[reverendsteveii]

>I feel like many bosses want people to allocate more to a job, but don't offer the corresponding upside.

I agree, and I think that if you look back at the early dot com startups that did things like food, recreation, laundry and even housing right on-campus you'll see a culture that tried to actually meet that need in a way that doesn't seem unfair. The idea was "you give us everything you've got at work and everything else will just take care of itself". Then, as inevitable as death, came the investor class demanding more for less and eliminating the benefits with the hope that the sigma grindset would just perpetuate itself anyway.

[ethbr1]

But nobody can give you more time.

Thread makes a good point that everyone should be evaluating their time investment in work vs. their potential upside, especially if they're sacrificing time to other aspects of life. (Relationships, family, travel, etc)

Giving everything you've got with a potential huge reward = risky but possibly worth it

Doing the same without a huge reward = you're a sucker, because your company is getting more from you than they're giving

[reverendsteveii]

>But nobody can give you more time.

Yeah they can. That's exactly what someone who does your laundry for you does. They give you that time back, and in exchange for some of your time (in the form of money, which for working people is never anything but time spent doing things other than what you want). If I make $70/hr and can buy an hour of doing laundry back for $20 I can work that hour instead of spending it on laundry, have the same amount of time and $50. Or I can work that hour and buy laundry three times, netting me $10 and 2 hours.

[BigGreenJorts]

Same with the food and housing examples. Save meal prep time given back, commuting time given back (I am assuming corporate housing is relatively close to the office compared to usual, self selected housing).

[ethbr1]

Extending your point -- why should a company even pay employees, if they provide everything needed for a happy life + a retirement plan?

What could possibly go wrong if an employer provided everything for their employees?

[reverendsteveii]

I see what you're trying to do here but....yes, actually? Or to be more accurate to what I'm thinking is that not also the job of money? To provide what's needed for a happy life and a retirement plan? And for those of us who are not in the rent-seeking class, money is acquired by working for pay. The only actual issue is exclusivity - when you can only live in company housing and can only buy at the company store they're free to take advantage of you. When the company housing has to compete with other housing and the company store has to match or beat prices at other stores they become just one more potential source and you as the wage-earner get to decide between them and everyone else.

[reverendsteveii]

once I realized money is just time but we don't all get to trade between the two at the same rate a lot of things started to make sense.