Every one of these quotes is from someone who would be junior or midlevel at best at any company. Not trying to be ageist but mid twenty somethings are filled with enthusiasm and fantastical ideas which are yet to be vetted or guided by real world experience. I agree with your skepticism here

It's comical that the browser use guy tweeted "crazy salaries, 996" and the highest salary they offer is $320k. In SF.

Early Google varied a lot. There were a lot of fires in those days that required long hours by engineers. Jeff Dean received a little statue IIRC for taking part in the "index wars", where due to a pervasive lack of checkpointing in the indexing pipeline they had been unable to push a new index to prod for months. And Lucas Pereira regularly had to ship new indexes to the east coast by loading them into his car then driving across the USA.

It's also easy to forget that Google established product-market fit in an uncompetitive market immediately, then found a cash geyser business model only about six months later (or rather copied it from Inktomi). They didn't need to work crazy hours because web search was viewed as a dead end problem that didn't make money, so nobody was chasing their tail. Google's early culture of strict secrecy was a direct consequence of this strange birth: if anyone had found out earlier how much demand existed for AdWords they'd have faced much harsher competition much faster. But Google swore everyone to absolute secrecy, and so the first time the industry discovered how valuable search is was in 2004 on the day of the Google IPO. By then Google had invested so much in R&D that it was impossible to catch up.

Very few companies can be compared to early Google, unfortunately.

I think that reasonable hours are still the norm at much of Google.

I worked there as a SWE for over decade before I left last year. I never once felt pressured to work long hours or extra days. I do recall several times when management folks emphasized that if you're working long hours, it's a sign that something went wrong in our planning, and we should look into it. The few times I stayed late for dinner, the office was mostly empty.

I understand that others may have had a different experience, but for me Google was way healthier than any previous company I have worked at over my decades-long career, including the two companies that I started myself.

It is where the slippery slope leads but a lot of materialist cultures manage to find a midpoint and stick there.

In a sense this isn't even materialist: you are chasing numbers in an account for their own sake. A materialist wants things, and might sacrifice everything else to get them, but doesn't want to do the work for its own sake.

Ultimately this is feeding the ego, the least material thing of all. And I can't actually fault people for that; in the end what else do we have? But even an egotist needs to be able to ask themselves, "am I in fact feeling what I want to feel, or have I missed myself?"

There are certainly those who want the ego rush of feeling like they've worked as hard as they possibly can and taken every chance to show off their skill. But we've fetishized them, and even if they are happy, it often won't achieve the same for us.

The alternative is what? “Working to live” is often just making more money so you can spend it hiking, traveling, and maximizing your dopamine. Maximizing your happy chemicals is also materialist.

Working a substantive job contributing positively to the work is among the most important and fulfilling things one can do with their life, alongside raising a family

> 996 for a business owner or top exec at a big company? It’s the norm. And the risk-reward makes sense to them.

It's bad anyway. These people burnout and start making dumb moves to bail out sooner.

In my spare time I code my own projects, I draw, I talk and write about my ideas. So yes, I'm also "working" on stuff for 12 hours a day, but obviously the work I do for myself, based on decisions I made myself, and the talking and thinking, are not at all "work" in the same manner that the drudgery of an actual job is work. The work I do for money is not just time-consuming and tiring, it's hard and boring and most importantly, often meaningless to me.

A ceo trades time and peace for money, and that is arguably difficult in it's own ways. But that doesn't make it work in the same way that what you and I do is work. These people do not work a 100 hours a week. They live charmed lives that also happen to often be exhausting.

[flagged]

What the heck? And why is everyone even discussing this? What kind of nightmare.

My first thought was 9 hour days, 9 days in a row, then 6 days off. At first it sounds nice, but I know out of those 9 hours there would be 4-5 truly great hours and the rest would be meh.

Fuck that shit.

I've always explained it like this: I would prefer that you work reasonable hours and no more. Just make sure that you're giving your best during those hours. Focus on solving problems, and avoid distractions like social media.

Most good engineers are happy with this arrangement.

Borrowing productivity from the future is how I feel about my career as a whole. I spent 30 years working stressful 70-80 hour weeks, only to burn out completely in my late 40s. From high achiever to practically zero executive function. Like my ability to get into a flow state blew a fuse and now I can't get there. Meanwhile all my peers who kept a healthy work-life balance in their 20s and 30s are still doing great.