience similar
to that of being independently wealthy.

It might be hard for some to imagine, but not everyone is an Elon Musk
wannabe, there are people who see building a business as a means to an end,
not an end in itself.

I understand that he didn't address the scenario I propose, presumably because
he can't even conceive of it, but I don't get the traveling the world
criticism either.

I mean, I myself am very critical of the digital nomad lifestyle, but
"Spending time on something that you find enjoyable is professional
malpractice" is not among my list of criticisms.

------
rswail
Appreciate the content, but not sure that "craftsmanship" is what is needed,
it's a "generalist" approach rather than "specialist" that entrepreneurs need.

Craftsmanship is about a dedication to a single activity, so a master cabinet
maker, or a Wall St quant, or a "rock star" programmer (titles may vary).

~~~
bhldev
Well capitalism is about arbitrage, so yeah you can buy low and sell high
somewhere else. Problem with that is everyone does it and there's no market
differentiation.

I absolutely think you need craftsmanship. If you don't have it you have to
pay for it or find someone who does. If you open a restaurant you need a chef
if you release music you need a singer if you write code you need some
developer to give you an edge.

You can be some generalist who's good at raising money and coding at the same
time to save some pennies or you can be really good at raising money and hire
someone to deal with the coding. The second is way more likely to succeed. Not
to mention you can usually tell what startups will succeed by one simple test.
Walk around their shop after hours and on the weekend, the ones that will
succeed have people (persons) working after hours. At least, that's one way of
telling.

So there is no avoiding your craft if you build a product. Yes you can be
generalist in your approach and solve general problems but to build a big
enough box to catch everyone you have to be very, very good at building boxes.

The alternative is to constantly raise as much money as possible and hire
everyone under the sun but eventually you will run up against a wall. If you
can raise Series A B C D E F H ad infinitum rounds and become the next Uber
sure you can hire "generalist" programmers who only know algorithms and
nothing domain specific or technology specific but then you are just shifting
the problem... Instead of guy who has 30 years of C++ you hire guy (or girl)
who can raise so many money bags your company takes over the world.

So you always need craftsmanship of some kind and the less you have the more
money you need (which is a craft itself).

------
TeMPOraL
A question to HN: reading this and other discussions, it seems to me that
"craftsmen" are being rated by how good a business they run (or are
contributing to). Similarly with the word "professional". I'd like to ask,
what then would be the word for a "craftsmen" by rated how good _the work_ is
at its purpose (and without the usual cop-out of redefining "good" as value in
dollars)?

Optimization for "good work" is only partially aligned with "good business";
frequently, the two are at odds. A good product, in my view, is one that lets
the user achieve their goals as efficiently as possible, endures for as long
these goals need to be achieved (often lifetime or more), and - after meeting
these constraints - is also optimized to minimize the price and use of
materials. It's the kind of product that you buy once, are happy about it, and
when you no longer need it, give or sell to someone else. It's your
grandfather's watch, passed on to you by your parents, and who you'll one day
pass on to your kid. It's the furniture you've inherited with the house that
remembers World War II, but is still almost as good as new. It's the forever
repairable Soviet-era sound amplifiers or irons for clothes. It's the web page
your bank had three redesigns and two SPA frameworks ago.

A good "professional" would take a look at one of such products and declare
them bad. Overengineered. Because what's "professional", what's good for
business, are products that break fast (ensuring recurring revenue) and are as
cheap as possible to make. Do they solve 100% of the problems it was supposed
to? Doesn't have to, customers don't know that when buying, and when they
figure it out, it'll be easier for them to learn to deal with missing part of
functionality, or learn to be extra careful around the product, than it'll be
for them to spend money on something else. Whatever other defects there may
be, we can cheaply cover for with sales&marketing. What a "professional" does
is ensures their work makes them (or their employer) maximum amount of money
for minimum amount of effort.

So, HN, I'm looking for a word that describes the person, the art, of doing
good work and good products, as defined above, in contrast to being a
"professional", which I increasingly despise of.

~~~
vorpalhex
You've built a false dichotomy between over-engineering and planned
obsolescence. Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will
last 60 years or the amp that will last 20.

The problem is that most people don't want to pay $2k for an amp when it's
only benefit over a $400 one is that it'll work 16 more years. Most folks
don't care to buy a $400 watch when you can get a nice one for $40. And, a lot
more folks can afford watches and amps these days as a result.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The price issue seems like a somewhat false dichotomy, because the more
expensive brands don't operate on razor thin margins, so they could (and would
have to) cut prices if there wasn't a back-pressure from the bottom-feeder
brands.

On top of that, I wonder at which point does planned obsolescence and lack of
quality becomes the broken window fallacy? What's a difference between a
glazier's son running around and breaking windows, and the glazier installing
a delayed-action chemical that cracks windows months after installation?
What's the difference between either of that and designing products to fall
apart sooner and sooner?

> _Outside of a few cases you can still buy the watch that will last 60 years
> or the amp that will last 20._

Perhaps from artisans. I don't trust you can buy such things at any premium
brands. There is every incentive to cheat, charge premium prices while still
cutting corners on quality, and pocketing the difference. People eventually
wise up to that, but that takes a lot of time, so it's reliable only with
niche products.

~~~
vorpalhex
Planned obsolescence is wrong, and we are in agreement.

Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to repair
and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion, even though
there are some ecological and worker rights issues.

We should be wary when we discuss what a premium brand is. Artificial brand
tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic companies as "premium"
despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them. Bose is an example of
this - mass availability at a markup under the guise of a premium brand. But
very few audio productions would depend on Bose products because they barely
last in any kind of harsh environment.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Having cheap (and therefore widely available) products that are hard to
> repair and may have short lifespans is generally desirable in my opinion,
> even though there are some ecological and worker rights issues._

I'm of mixed feelings about this. Having a 10x more expensive electric kettle
that lasts 10x longer doesn't mean I won't buy a kettle. It means that I'll
generate 10x less trash for the same utility received. When I look at it,
making things more durable wouldn't hurt necessities that much - people would
save up and buy appliances, and the longer lifetime would mean they actually
save money over time.

In general, I think that cheap availability of crap products perpetuates the
cycle of poverty. I strongly agree with the Boots Theory of Socioeconomic
Unfairness[0]. Perhaps with a twist - I blame sacrifices of quality made in
order to make the products cheaper. I think the world would be better off if
we suddenly removed the bottommost quality tier of all goods categories, and
didn't replace with anything. There should be hard limits on how low the
market can get with respect to quality, because _price is flexible_ \- it's
predicated by demand - wheras quality is not, and low quality is what sets off
the poverty trap.

> _Artificial brand tiers have led us to treat many mass market craptastic
> companies as "premium" despite them not knowing quality if it smacked them._

Yes. But part of the reason behind brands and price tiers was so that we don't
have to be experts in ascertaining quality. We're supposed to trust the
brands, but it turns out we can't - trust on the market is something to be
exploited.

Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a
premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced
on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy into
the "above-average quality" part with them?

\--

[0] - [https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-
unfair...](https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness)

~~~
vorpalhex
> Nice that you brought up Bose, because I was under impression they were a
> premium quality brand, in a similar fashion to Apple - i.e. extra overpriced
> on top of above-average quality. So you're saying, I shouldn't really buy
> into the "above-average quality" part with them?

Bose is above average in their technology but not their quality or durability.
For your $400 you will get some very fancy tech, both nothing near $2000 IEMs.

------
shartshooter
becoming a craftsman and getting to the 99th percentile has major trade offs.
In order to survive as a business you need to create value and capture the
market faster than your competition can. To do that you need to do more than
your _craft_.

You have to operate a business or you’ll get swallowed up by competition who
doesn’t follow your mantra.

I also believe the cheapification of so much of society and the shallowness of
so many companies means that people will be craving high quality,
authentically produced goods and services.

In the long run quality may win out, but that’s if your competition doesn’t
put you out of business before.

~~~
bhldev
If you want authentic and high quality you need craft.

If you're not building a lifestyle business you need craft to operate as a
business.

Who do you really think has a chance at success the guy who works 4 hours a
week or the guy who puts time in their work?

You need more but you need different kinds. There's no way to avoid the work,
and you got to be good at the work to get anywhere. Marketing is a craft so is
sales so is raising money so is writing. There's no way around it and "4 week
work week" is probably more applicable to the time of dropshipping, blogging,
affiliate marketing and other lifestyle business than anything concerned with
"time to market".

Ignore craft at your own peril (cannot go anywhere without a very experienced
CTO).

~~~
agota
I don't see why you think the "4 hours a week guy" doesn't have a chance at
success.

Presumably, his definition of success is building a business that can be run
in 4 hours a week while making enough money to fund his desired lifestyle.

So if he managed to do that, he's already successful.

I don't get this contempt for lifestyle businesses.

~~~
bhldev
I think if "4 hours a week" means "spend 400 hours or 4000 hours then you can
spend 4 hours a week" it's more honest. In short I think it's more honest to
say, you might have to give up your lifestyle for awhile or have it be a small
part of your life... For months or years. And have no guarantee of success.

It's not irrelevant it is key because it means giving up the way you live. It
is important to go into it eyes wide open so if you lose you know how to try
again or recover.

It's not a contempt I think it's a great idea I might even do it one day but
the hidden catch of "lifestyle business" exists enough. And people deserve to
know and compare with someone working their ass off, and compare chances of
success.

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248810)

------
cranium
I tend to take this kind of article with a grain of salt, especially when
there are definitive statements like: "To be successful over the course of a
career requires the application and accumulation of expertise". This idea that
top-skills are required to succeed is comforting for us craftsmen and
craftswomen but ultimately misleading because it forces us to only look for
paths leading to skill improvements.

I strongly believe that success is mostly opportunity-driven. Exploring the
search space to find the most opportunities (ie. the Ferriss way) or
exploiting those available by putting the effort in (ie. the craftsmanship
way) are two valid non-mutually exclusives strategies. As always, either of
them can work but for the best result I believe a combination of the two will
outperform any strategy applied narrow-mindedly. Now, for the mixing
proportions...

------
vivekjuneja2010
I like the author's emphasis on taking one's craft seriously, and pursuing
curiosity as a means to build expertise in any domain of their choice. The
interpretation of "four hour work week" is fragmented, and people choose the
parts to retain what they think aligns closely to them or sometimes easy to
adopt. To me, the essence of the the "four hour work week" is to look beyond
traditional occupations and instil habits that allows one to optimize on their
time while keeping a healthy work-life harmony. The take away for me is that
hard work and dedication has no substitutes and one should not see "hacks" and
"shortcuts" as a way to achieve long term success, but rather use them
reasonably as a means to validate assumptions and pursue curiosity.

------
davidjnelson
> If you are to optimize for anything, optimize for the long term. Use the
> challenges of your business today to build mastery in your craft. There is
> no guarantee that any one venture will succeed, but that mastery will bend
> luck in your favor over the long course of your career.

I’ve found this has personally served me very well. Failed businesses and
startups have indeed been great learning experiences. If you can keep a growth
mindset and use cognitive tools to prevent rumination, it all just becomes
more fuel to the fire that burns inside. Even if that simply means you are a
more beneficial employee.

------
bondgaurav21
This post really changed my mindset towards four hour work week mindset. But,
I want to ask one thing from you which is- are you suggesting us to choose
those entrepreneurial endeavors in which we have a huge desire to get an
excellence instead of finding those ideas which are easy to setup and do not
need so much knowledge crunching from our side?

------
kevintb
Excellent article, thanks for posting.

------
jasonkester
I guess if we're going to discuss this article again, I should get to say my
piece about it again:

 _> To lounge on a beach or travel the world and not actively engage in
building your arsenal of expertise is professional malpractice._

I've seen this thought expressed before in writing about Startups. If you're
not burning your life down 24/7 in the struggle to make it Big, you're doing
it wrong.

But that's silly.

The entire goal of building a business, in my mind, is to get the point where
you can lounge on a beach or travel the world and not need to actively engage
in anything except the pursuit of happiness.

I personally averaged out at a little less than four hours of work per week in
2017, running the sort of low maintenance, feature complete, Software-as-a-
Service business that the author spends a paragraph explaining is not in fact
a "serious company".

But look at the product and you'll see craftsmanship. Ten years of work, in
fact as of roughly today. But never at the author's pace. Always at mine.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

That's the great thing about building a business. You can do it any way you
like.

[from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248810)]

~~~
dang
Please don't copy-paste comments on HN. That lowers the signal-noise ratio. If
you don't have something new to say, it's fine to let your old comment stand
for itself.

~~~
fierarul
Did this repost have anything new to say? Why not let the old thread speak for
itself? Should HN block reposts?

Note he copied his own comment... Which the majority of people wouldn't have
seen otherwise because nobody goes through all the threads of all the reposts
to see what was discussed back then.

Please don't teach people how to self-censor.

~~~
dang
HN threads are supposed to be conversations. In conversation one doesn't take
a recording of what one said in a previous conversation and replay it. One
makes a fresh statement of one's views, even if they're mostly the same as
what one has thought in the past. That's part of how we relate to each other.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20threads%20conversations&sort=byDate&type=comment)

Submissions and comments play different roles. Submissions provide topics for
conversation. Once enough time has gone by—on HN, about a year—the cache is
considered clear and the floor is open for a fresh conversation on that topic.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)

> Please don't teach people how to self-censor.

You could say that about any rule that asks users to do one thing rather than
another. I think most people here would support "please don't copy/paste into
the threads" as serving the overall quality of the forum rather than seeing it
as a censorship issue. This is the sort of case where it's probably good to
have a rule, since the thing we want to avoid is having copy/pasting become
common.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20copy%20paste&sort=byDate&type=comment)

~~~
fierarul
So, if the same person happens to hit a repost and still holds the same
opinion they want to publicly state, they are supposed to rephrase it? How
does that help your signal/noise ratio: this seems to increase noise.

And I totally see a scenario where copy paste makes sense. Maybe the person
wanted to have a discussion about their idea and there wasn't enough
engagement (for whatever reason) previously. Repeating (and copy-pasting) the
same idea with the hope that this time it gets discussion and cleared up seems
totally fine.

Even in real life people do totally repeat themselves.

Anyhoo, you seem to be some sort of admin, so I guess this is important for
you folks.

My 2c.

