You are not your job

> You are not your job. You're a person first. Your ability to connect, be present, and make people feel understood is what makes you irreplaceable to the people around you, which is the only market that counts.

True, but losing your job is still a big deal. It often means that you lose your income, your health insurance (in the US at least), many (if not most) of your daily interactions with other people, and your social status.

> My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things.

As others have noted, it's great to not actually need the paycheck you are working for.

>My technical skills are being disrupted by machines - that's fine I'll go do other things. [links to long bike trip]

Ok that's cool and all but many of us have bills to pay. Bike trips don't pay the bills. Software people have been economically advantaged up until now that they can go and do stuff like that.

There’s an old aphorism: “Do what you love, and you’ll never work a day in your life.”

I worked in tech, because I love tech. No other reason, really. I accepted a job, making maybe half of what I could make, elsewhere, because of the personal satisfaction I got from it, and the relationships I made, there.

When I retired, I have continued to develop software, and am currently “leaning into” AI-assisted development.

During that time, I’ve also had plenty of time to be human.

50% of your waking hours are spent at work. The person you are revolves around your working hours, the problems you solve the concerns you have, the money you make the persona you display at work.

Saying you are not your work is wishful thinking. Try giving it up and check in on how much of you is still the same.

Maybe you wish to be more than your working self. That’s honorable and desirable. Just declaring it isn’t going to cut it though.

I also took the route of finding a new hobby (biking, all things bike mechanics, even politics) but of course it's not paying any of my bills. That's the point. While I helped making other people very rich, I never owned shares or got a bonus after an exit.

We're currently in the process of designing and building machines that can do everything better, faster and cheaper than humans.

Gradually, we are succeeding.

This leaves us with two options:

a) Decouple the value of human life from economic output

b) Watch as the value of human life rapidly approaches zero

People don't need self-help advise, they need a fair redistribution of increased productivity.

We don't make a big deal of our jobs because we are stupid - it's the society that assigns this or that income to this or that job, and income determines lifestyle or in worst case the survival.

When you meet someone, you assess them on two dimensions. The first is warmth - do you believe they mean you well? The second is competence - do you believe they're capable?

Well, sometimes.

At other times, the assessment may be based on signalling, tribalism, perception of status, personal connections, career connections, transactional goals, or other criteria.

Some people don't have or can't show warmth. Or they don't have the ability to "crack a joke at the right time" or make small talk. Should that be held against people when making assessments?

Agreed with the title and some of the broad sentiment, but two things stood out.

> I can't delegate my capacity to sit with someone when they're confused or scared or just need to feel known

Plenty of people rely on therapists and/or chat bots to listen to them. Not everybody feels comfortable burdening their friends and family with their problems.

> We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to

There is a trade-off between social services in a broad sense and the ability to pay for them. The stronger the social safety net, the more people at the margin will choose to work less, earn less, make less of an effort. In turn, the tax base becomes smaller, and thus unable to maintain those same social services.

For example, the vast majority of people choose to retire once they reach the age where they are able to collect enough from their pension that they no longer need to work in order to get by. If we lowered the age of eligibility by a year, most people would retire a year earlier. Just like we see people retiring later in countries that have moved the eligibility to the age of e.g. 67.

With this I am not advocating to increase or decrease the current social safety net in whichever region you, dear reader, are living. I am simply pointing out some of the real-world effects of moving the needle in one direction or another.

Thus, yes, in rich countries we have collectively decided that "caring for everyone" is not the best way forward, because we see that it becomes unsustainable when you go too far. Where exactly we place the needle varies from place to place, obviously. Thinning the social safety net too far also has massive societal and economic consequences.

The people who figure this out early are rare. Most only get there after losing the job or burning out completely. Shame it takes that long

You are what utility you deliver to others. I doubt they'll keep feeding, dressing and sheltering you for your ability to connect, be present and whatever.

Some people indeed identify too much with their jobs, but for many others getting replaced by A.I means on very practical terms - a huge hit in salary, it means possibly retraining - maybe for years, means stress to the family (mortgage, bills etc) perhaps even stress to the marriage. I disagree that the people near you only love you or need you for your presence; they also rely on your paycheck. Your daugher may love you for you but she needs that check to the private school, that money for nice clothes and gadgets like her friends all have and paying for that apartment in the nice neighborhood.

Fine essay overall but “We possess the means to care for everyone -- yet choose not to”

I really don’t think this is true

I used to BE a software engineer. Then, I experienced a 3 years long burnout and got professional help. Now I work AS an Engineering Manager.

You are not your job. Do not put your ego in what you do. That’s something I discuss a lot during my 1:1s.

One's job and the rest of one's life are not clearly delineated. Best friends and spouses are often met through work, which is inexplicably linked with one's actual performance on the job. This article treats them as if they are isolated. Also, it's worth noting that one's sense of purpose (as in career) is important to happiness, just as being part of a strong social network in one's personal life is. Balance is key.

I am not my age or gender either in this sense, but I am still going to say 'I am a man' and 'I am x years old', because I am fluent in English.

I want to thank everyone who hates work, is mentally checked out of their jobs and quiet quitting etc.

It makes it much easier for me to distinguish myself as a hard worker who cares about the business being successful. It also helps me keep my job during layoffs because I can assure you the managers have noticed.

When you are old and have lots of formative experiences that are not work-based, we can shake hands and mutually appreciate each other's motives and respective outcomes.

The company has ex Fly.io people:;dissent is flagged. What a surprise. Fly.io will still end like Starfighter, where abusing HN for marketing did not work.

This was obvious to those who value their time over the job given to them and all the office politics, performative meetings and the blame-game that comes with it.

Indeed, thinking that people and the way they extract money from the environment is same is ridiculous and i've been teaching my kid from childhood that it's just wrong. We've been conditioned to think that way from the industrial era. I hope now people will finally learn to think different.

[dead]

[flagged]