[denkmoon]

Why the fuck would I ever put in more effort than absolutely necessary when I will not be rewarded proportionately for the increased effort? It probably won't even be noticed. and even if I were, where does that get me? Still sucking eggs in a housing market that is now more than ever before for business rather than for fulfilling a human need, still suffering through the bureaucratic uncaring nightmare that is the systems we have created.

Life isn't fair, it never will be fair and it never was fair. But the degree of unfairness has changed, for the worse, and it means for most of us, there is no point in trying.

[gdulli]

> Why the fuck would I ever put in more effort than absolutely necessary when I will not be rewarded proportionately for the increased effort?

Because it's unpredictable how and when you'll be rewarded, so why not put yourself in a position to capitalize when you can?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Putting in effort, especially when it's perceived that the effort goes unrewarded, is stressful. If it's unpredictable how and when I'll be rewarded and it's predictable that I'll be stressed from effort, the calculus is to not be effortful for my own mental health.

One might put effort into learning how to do their job better but I would argue that it's folly to put effort into doing everything one's employer tells them to. I will challenge myself to do a job "right" but if it's a lot of effort (read: anything akin to "staying late") then I'm not afraid to say "it will be done eventually" or "here are the steps we'll need to take".

[gdulli]

But you have control over your perception. If you tell yourself only futility is possible, yes you'll experience futility.

Some amount of stress is something we need to be able to deal with, not avoid altogether. It's not cyanide. There are workplaces toxic enough to be worth leaving, but not giving immediate rewards for doing more than the bare minimum isn't toxicity.

At a certain point, if you need a salary and benefits, doesn't it become stressful if you don't distinguish yourself over others such that you're less likely to be one of the first who'd be laid off if/when it came to that?

[faeriechangling]

>But you have control over your perception.

Only if you are clinically insane. Otherwise ones perception is influenced by the reality of the world around you.

Mental health is on the decline as more and more people go to mental health specialists to help them change their perceptions, yet their lives get worse, and their mental health declines, because they live in more and more adverse circumstances. The parenting movement to make children successful by raising their self-esteem similarly failed. The idea that if you changed your Childs self-perception that they would be wonderfully successful in the future did not work.

If a situation is futile, and you tell yourself it is not so, you will only injure yourself in wasted effort and quiet desperation and end up greatly embarrassed. Changing your perception in an attempt to cheer yourself up will only result in your abuse and exploitation, and a later harrowing realisation you want to deny that you played the fool. What "quiet quitters" do is direct their optimism is a more realistic and grounded direction, the optimism they can maintain the same salary with less effort, which improves their quality of life much more than just changing their perception and waiting for the universe to deliver a fat paycheque and a big promotion.

If you have a good opportunity for advancement and extra pay if you work hard, by all means work hard, but many people are not in such a position.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

For what it's worth, I oversimplified. The calculus is not so simple as that but that certainly goes into it (I believe to your point: "There are workplaces toxic enough to be worth leaving"). If I need to work extra hard to distinguish myself for a hope at receiving some benevolence -- simply being able to keep my job is considered benevolence in this case -- I'll understand that I am in a workplace that is toxic enough to be worth leaving.

Not being laid-off is still a hope which doesn't do anything to alleviate the unpredictability of a return for my effort. But I can make my own return. I will do my job well enough that I can tell someone with a straight face that I can do what they need me to do. I can predict that return. That is my security for the potential that I need to find a new job.

[denkmoon]

If I'm a good dog they sometimes throw me a bone.

[Thorrez]

I enjoy my job. I enjoy getting stuff done.

[eli_gottlieb]

I enjoy my job too, but it took easily five or six years after finishing school before I got a job I actually enjoyed and felt valued in for the first time. Ultimately, work is what pays the bills.

[UtopiaPunk]

Your boss enjoys the money you make for him with so little fuss.

[ipaddr]

I'm glad I can help make him money. No fuss and some pride. It makes my position more solid.

[bluefirebrand]

> It makes my position more solid

This is increasingly less true though.

People are seeing that they can produce high value for years and never get rewarded, and eventually get laid off when cuts need to happen.

At that point, why try?

[Gud]

If they are providing high value but not reaping high rewards, introspection is warranted.

[yellowapple]

Then the near-entirety of the American (and global, while we're at it) workforce has quite a bit of introspection to do.

[ipaddr]

Reward is company staying afloat and I keep getting paid. If company is growing I get managing opportunities.

Ever work at a failing company? That's a worse tradeoff.

[Thorrez]

Is that a bad thing? Should I attempt to make my boss unhappy?

[sledgehammers]

Good for you. How about the people you love? How about the rest of the humanity?

[Thorrez]

Honestly I kind of regret my comment. It was kind of flippant and bragging, and didn't really touch on what I think are the important points.

As a Catholic, I believe in the dignity of work.[1] We should attempt to do the best jobs we can in our work. I'm not saying we should work super long hours, but we should find out how many hours are expected for the role, and do the best job we can during those hours. If our boss gives us more work than we can do in those hours, we should be up front and say "Hey, I'm working as hard as I can during these x hours, and you're giving me more work than fits into the hours." If difficulties in our personal lives prevent us from working those x hours, we should be honest and say "Hey, due to constraints from my personal life, I can only work y hours currently, but I'll do the best possible job I can during those y hours."

We're dependent on the work of others for nearly every aspect of our lives. These 2 fairly similar quotes illustrate that:

>Man must work out of regard for others, especially his own family, but also for the society he belongs to, the country of which he is a child, and the whole human family of which he is a member, since he is the heir to the work of generations and at the same time a sharer in building the future of those who will come after him in the succession of history.

-- St. John Paul II [1]

> I grow little of the food I eat, and of the little I do grow I did not breed or perfect the seeds.

> I do not make any of my own clothing.

> ...

> I did not invent the transistor, the microprocessor, object oriented programming, or most of the technology I work with.

> I love and admire my species, living and dead, and am totally dependent on them for my life and well being.

-- Steve Jobs [2]

We could look at the Steve Jobs quote and say "Sure I'm benefiting from all the work those other people do. But I'm just going to sit back and enjoy it, and not contribute back." But when we look at it from a theological point of view, taking into account the purpose for our existence, why we were created, we see the problem. We were created to know, love, and serve God. Serving one another is part of serving God, since we were created in the image and likeness of God. If we're not serving God and one another, we're not fulling our purpose for existence, and thus we're not going to find fulfillment in this life or the next.

From the lowest employee to the highest, from the janitor to the CEO, each person can do the best they can with the talents and opportunities they have. And work encompasses more than just employment; we can work by caring for a sick relative or sick stranger (a la Mother Theresa), raising children, volunteering at a charity, or contributing to society in some other way.

I haven't talked to all my friends and family about this topic, but when the topic has come up generally they share this point of view.

[1] https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/...

[2] https://putsomethingback.stevejobsarchive.com/

[frje1400]

Because even if don't get more money you get to do more fun work with more autonomy if you are good at what you do.

[gnulinux]

In my experience this is completely wrong. In my experience, the more work you do, you're awarded with more work. Companies require you to continuously grow, and chase for promotion. If you're better, then you need to grow better too. If you're average, but cut the minimum, then you're asked to grow averagely too. In my experience, there is such a thing as being too good at your job such that your employer keeps asking exponentially more and more from you.

[UtopiaPunk]

The more fun work in my life are raising my kids and creating art.

[tmaly]

100%

[MattPalmer1086]

This has some truth to it. I've seen colleagues do the bare minimum , and they may not get paid a lot less than me, but they also don't get the interesting projects.

[piva00]

The other side of this is that interesting projects have a higher inherent risk, it needs to prove that the investment was worth it, if you picked the wrong "interesting project" you will be part of cost-cutting measures when that project doesn't pan out.

I used to be a lot more interested in working on "interesting projects", over time I realised it's not that worth it most of times. I might have some more fun and challenge for a while when it's a greenfield but after that it all devolves to the same-same: it's maintenance, it's an ever expanding scope to gobble more features, it's redesign, it's management deciding the project is not worth it. Rinse and repeat, after 20+ years you really get jaded, why bother if it all eventually devolves to the same state?

[MattPalmer1086]

I'm sure that may be true in some organisations, hasn't affected me like that though. I am easy with taking some risks though, keeps life interesting.

[piva00]

It's true in any organisation given enough time and scale.