
Work harder or the communists will win - doppp
https://m.signalvnoise.com/work-harder-or-the-communists-will-win/
======
a3n
Owner: "To your hammers and tongs! To your assembly lines! To your cubicles! I
need more wealth and leisure time!"

As we're structured, economically and socially, corps must grow. One of the
last things they have left on the table is our time beyond 40 hours.

~~~
pizzazzaro
This isnt new. This isnt even from the early 20th century, when the western
world organized its labour. It is much, much older:

[https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk](https://youtu.be/E4CI2vk3ugk)

------
mnm1
"We can choose to become a retirement community like Europe"

Sounds pretty fucking amazing to me. How do we choose to do this? The more
like Europe we become, the better life will be for millions of people. The
path seems to be to ignore idiots like Calanis and Ma and their stupid ranting
bullshit. Better for millions to live nice lives than for one scumbag like
Calanis or Ma to become a multi-millionaire / billionaire. These motherfuckers
have nothing to add to the conversation and frankly, people that follow their
"work harder" advice are either incredibly stupid or beyond desperate. I don't
think we need to be either in the US although I'm sure those morons and other
morons who follow them will disagree.

------
elliotec
He’s right. What an absolutely disgusting and toxic idea to work more than we
do, at all. Of course it’s the biggest CEOs and VCs advocating for the rest of
us to work our lives away.

------
yardie
Does Calacanis do anything beyond hop on the occasional podcast or talking
head show? As an investor his fortunes are tied to making you work the maximum
while paying as little as possible. As an employee your fortunes are tied to
your physical and mental health. Both objectives are only aligned under
creating a product that sells.

I also don't take anything Jack Ma says seriously. He is a member of the CCP.
The CCP determines who the winners and losers are, rarely is the market
consulted.

------
el_cujo
I think the author didn't go far enough, I'd like to see more serious
discussion of a 4 day/30 hour work week being widely implemented.

~~~
birdman3131
I would love to work 4 10 hour shifts. Same amount of work weekly but an extra
day to rest and do stuff.

~~~
metalchianti
While I would also prefer this, I also wonder if a 5-hour/7 day week would
lead to more productivity and a better work-life balance. This would
definitely require more strict work hours and would necessitate more remote
work to reduce time spent commuting, etc.

~~~
piva00
No! No 7 days a week of work, that isn't good that doesn't matter how long you
work, I want free days, I don't want to wake up everyday thinking about work,
thank you...

~~~
trickstra
Anything is possible, as long as you are in a position to negotiate the
contract your way. I personally chose 5 days 6 hours over 4 days 8 hours
because I can work in the afternoon (hate waking up early) and 8 hour days are
making me really unproductive.

------
tomxor
> Accepting the terms of engagement by your so-called opponent is a basic,
> rookie mistake in any form of strategic out-maneuvering.

Not only is copying the Chinese work ethic a rookie mistake as a strategic
generalisation, but 996 is a completely flawed strategy for cognitive work -
it's a relic passed over from manual labor - treating programmers as cogs in a
cotton mill is not a good long term strategy, they will create a world of shit
for themselves, I think this fact is probably intuitive to any programmer
reading.

~~~
brianpgordon
996 would completely burn out almost everyone within, say, five years, but if
you have teeming masses of desperate job applicants to replace the burnouts
then that might not be as much of a problem for management as you might think.
Companies like Amazon and Netflix in the US are certainly no stranger to the
"chew em up and spit em out" strategy and it seems to work out pretty well for
them. It's even basically the same situation, with prestige and money
attracting an endless queue of applicants.

~~~
tomxor
That's not what I meant (although an understandable interpretation)... what I
mean is this strategy is not sustainable because cognitive jobs are
increasingly less about the immediate problem and more about the long term
problem, driving people to work long hours addresses short term - but ensuring
people have the full power of their faculties available will allow them to
make decisions and create solutions that work long term.

------
ithinkinstereo
Jason's logic is pretty poor. If winning is just a numbers game (quantity of
hours > quality hours), then how can we possibly compete when our population
size is a quarter of China's? Of all the consistently inane VC tweets, this
one takes the cake.

~~~
elliotec
Logic is a pretty strong word for that BS he’s spewing. It’s really oddly
blatantly working class exploitation propaganda by a (super) rich dude who
benefits from the exploitation.

------
umadon
So what do you do with types like Calacanis in the better world you might
envision?

~~~
komali2
I don't think this better world involves much of anyone deciding for Calacanis
what he will be doing, but rather leaving him to his own devices.

~~~
umadon
What would compel these people to give up some of their riches for the well
being of your average worker, though? Voting? Asking nicely?

~~~
cannonedhamster
If history is any indication, bloodshed. When those with the power get more
than they're fair share, the public tends to fix the balance by removing those
with too much power.

------
gnulinux
It is absolutely ridiculous to me there are still people consider China
communist. It's especially hilarious when the discussion is about a hyper-rich
patron Jack Ma talking about how his workers should work. It's not about
capitalism vs communism; it's about capitalism vs capitalism.

~~~
donquichotte
This has been bothering me for a long time.

Many formerly communist countries, e.g. Vietnam, have unleashed the purest
form of capitalism possible, where positive feedback loops make the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer.

No labor laws, corruption and salary ratios of 1:1000 within one company - it
would be a true nightmare for the ideological socialist elite of the early
1900 to see what has become of their dream of equality.

~~~
dantheman
How are the poor growing poorer? From what I've read they're wealth is
increasing: [https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-average-
wages...](https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-average-wages-
rise.html/)

------
throwaway_9168
"If you define winning solely as “who has the greater growth”, you’ve already
lost. If you dismiss the standard of living enjoyed in Europe – one without
medical bankruptcies, crushing college debts, or falling life expectancies –
as a “retirement society”, you’re the one who deserves to be dismissed."

I agree with DHH's overall viewpoint. And Jason's portrayal of this issue as a
"us Vs them" is idiotic.

But it is hard to overlook one point - if you were to choose to incorporate in
one country today, the de facto choice is the US. When was the last time you
heard someone who wasn't born in those countries say "Yeah! Lets incorporate
in Denmark (where DHH was born) or Spain (where he currently resides,
according to Wikipedia)"? And Basecamp itself is apparently incorporated in
the US. There is probably a reason why Stripe Atlas doesn't take your money
and decide they will open up an office for you in Switzerland.

Europe does seem to enjoy an excellent standard of living - good for them. But
no one wants to immigrate to European countries because they think it is a
"land of opportunity", at least not in the sense they do (or used to before
Trump) when they immigrate to the US. The CEOs of some of the tech giants are
first generation immigrants from developing countries. I don't see that
happening in any European country in the near future. The success of these
CEOs, by many accounts, is also directly related to their workaholic
tendencies. And I am not sure if they are really exceptions (in the sense that
other migrants who became CEOs at a much smaller scale can just afford to be
bumming around). The success of these CEOs are signs of the same ambition and
growth too.

Besides, there are some who think the issues pointed out by DHH as America's
failing is actually because America wants to have its cake (high living
standards) and eat it too (high growth powered by capitalist ventures) and
turned into a confused mess. Well, clearly that doesn't seem possible in
today's world for whatever reasons, but it isn't as if any country in Europe
has managed to pull off both either.

~~~
brianpgordon
At some point we need to decide which we value more: attractiveness to CEOs or
the happiness and healthiness of hundreds of millions of regular, everyday
people. I think it's reasonable to give up any pretensions at capturing the
former if it ultimately benefits the latter. It's OK to not be the bestest
country evar for business if it means people are housed and fed and have
access to education and healthcare.

~~~
davidivadavid
Why does it have to be an either/or?

~~~
piva00
Because a lot of times one side's interests will be completely against the
other.

------
thundergolfer
Calacanis's stuff is so buffoonish I second-guess whether I believe he's
sincere in his unquestioning adoration of capitalism.

"democracy vs. communism"? Just asinine stuff.

------
__void
This is not an article but a cold war style capitalist sermon.

------
locklock
One of @jason's tweets in the same thread says

"#996 = 6 days a week, 9am to 9pm

The same exact work ethic that built America!"

Given that slaves built most of America, he kind of has a point, but not for
the reasons he wants to have a point. It's so laughable to see venture
capitalists appeal to some imagined moral imperative ("democracy vs.
communism," which as DHH points out might have been a bit scarier in 1950)
when in reality they're just arguing for shaping the system in a way that will
ultimately make them more money.

~~~
kypro
> Given that slaves built most of America

Where did you learn that?

~~~
komali2
Well certainly the slave and cotton trade was a dominating part of the early
American economy.

>The average slave owner held almost two-thirds of his wealth in slaves in
1860, much less than he held in land.

[https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-
papers...](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-
books/cotton-economy-south)

"America was built on slavery" is obviously a bit of hyperbole, but given the
economic boost to agriculture in the south built on the backs of African
slaves, or the literal building of the east-west infrastructure on the backs
of Chinese ones, I don't think it's an unfair claim.

------
RickJWagner
Oh, please.

Another article that bashes at capitalism. I really wonder what the author's
intent is?

Right now (this instant!) there are hoardes of people trying to work their way
into the United States. Why? The chance for a better life and more economic
success. All this because of what? Capitalism!

On the other hand, it doesn't seem like there are many people rushing to get
into Venezuela these days....

------
defertoreptar
Under capitalism, if you want to work 70 weeks, you can. That's true. However,
capitalism is about people having the freedom to make their own decisions on
how they conduct their life, and the "invisible hand" that the system tends to
push the economy in a positive direction.

An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees
over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency. Another would be
how if you have at least two firms, all other things being equal, the worker
will choose to go the the one with more favorable work conditions.

~~~
komali2
>An example would be how there is a financial incentive to not work employees
over so many hours since that can decrease their efficiency.

Why does their efficiency matter if they're at the office for 10 hours anyway?

I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the owners.

~~~
defertoreptar
> I've never seen evidence of the invisible hand helping anyone but the
> owners.

Just look around you. Adjusted for inflation, the median annual income in 1920
was $41,544. For 2018, it hit $61,372. The median person these days has
$20,000 worth of more stuff now than they did 100 years ago. That's only
possible because of growth, and the trade and competition that goes with it.
That competition has driven down costs and drove innovation. We have luxuries
people couldn't have dreamt of back then: phones, grocery stores stocked full
of food, safe jobs, drugs and medical treatments that would seem like sci-fi.

~~~
komali2
Right but I don't see what anything of what you just said has to do with the
invisible hand.

~~~
defertoreptar
I'm talking about the post-World War II economic expansion seen in USA, aka
"the golden age of capitalism."

~~~
unparagoned
You mean when the tax rates on the wealthy were very high?

~~~
defertoreptar
You're arguing that the economic expansion was a result of taxing the wealthy?
Or, are you saying that because there are ways that this wasn't "the one true
capitalism," then that means my whole point is invalid?

~~~
komali2
Well, I'm still not sure what your point was. I think you were arguing that
America's prosperity was due to the invisible hand. I'd argue it was the
government creating industries such as infrastructure projects and war.

