27 votes

The tsunami of burnout few see

24 comments

  1. [2]
    Akir
    Link
    I think the framing of the problem being narrative control is salient. The people in charge keep saying that you’re not working hard enough, you’re not smart enough, and that any problem that...

    I think the framing of the problem being narrative control is salient. The people in charge keep saying that you’re not working hard enough, you’re not smart enough, and that any problem that arises is because of something you did and not because of uncontrollable market forces - or far more likely, because of managerial mistakes, perverse incentives, bad processes, and lack of implemented failsafe procedures.

    I honestly think that pretty much every societal ill - and yes, burnout counts as a social problem - is caused by skewed perspectives on the situation. Managers have these fundamentally. Their jobs are to increase performance, and the only care they have to their managed worker’s well-being is the minimum needed to keep performance up. So it’s extremely common to see them adopt a style in which their workers are used as fuel, to be burnt up and then eventually replaced, weather or not they are actually aware that is what they are doing. Or, from another perspective, they are trained to care more about their charges as laborers and to care less about them as people.

    Of course narrative control is a problem that extends far beyond the workplace. I mean, just look around you. It has destroyed the public square.

    30 votes
    1. elight
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      UPDATE: TL;DR: At best, the manager's (and, by proxy, almost every business') incentive to preserve and promulgate happiness and flourishing is, at best, an enormously distant secondary goal from...

      UPDATE: TL;DR: At best, the manager's (and, by proxy, almost every business') incentive to preserve and promulgate happiness and flourishing is, at best, an enormously distant secondary goal from the primary goal of adding immediate/near-term business value. And, in my opinion, this is indicative of much of what is wrong and evil in this world: human flourishing is essentially the sole responsibility of the individual human. Otherwise, the primary societally dictated purpose of human life is to add to the economy by which we enrich the already rich. Personally, I would be dishonest if I failed to acknowledge my near constant disappointment in humanity that we have come so far technologically in our ability to create prosperity and wealth that could be for all yet we still continue to live essentially feudal lives with little autonomy and, so, little (of what I'll call) "freedom".

      Excellent summary of the managerial perspective though somewhat inaccurate, in my experience. As a former (and throughly burnt out) manager, I frame it as "managers are incentivized to invest just enough effort into workers to sustain the worker while providing the worker a path to mature, in the workspace, to increase their ability to add value".

      The corollary here, and you captured part of it, is that there is little incentive for managers to treat workers as fellow human beings deserving of dignity and compassion. Covey's P/PC theory is as far as business' are willing to invest: invest in growth commensurate to opportunities to increase production capacity. Even then, investing in growth is risky for managers when it leads to failed deliverables.

      If you are a manager who prioritizes human dignity and compassion, you are likely to be seen as an infection to be rejected by the business' immune response.

      I insist on compassion and human dignity in my life for myself and those around me. And, so, I've found myself incompatible with the current capitalist workplace.

      I agree with the author: the problem seems systemic. I would argue that the root issue is the net increase over time in the socialization of risk with the centralization of rewards. Economists will argue that economies expand yet the wealthy continue to capture greater percentages of it leaving less for everyone else. Economies can give the appearance of added prosperity for most through bread and circuses; today, that is perhaps smartphones, social media, and the fantasies of television shows and film.

      Anecdotally, with 30 professional years under my belt, I too have found that workplace expectations have only climbed and the rewards have largely stagnated. That increased tension almost certainly causes greater suffering.

      11 votes
  2. [8]
    vord
    (edited )
    Link
    So, I don't want to spam Tildes with this blog, but I noticed while clicking through that there is a common thread that ties these things together. Namely that there's a massive disconnect between...

    So, I don't want to spam Tildes with this blog, but I noticed while clicking through that there is a common thread that ties these things together. Namely that there's a massive disconnect between "what economists say" and "what people experience." The one that hammered it home for me was Stainless Steal. A quote from a source:

    The bit about the degradation of stainless steel since the 1970s

    I own some old and by the standards of the day in the 1970's "cheap" stainless steel knives and cutlery. I use a few of these pieces as garden tools. They lay around in the dirt and weather 24-7 and 365 days a year. They are used for purposes never intended by their manufacturers, uses that they would classify as abuse. And I can pick these items out of the dirt, rinse them under a tap and they come up looking like new. They are shiny, silver and have no sign of rust

    And I also own some 'quality' stainless steel items that were manufactured in the last 5 years in China. They were not priced in the 'Cheap and Nasty' bracket. These items do nothing more than live in a kitchen or out under the pergola and get wet with clean water. With Plain water. And they rust. Prolifically.

    So it seems that since the 1970s, we have managed to figure out how to make Fraud Stainless at a price point above actual stainless (inflation adjusted).

    I have come to realise that we are now a VERY long way past 'Peak Quality' and Peak quality of life. And we seem to accept this degradation as normal.

    We are now living in a comprehensive illusion of what is quality. I'm starting to wonder if there are any products being produced today that are genuinely superior to those produced 30+ years ago.

    Advertising tells us that products are 'Premium,' but 40 years ago products with similar or superior specifications were produced as 'cheap.' Todays standard grade products would be regarded as Defective in the economy of pre-1990s.

    The goes into how this is not a sustainable model, and eventually there will be a collapse when ability to churn out low-quality goods is outpaced by the rate at which they break.

    And the one key bit from that quote ties nicely back to this post about burnout, namely this line:

    Today's standard grade products would be regarded as Defective in the economy of pre-1990s.

    And I think that is why everyone feels that our purchasing power is stagnating or decreasing, even if by macro metrics "everything is fine." Because despite spending ever-more money, and having evermore stuff, we're getting lower quality goods for those same price points. My impulse corroborating anecdote: My dishwasher. Any dishwasher with a plastic basin automatically qualifies as "cheap crap," as regular usage will cause the basin to warp and become useless quite quickly. And to get a dishwasher with a metal basin at all, you've moved up all the way to a premium brand which has none of the bells and whistles which almost all other brands have at that price point.

    And this cheapness propagates as higher costs for other things, like rent. Landlords tend to put in the lowest-grade goods, which means that you're paying the amortized replacement costs as a tenant.

    Before 2021, the Kitchinaid mixer motor had a lifetime warranty. It was switched to a 5 year. I wonder why?

    16 votes
    1. [4]
      Akir
      Link Parent
      It goes back further, to the 80s at least. If you haven’t heard of him or what he did, this kind of behavior by companies was largely heralded by GE under the helm of Jack Welch. But this is just...

      It goes back further, to the 80s at least. If you haven’t heard of him or what he did, this kind of behavior by companies was largely heralded by GE under the helm of Jack Welch.

      But this is just the end game of unrestricted capitalism. When the only thing that matters is getting stock prices to rise you can do any number of unethical things and quality only matters insofar as people will still buy the product.

      9 votes
      1. [3]
        vord
        Link Parent
        Very much so. Whenever somebody tells me "capitalism is fine, it's just unregulated capitalism is the problem," I point out that in order to properly regulate it, it requires an immensely large...

        Very much so. Whenever somebody tells me "capitalism is fine, it's just unregulated capitalism is the problem," I point out that in order to properly regulate it, it requires an immensely large bureaucratic state in order to keep the natural forces (like trending toward monopoly) at bay. Because as soon as you properly regulate something, a company starts trying to subvert the regulation in a different way to "remain competitive." At the end of the day, you have to wonder: Is having to create a gigantic regulatory framework which makes compliance difficult and enforcement more-so somehow better than just having public ownership of the monopolized thing?

        One of the biggest problems I see that necessitates the end of capitalism is that in the last 100 years, we've honed the science of how to exploit human behavior to undermine all of the principles that enable market forces to work as theorized. "Voting with your dollar" only works if you have complete and accurate information...as well as giving people with the most dollars the most votes.

        9 votes
        1. [2]
          DynamoSunshirt
          Link Parent
          It probably depends on the product. For fast-moving things like technology, I suspect it makes sense to regulate the ever-changing market. That way, you can benefit from new developments faster....

          It probably depends on the product.

          For fast-moving things like technology, I suspect it makes sense to regulate the ever-changing market. That way, you can benefit from new developments faster.

          But once something plateaus, I think we're better off heavily regulating it and perhaps absorbing it into the state before it can enshittify. Water companies, power companies, internet providers, sewer systems, even social media have natural monopoly power and network effects. Once you become a requirement for living a normal life, you lose your right to extract profit, because any user squeezed out by your profit margin will experience undue hardship.

          Think of people who try to go without smart phones or the internet today. It's possible, technically. But it is absolutely an undue hardship, and probably creates issues with a lot of employment thanks to 2FA, communication, and plenty of other undocumented soft requirements.

          Of course, we also haven't figured out a way to stop people from profiting from the housing market and even basic groceries (eggs, anyone?) while people starve and go without housing in our own country (let alone worldwide). Perhaps once we solve that problem we can apply a solution to more of these life necessities. I suspect the answer is some kind of cooperative nonprofit shared ownership with community stake and enough segmentation that individual communities can cater to their own perferences without breaking the bank. But we'll hwve to make some hard decisions, like cutting off utility service from the most remote, expensive housing, to keep things affordable for everyone.

          5 votes
          1. vord
            Link Parent
            The most important aspect of capitalism is just that: Capital. If it's publicly owned, it's not nearly as much of a problem. That's why co-ops are compatible with socialist/communist solutions as...

            The most important aspect of capitalism is just that: Capital. If it's publicly owned, it's not nearly as much of a problem. That's why co-ops are compatible with socialist/communist solutions as they eliminate layers of exploitation.

            And even for the fast-moving stuff....a substantial quantity of the actual advancement is done in universities. While progress might be slower if it were not in a market environment, it would likely be more deliberate.. faster progress is often a problem. We roll out something quickly before the consequences of doing so are evident (see PFAS, CFCs, and whole loads of other things).

            4 votes
    2. [2]
      KakariBlue
      Link Parent
      For stainless in particular I wonder how much of it is changes in environmental regulations that limit chromium and other metals. Some of those ingredients helped make great products but their...

      For stainless in particular I wonder how much of it is changes in environmental regulations that limit chromium and other metals. Some of those ingredients helped make great products but their waste and runoff kill off entire segments of the biosphere (and risk poisoning the workers).

      6 votes
      1. vord
        Link Parent
        That is a worthy consideration to think about. It well could be that the term stainless steel should just be retired on account of that, if we can't reasonably make it anymore. "Mildly more...

        That is a worthy consideration to think about. It well could be that the term stainless steel should just be retired on account of that, if we can't reasonably make it anymore. "Mildly more resistant than raw iron" doesn't have the same ring to it though.

    3. drannex
      Link Parent
      I'm not saying they are wrong on-the-whole as products are now mass-produced at a much larger volume for a much larger market than ever before and to meet those goals we have to lower our...

      Today's standard grade products would be regarded as Defective in the economy of pre-1990s.

      I'm not saying they are wrong on-the-whole as products are now mass-produced at a much larger volume for a much larger market than ever before and to meet those goals we have to lower our collective 'quality' rankings, but I will say re:steel a great name for a game, btw quote is that those items from the seventies, and other comparisons of 'they made them better back in the day' such as refrigerators, etc, is quite simple to explain: only the good stuff lasted and was worth remembering.

      All the other junk has now been lost to time, or packed away in a closet, like the unopened 'top-of-the-line' food dehydrator from 1995 in my kitchen. The reason it has remained unopened? All models were recalled in 1997 after burning down houses and killing people, and caused the company to disappear forever.

      1 vote
  3. D_E_Solomon
    Link
    Two things to respond to on the economics that are claimed. We're not in an era of stagflation. Stagflation is stagnant growth and inflation that eats it back up. We've had some inflation, but...

    Two things to respond to on the economics that are claimed.

    1. We're not in an era of stagflation. Stagflation is stagnant growth and inflation that eats it back up. We've had some inflation, but nothing as bad as the 70s. Moreover, the GDP growth has exceeded that inflation and grown decently in real terms. Given that inflation is coming down due to the fed interest rate moves, it's hard to agree that we're going to be in a long term inflationary environment.

    Stagflation of the 70s was created by a combination of supply chain shocks (oil crisis) and a Fed that loosened monetary policy in response. We've had supply chain shock (covid) and while the Fed was a bit loose for too long, they've raised rates rapidly and inflation is mostly under control.

    1. Overall employee participation rate is climbing again. It took a nose dive in 2020 due to obvious reasons - and a lot of older adults choose to exit the labor market at that point - ie the Great Retirement. It's been climbing back up ever since. The author just took a chart and drew a trend line assuming that the trend would continue. That's not a good approach to forecasting.
    10 votes
  4. [8]
    Aerrol
    Link
    This a pretty well written article, and I agree with the thesis, but I wish sources were more evident. Who is this author? What are their qualifications? How are they so sure that real wages have...

    This a pretty well written article, and I agree with the thesis, but I wish sources were more evident. Who is this author? What are their qualifications? How are they so sure that real wages have decreased (contrary to all mainstream economic analysis)?

    5 votes
    1. [6]
      creesch
      Link Parent
      Interesting that you state it is a well written article. I had trouble getting through it and am still not sure what the overal point is. Besides the bold facing, the post starts by a conclusion...

      Interesting that you state it is a well written article. I had trouble getting through it and am still not sure what the overal point is.

      Besides the bold facing, the post starts by a conclusion written in a way that assumes the reader will immediately pick up on the complete context.
      It becomes a bit clearer down the line, but it more or less comes of as a rambling chaotic rant rather than a coherent message. Which, I think, it mostly is. There are some valid points buried in there, but I don't think they are novel or new points.

      Burnout is a real and growing issue, with evidence showing that it has systemic causes like workplace conditions, economic pressures. But this isn't entirely something that is ignored either. At least from where I am sitting I have seen it come up in the news cycle several times over the past few years. Including related things like quiet quitting.

      How are they so sure that real wages have decreased (contrary to all mainstream economic analysis)?

      Is the last part your understanding or something they said in their rambles? Because as far as I know, real wages have decreased and is well documented, they are not wrong there entirely.

      Anyway, most of the content they write about isn't new. At least not to me, the way they write about it does not reflect "well written" in my opinion.

      6 votes
      1. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        Yeah I call this the “Dr. Bronner writing style” after the soap bottle. It’s mostly just a rant full of suppositions you’re supposed to accept as true. If you’re lucky you get some data points...

        Yeah I call this the “Dr. Bronner writing style” after the soap bottle. It’s mostly just a rant full of suppositions you’re supposed to accept as true. If you’re lucky you get some data points cherry picked to support them and some vague hand waving in the direction of some “they” out there that’s trying to decisive you, but it’s all kind of unstructured and seems to just be an assembly of various normal frustrations and grievances that are being blamed on “them.”

        12 votes
      2. [2]
        Aerrol
        Link Parent
        The last part re: mainstream economic analysis was my own throw-in but heavily implied by the article. Perhaps "all" is too strong a word, especially if we limit the view of wages vs cost of...

        The last part re: mainstream economic analysis was my own throw-in but heavily implied by the article. Perhaps "all" is too strong a word, especially if we limit the view of wages vs cost of living post-covid, but overall in the timescale of the article, most mainstream economists still present the view that things have been getting better, not worse, for "real wages"/wages vs inflation.

        An example from a quick google: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/01/28/your-pay-is-still-going-up-too-fast

        @D_E_Solomon's comment here also presents some of the arguments that I would view as the "mainstream" view on wages since the 1970s. I wish I had some more sources right in the article (rather than doing the digging myself), because I am very sympathetic to the POV that economists have been missing some rather key points, but it's a difficult argument to make as I am not an economist myself. Off the top of my head, I'd guess that their assessments: 1) Do not take into account rapidly increasing inequality (e.g. probably just taking average or median wages for their analysis); 2) Do not divide costs between essentials vs average goods on a wider basis. For instance, post-covid the cost of housing and food SKYROCKETED vs things like electronics and vehicles. This leads to a much, much worse feeling for an average person even if the overall economic markers aren't so bad.

        To the broader point about the quality of writing, I think you make a good point that it's not really a great article. I think I was inclined to describe it as well written because the ranting spoke to me personally as I, too, feel like mainstream economic analysis has been totally missing the actual truth on the ground for most Western/developed citizens since the 1970s. I have suffered from severe burnout to the point of going on disability, and watched many friends go through it as well. But as an article to make an actual persuasive point (rather than satisfy those already in agreement with the thesis through polemics), this is not a good piece. It's too long, it lacks sources, and it is not organized clearly.

        5 votes
        1. D_E_Solomon
          Link Parent
          So the wage growth by quartile is available from the Atlanta Fed or with their commentary here. Generally, they trend together, but the lower half made larger gains after 2020 which ties to the...

          So the wage growth by quartile is available from the Atlanta Fed or with their commentary here. Generally, they trend together, but the lower half made larger gains after 2020 which ties to the labor shortages seen in lower wage jobs and industries, though those gains are slowing down. That also jives with a conversation I had with a fed reserve labor economist last year fwiw.

          There are adjusted inflation numbers here about half way down the tab - broadly, since 2020 the lower half stayed positive post inflation adjusted even in 2022.

          Inflation by type of good is available (here)[https://www.bls.gov/charts/consumer-price-index/consumer-price-index-by-category-line-chart.htm]. Inflation as you noted was pretty terrible on food in particular and shelter to a point, but it has been rapidly coming down with the fed's interest rate increases last year.

          What I suspect a lot of people are feeling is that there are a lot of shifts happening and happening more rapidly in the economy. It's hard to get stats on it, but my sense is that since 2020 there have been multiple big shifts that have occurred - rapid and then cooling inflation, huge job losses in hourly work, and then massive re-uptake in those jobs, major increases and then layoffs in tech, lots of gig work, and then cooling of gig work due to higher interest rates for VCs, and so on. Those shifts are accelerated I think by first order impacts from COVID, second order supply chain shocks from covid, government over stimulus, and financialization in roughly that order of impact. So it's hard to feel secure in a really complicated and rapidly shifting world even if that macro numbers are really good.

          3 votes
      3. [2]
        vord
        Link Parent
        Most things are not novel or new. Doesn't make them less important to say, as it helps build concensus. While you might not like the formatting or language choices, it does roughly conform to AMA...

        Most things are not novel or new. Doesn't make them less important to say, as it helps build concensus.
        While you might not like the formatting or language choices, it does roughly conform to AMA presentation: Start with thesis, support evidence, write conclusion.

        And I figured out the bolding: It's because this is essentially written as a slide deck. The bolds are the text on the slide, the non-bolded text is the speech notes.

        4 votes
        1. creesch
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Sure, most things are not novel or new. That's also not my point, the article is written as if they are new which isn't the case. It also isn't a presentation, or a slide deck. It is an article,...

          Sure, most things are not novel or new. That's also not my point, the article is written as if they are new which isn't the case. It also isn't a presentation, or a slide deck. It is an article, meaning it needs to be able to stand alone. Which, for me, it does a poor job of achieving.

          5 votes
    2. DefinitelyNotAFae
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      From the link of his name at the bottom. He doesn't have a wikipedia page so there's not a good summary out there but he is prolific.

      Charles Hugh Smith has been an independent journalist for 22 years. His weblog oftwominds.com draws over two million visits a year with unique analyses of global finance, energy, culture and political economy. He has written six novels and Survival+: Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation. For more, please visit oftwominds.com which offers a variety of archives and special features: What's for Dinner at Your House?, Recommended Books and Films, Readers Journal and Novels and Fiction.

      From the link of his name at the bottom. He doesn't have a wikipedia page so there's not a good summary out there but he is prolific.

      4 votes
  5. [6]
    Comment removed by site admin
    Link
    1. [5]
      vord
      Link Parent
      We generally don't like straight copy/paste of articles. If you want to avoid the styling of a page, I suggest using Firefox's Reader Mode.

      We generally don't like straight copy/paste of articles.

      If you want to avoid the styling of a page, I suggest using Firefox's Reader Mode.

      4 votes
      1. PelagiusSeptim
        Link Parent
        I understand the reasoning for the policy so I don't disagree with that part, but at least on my phone reader mode doesn't get rid of bold portions

        I understand the reasoning for the policy so I don't disagree with that part, but at least on my phone reader mode doesn't get rid of bold portions

        3 votes
      2. [3]
        carsonc
        Link Parent
        Yeah, I still get the boldface text in reader mode. I can edited the post to hide the text. Is that ok? Edit: well, I actually can't edit it. I can remove it, if it is discouraged.

        Yeah, I still get the boldface text in reader mode. I can edited the post to hide the text. Is that ok?

        Edit: well, I actually can't edit it. I can remove it, if it is discouraged.

        1. [2]
          cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Even editing your comment to hide the entire article's contents inside a <details> element would probably have still been insufficient, which is likely why your comment was removed. Tildes is a...

          Even editing your comment to hide the entire article's contents inside a <details> element would probably have still been insufficient, which is likely why your comment was removed. Tildes is a Canadian site, run by a Canadian non-profit, and our copyright laws up here are a lot stricter than the US in many regards... which is why Deimos tends to be pretty strict in dealing with issues related to that. The last thing he (or anyone else here) wants is for Tildes to get sued for facilitating copyright infringement.

          3 votes
          1. carsonc
            Link Parent
            Thank you to whomever removed the comment, then. Apologies for the confusion.

            Thank you to whomever removed the comment, then. Apologies for the confusion.

            1 vote