Is hard work a thing of the past?

[kingaliencracker]

We're seeing more and more of the media push back on companies or businesses that don't offer a plethora of benefits that would be considered a luxury a decade ago, unheard of 20 years ago and beyond. This includes frequent breaks, the end to at-will employment, and working from home options.

We're seeing studio professionals complain about producers putting too much pressure on them to complete work and spending long hours at work versus at home. I remember reading stories of classic movies where producers, writers, directors, SFX techs, etc. working in the studio for days, weeks, even months at a time to get the work completed, not because they necessarily had to but because they loved the work and loved the project.

You're seeing employees bouncing from job-to-job at a frequency that makes no sense if the ultimate goal is retirement. When I was getting into the workforce, the idea was to find a job that offered stability, benefits, and a solid retirement plan. Today, workers get bored with a job after 6 months or less, they'll jump to a fast food or similar job until they figure out the next thing.

I've often told people that you can love your job, but the job will never love you back. Are we in a period where working hard for your job is considered an antiquated notion?

[Dalak]

I think that if you think hard work isn't a thing anymore you should expand where you are looking for it. I also think that benefits for workers have been under attack more and more over time, which is among the things that make working with a company long enough to receive any retirement plan far harder for employees that want to do so let alone ones that just want a steady job. These are a few videos about problems with the employment system in the US, but I suggest looking for more out there to educate yourself as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm9YKT0dItk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41vETgarh_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK037bOz0PU

[MajorHoy]

Gosh, I miss the days of slavery and indentured servitude.

Not.

[Gray Lensman]

Loyalty can't be taken, it can only be exchanged in kind.

Basically, why would I show loyalty to a job that refuses to show any in return? I left my old job because a position I had held at a previous employer, that I was the single most qualified person in the building to take, was never going to be offered to me as long as new people with the same last name as someone else in the building kept showing up. Best work related decision I have made in the past eight years.

[Odd Rödney]

If anything is antiquated it is the 40 hour work week. I work profoundly hard, full-time and it truly exhausts me mentally and physically. I have at least another 15 years to work before I will be able to retire and genuinely don’t know if I have the staying power for that. The 40 hour work week is a leftover of the 50s. Back then there was generally just the man of the house working that much and it earned enough to support the needs of himself, his partner and his kids. That is not how it works anymore. People don’t get paid enough to support an entire family on one full time job. Now both partners work full-time. Leaving very little time for anything truly fun. And honestly, the corporate overlords have screwed the working class. They indulge in union busting and generally seek to take power away from all of us. I used to have time to make art and play music and I haven’t done as much of that as I’d like to in life due to the need to work so hard for so little. Working constantly, just to survive. Sometimes I wonder if those crust punk kids have it figured out. They don’t have much but they’re not a slave to an ever shrinking wage. Then I remember I have a mortgage and a dog so I go punch in and get to work. Anyway, the 40 hour work week is a crime, in my opinion.

[kingaliencracker]

Gosh, I miss the days of slavery and indentured servitude.

Not.

That's an extreme viewpoint in response to what I said, friend. Nowhere in my post did I advocate "slavery" or "indentured servitude". But it's ironic you equate what I said to that.

[numberthirty]

We're seeing more and more of the media push back on companies or businesses that don't offer a plethora of benefits that would be considered a luxury a decade ago, unheard of 20 years ago and beyond. This includes frequent breaks, the end to at-will employment, and working from home options.

We're seeing studio professionals complain about producers putting too much pressure on them to complete work and spending long hours at work versus at home. I remember reading stories of classic movies where producers, writers, directors, SFX techs, etc. working in the studio for days, weeks, even months at a time to get the work completed, not because they necessarily had to but because they loved the work and loved the project.

You're seeing employees bouncing from job-to-job at a frequency that makes no sense if the ultimate goal is retirement. When I was getting into the workforce, the idea was to find a job that offered stability, benefits, and a solid retirement plan. Today, workers get bored with a job after 6 months or less, they'll jump to a fast food or similar job until they figure out the next thing.

I've often told people that you can love your job, but the job will never love you back. Are we in a period where working hard for your job is considered an antiquated notion?

Politely?

You are talking about a world that no longer exists.

[numberthirty]

That's an extreme viewpoint in response to what I said, friend. Nowhere in my post did I advocate "slavery" or "indentured servitude". But it's ironic you equate what I said to that.

Not really...

Think about all of the jobs one can apply for that are a twelve hour shift.

Working like a dog?

That is just where it starts these days.

[kingaliencracker]

Loyalty can't be taken, it can only be exchanged in kind.

Basically, why would I show loyalty to a job that refuses to show any in return? I left my old job because a position I had held at a previous employer, that I was the single most qualified person in the building to take, was never going to be offered to me as long as new people with the same last name as someone else in the building kept showing up. Best work related decision I have made in the past eight years.

I don't disagree, which is why I preach to others "you can love your job, but the job will never love you back". The point of that is that no matter how much work or loyalty or hours you put into your job, it will never feel anything back for you and at the end of the day, the only thing you're guaranteed is a paycheck.

What I'm perceiving, and why I started this thread, is that people WANT their job to love them back, regardless of their work history, how long they've been with a company, or what the job actually entails. When I was younger, if I didn't like a job, I just found a new one. Now, people want the job to conform to their needs and wants.

[Mister Mets]

We're seeing more and more of the media push back on companies or businesses that don't offer a plethora of benefits that would be considered a luxury a decade ago, unheard of 20 years ago and beyond. This includes frequent breaks, the end to at-will employment, and working from home options.

We're seeing studio professionals complain about producers putting too much pressure on them to complete work and spending long hours at work versus at home. I remember reading stories of classic movies where producers, writers, directors, SFX techs, etc. working in the studio for days, weeks, even months at a time to get the work completed, not because they necessarily had to but because they loved the work and loved the project.

You're seeing employees bouncing from job-to-job at a frequency that makes no sense if the ultimate goal is retirement. When I was getting into the workforce, the idea was to find a job that offered stability, benefits, and a solid retirement plan. Today, workers get bored with a job after 6 months or less, they'll jump to a fast food or similar job until they figure out the next thing.

I've often told people that you can love your job, but the job will never love you back. Are we in a period where working hard for your job is considered an antiquated notion?

To answer the question. No, but there are differences between now and thirty years ago.

Often people who worked long hours didn't do it because they wanted to. They did it because they had to. There were always people with easy, cushy jobs. Now more people have an expectation of getting those kinds of jobs.

When you're talking about people not doing the sensible thing to find jobs that offered stability, benefits, and a solid retirement plan, a problem is that there aren't as many of these jobs. Retirement packages are expensive, and get more expensive as people live longer. People also start their careers later. This all suggests that we should have a later retirement age, but adaptations to technological changes often penalize older workers.

Workplaces typically prioritize efficiency over loyalty, and they try to reduce the workforce and get workarounds to offering benefits (IE- the entire gig economy.) Companies go under, and that often includes the benefits and retirements packages.

I think one big thing people want is transparency. They also don't like being taken advantage of. If someone works long hours in SFX because a higher-up at Marvel changed their mind at the last minute, they're not going to be inclined to love the work and the project.

[Mister Mets]

If anything is antiquated it is the 40 hour work week. I work profoundly hard, full-time and it truly exhausts me mentally and physically. I have at least another 15 years to work before I will be able to retire and genuinely don’t know if I have the staying power for that. The 40 hour work week is a leftover of the 50s. Back then there was generally just the man of the house working that much and it earned enough to support the needs of himself, his partner and his kids. That is not how it works anymore. People don’t get paid enough to support an entire family on one full time job. Now both partners work full-time. Leaving very little time for anything truly fun. And honestly, the corporate overlords have screwed the working class. They indulge in union busting and generally seek to take power away from all of us. I used to have time to make art and play music and I haven’t done as much of that as I’d like to in life due to the need to work so hard for so little. Working constantly, just to survive. Sometimes I wonder if those crust punk kids have it figured out. They don’t have much but they’re not a slave to an ever shrinking wage. Then I remember I have a mortgage and a dog so I go punch in and get to work. Anyway, the 40 hour work week is a crime, in my opinion.

If you wanted to support a family on one income like it was in the 1950s, its doable as long as you're willing to live like someone in the 1950s. But most people prefer all the niceties that people in the 1950s would be jealous of.

Some costs have increased partially due to pressure to raise salaries. Childcare is going to be more expensive if you want to pay an adult a living wage to watch a small group of children, in addition to other costs (the bureaucracy, building space, etc.) Some stuff could be made available cheaper, but that would come with tradeoffs. Health insurance is going to be more expensive when it's mandated to cover more things. The cost of college keeps increasing thanks to bureaucratic bloat.

[Spike-X]

No, hard work is not a thing of the past. The idea that you should work yourself into an early grave while everyone but you profits from your labor, however, is becoming seen more and more as a less than ideal way to live one's life.

[useridgoeshere]

I've often told people that you can love your job, but the job will never love you back. Are we in a period where working hard for your job is considered an antiquated notion?

People are working harder than ever, but yeah, they're just working hard for themselves, instead of for people and entities that don't appreciate it. I think workers at all levels are learning that they have value. As the inequity between top and bottom continues to grow, I'd expect more and more people to reject the notion that they're "lucky to have a job" or that they should sacrifice for someone far wealthier than they are.

[Totoro Man]

I think smart phones, tablets, and social media help remind us of just how little work some people are doing. I think there has always been a spectrum of people that work very hard and other people who will do as little as humanly possible.

there is a natural tendency for some people to try and exploit others. the common complaint is that rich people exploit the worker. but, over the last 20 years, I see far more workers attempting to exploit their employers BECAUSE of the 40-hour work week. people will be scheduled a certain number of hours a day when there isn't that much work available. employers are prepared to take the loss to make sure that they have reliable employees when things get busy again. there will always be some people will opt to go home while others will stay on and "milk the clock" (to varying degrees).

I've seen twenty-something guys sit in a corner and play video games on their smart phone for two hours while on the clock. when people are deliberately hiding and getting paid for that sort of thing... how is that NOT a type of exploitation? or is it simply acceptable for workers to rip off their employers because they make less money?

one thing that a lot of people neglect to mention is that in the 1950s the United States was arguably the most powerful economy in the world. this was largely because it was the only major industrialized nation that was not nearly destroyed or catastrophically damaged as a result of World War 2. the US benefited greatly from selling manufactured goods to the rest of the world. the rate of exchange was so favorable that people did not need a college education to get a satisfactory level of income.

when I see Trump and his flunkies proclaiming the desire to "Make America Great Again"... I would argue that the circumstances which allowed that to happen are not something that can be easily repeated. I, for one, would not wish to see another global scale conflict that leads to millions of people dying and billions of dollars in property damage just to allow from a small percentage of the world to profit from the rebuilding process... which is WHY, in my opinion, the United States was arguably the greatest post WW2 economic and military superpower.

if WW2 had never happened, what evidence do we have that the United States would have been "great"?

I remember reading Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" (for fun, during high school) and it made a big impression on me. Based on that book, I speculated that the United States economy would get weaker and weaker relative to other nations and that I couldn't expect the sort of economic security that people knew in the past.

additionally, if we're going to condemn the 40-hour work week as "a crime" I feel like we should at least TRY to provide an alternative that seems more appealing.

as for unions: I have ZERO positive experiences dealing with unions, and distrust them, it's not just about corporations using union busting tactics. some industries have legendarily corrupt unions. consider the ILWU... which is a union that tried to move in on the company I presently work for. all of the older employees turned it down. it became clear that if they joined the union that a lot of them would have been replaced by existing union members with more seniority. they demanded retroactive seniority to represent their years of non-union employment at the company so that their jobs weren't taken away. the union refused to provide this guarantee, and after that nearly every single employee voted against unionizing. "why should we join your union so that you can give our jobs to your friends and kids?"

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...nto-bankruptcy
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/ho...00-dockworkers

some people believe that offering benefits is a type of anti-union activity... I guess the argument is that anything short of paying people more money is something that benefits the company rather than the worker.

one of my favorite high school history teachers argued against the rest of his peers by suggesting LOWER hourly wages and increased medical benefits and 401k contributions. he suggested this after he did the math and figured out that they would have lower tax rates with smaller income and better take-home pay afterwards. he also argued that the 401k would generate more wealth in the long run because of accumulating interest. he lamented that nearly all of his younger coworkers shot down the idea. since he was middle-aged and all of his kids had moved out of the house - he came up with a plan that was most beneficial for empty nesters like himself (his wife had chronic medical problems). just because it was the perfect solution for him doesn't mean other people saw it the same way!

[numberthirty]

I don't disagree, which is why I preach to others "you can love your job, but the job will never love you back". The point of that is that no matter how much work or loyalty or hours you put into your job, it will never feel anything back for you and at the end of the day, the only thing you're guaranteed is a paycheck.

What I'm perceiving, and why I started this thread, is that people WANT their job to love them back, regardless of their work history, how long they've been with a company, or what the job actually entails. When I was younger, if I didn't like a job, I just found a new one. Now, people want the job to conform to their needs and wants.

Yeah, work should have to take a step towards workers.

Serious question...

When you were "Younger..."

Roughly how many years are we talking?