|
> Yeah, I threw in the "sane" to cover cases like that. I know of women that'll readily work 70-80 hour weeks for a startup. But I wouldn't exactly call them sane. ;-) I dunno man. A normal girl who likes "shopping and hanging out with her friends", who sleepwalks through a boring shitty low-paying job, who doesn't exercise and doesn't take of herself... that's sane? My girlfriend in London: Family was high in the Communist Party before the Iron Curtain fell, got in the ground floor as entrepreneurs, sent her to study architecture in London and Tokyo, won some design awards, went swimming 4x week and did yoga 3x week. Had great, brilliant friends. When not studying, working, exercising, she'd go to eclectic cafes near Old Street or we'd go to the National Gallery or British Museum or some various gardens or have tea. She's not sane? Girls who "hang out and shop", follow American Idol really really carefully, and sleepwalk through life are sane? I guess sanity is in the eye of the beholder. > Incidentally, I'm kinda curious whether there's any correlation between insane hours and success at the fuck-you-money level. I think there is for a few reasons. First, a job might require 20-50 hours of "firefighting and admin" per week, where every hour over that is actually productive work. Going from a 40 hour workweek to a 50 hour workweek might actually double your productive output. Second, the more you work, actually the more you live and get done. Expression, "If you want something done, give it to a busy person." When I was hyper busy, I'd get little trivial tasks done super fast. Now that I've got more free time, it takes me way longer to do minor bullshit like get car insurance or respond to some letter or something else. When I was hyper busy, I'd only "touch stuff" once. Which cut down time and stress from tasks by a lot. Third, when you're busy working all the time, you actually spend a lot less money, because you're working all the time. > (I know there's one as you go from high-school education to professional degree, but I think the causation is backwards: people work longer hours and get paid more because their jobs are more engaging, they don't get paid more because they work longer hours.) That's a good point, sounds true too. I think it's more cyclical than a causation/correlation thing. Longer hours, more skills, more engagement, ability to put in longer hours, more skills, more engagement, and so on. That's my guess anyways. Good comments. |
...why does this have to be the alternative to women who work 70-80 hour weeks for a startup? I'm sure that's not what you're saying, as your girlfriend anecdote is neither, but that's how it reads.