At my first job out of university, I was fully remote and completed my work in about 2 hours every day. I wasn't particularly smart or anything, it was just an easy and boring job. I considered...
At my first job out of university, I was fully remote and completed my work in about 2 hours every day. I wasn't particularly smart or anything, it was just an easy and boring job. I considered getting a second job with my free time, but decided against it because I couldn't stand the anxiety of being caught "two-timing" and having to lie all the time.
Casting the legality of this aside, I think I personally would be fine if I found out my colleague was working 2-3 other jobs, as long as it doesn't harm the quality of their work and I have to pick up their slack. On the other hand, they could also be denying the role for someone who was laid off or unemployed. And I find the whole "hustle culture" thing just exhausting.
I'm sort of in this position now. I landed myself in an incredibly fulfilling "dream job" (in a lot of ways) when I was 23, but it's a part-time and doesn't pay enough to cover the bills. My...
I'm sort of in this position now. I landed myself in an incredibly fulfilling "dream job" (in a lot of ways) when I was 23, but it's a part-time and doesn't pay enough to cover the bills. My partner and I made it work in a high cost of living area initially because I had already been accepted to grad school and we knew we'd be moving very soon; I worked in that job all the way through grad school and for a year after while supplementing with side work/adjuncting in a much lower cost of living area.
But this summer we moved to a very high cost of living area and the side gig stuff wasn't going to be enough to keep us afloat, so I found a full time hybrid position where the work is extremely dull and rarely takes my full attention. I just never mention my other work at this full time job and I don't see how it would interfere ever.
The problem is the full time job is very very boring and if I weren't being compensated way above what the job actually entails, I probably would've tried to find some other work by now. I'm trying to stick it out for a full year but not sure I'll make it.
I could easily get a 2nd job right now, but I'm so lazy the prospect is daunting. I'd like to find something I can pick up and put down as I please, and still make ok money off of it. Something...
I could easily get a 2nd job right now, but I'm so lazy the prospect is daunting. I'd like to find something I can pick up and put down as I please, and still make ok money off of it. Something not completely mind-numbing like Amazon Turk.
State employees may have ethics violations and possibly criminal penalties or fines even without signing a contract. I'm not sure any company might not go after your pay if they feel it was...
State employees may have ethics violations and possibly criminal penalties or fines even without signing a contract. I'm not sure any company might not go after your pay if they feel it was fraudulently acquired.
I don't think the argument that there was no signed contract requiring you to work would necessarily get you out of a court considering your actions fraudulent. But I'm not up on the case law, just state employment stuff.
I mean would you really blame a company for terminating someone for working a second job at the same time as they are supposedly working full time for that company?
I mean would you really blame a company for terminating someone for working a second job at the same time as they are supposedly working full time for that company?
And if their duties (and contract) stipulate that they work on the company’s projects full time, for 40 hours per week? This kind of thing also necessitates lying constantly to the company. When...
And if their duties (and contract) stipulate that they work on the company’s projects full time, for 40 hours per week?
This kind of thing also necessitates lying constantly to the company. When asked how long a project will take, the employee has to trick the company into thinking that every project is harder than it truly is so they can create extra time in the day to work on their second or third job, where they are also lying to those companies.
Even so, it’s not unusual for devs to be producing value for their employer that’s worth many times more than their compensation, meaning their pay despite being good isn’t proportional to their...
Even so, it’s not unusual for devs to be producing value for their employer that’s worth many times more than their compensation, meaning their pay despite being good isn’t proportional to their value.
Their paychecks are also only notable because software development is one of the few fields that’s somewhat tracked with inflation, meaning they only seem high because other fields are severely underpaid.
Most who are doing this seem to be aiming explicitly at not just being able to live, but achieving true long-term disaster-resilient (e.g. a spate of medical bills can’t wipe it all out) financial security, and these days there’s very little that can do that for an individual on any reasonable timeline. On the subject of timelines, retirement while one has some youth left is also a goal for some, because who wants to burn away their productive years on companies that won’t hesitate to discard you the second it becomes convenient?
With all of that in mind, I could see how some could find overemployment justifiable.
"Work hard in order to be successful," says the rich CEO who built on their inherited wealth. Then some people take them at their word and work two jobs. "No, don't do that. All of the value you...
"Work hard in order to be successful," says the rich CEO who built on their inherited wealth.
Then some people take them at their word and work two jobs.
"No, don't do that. All of the value you generate is mine," says the CEO who is also on the board of several other companies.
Should the developers at companies that don't turn a profit get their pay cut to a degree until the company is profitable then? Even if negative? Many of the highly paid software engineers would...
Should the developers at companies that don't turn a profit get their pay cut to a degree until the company is profitable then? Even if negative? Many of the highly paid software engineers would suddenly find themselves unable to pay rent if so.
You work-for-hire when you want a known paycheck with minimal risk. You pony up capital when you want a greater share of profits, but at a greater risk. You can't say "I want almost-zero-risk, but the rights to a salary just a smidge below any future profits you make so long as I am employed here, and you can't replace me with anyone else either"
The ask isn’t for compensation to mirror profits, but rather for it to be more proportional, because at the end of the day a software company with no engineers has no product. It makes sense that...
The ask isn’t for compensation to mirror profits, but rather for it to be more proportional, because at the end of the day a software company with no engineers has no product. It makes sense that there’s leeway on this for startups, but there’s no reason why an established, profitable company can’t pay increasingly proportionally as their revenue and margins grow.
Really, this principle applies to companies in several fields, not just in software. Labor is consistently and egregiously undervalued.
What do you mean "from the article"? We (you specifically) were talking about "a company" and I said "the companies" (referring to your "a company" comment) in response to kenc's comment, meaning...
would you really blame a company for
What do you mean "from the article"? We (you specifically) were talking about "a company" and I said "the companies" (referring to your "a company" comment) in response to kenc's comment, meaning vaguely any company, not specifically the one in the article. That's what I was talking about. Apologies if that wasn't clear. We're you specifically referring to the article when you said "a company"? I wasn't.
If someone decides to take a second job, I'd imagine it's not just for fun (for most people). Especially if you're talking about third jobs. I wouldn't guess that the average person who is already earing six figures would want another job.
I’m talking about overemployment, which is almost exclusively a tech sector phenomenon, where nobody is making less than a living wage to begin with. They are just lying about their hours and...
I’m talking about overemployment, which is almost exclusively a tech sector phenomenon, where nobody is making less than a living wage to begin with. They are just lying about their hours and double or triple billing their employers.
Well if they have that kind of job that actually has enough work to fill their day, then they obviously aren't fulfilling their duties if they're lying about their time so they can work another job.
Well if they have that kind of job that actually has enough work to fill their day, then they obviously aren't fulfilling their duties if they're lying about their time so they can work another job.
I'll admit this situation isn't what the article is describing, but my company will terminate people for doing "similar" gig work (if they find out). So, if you are a software dev and do paid...
I'll admit this situation isn't what the article is describing, but my company will terminate people for doing "similar" gig work (if they find out). So, if you are a software dev and do paid programming on the weekend, not even during business hours, you can get fired. I think that's super unfair, hence my bitterness with "at will" employment.
If you are fulfilling your duty to your employer (meaning you actually work the contractually specified hours for them), I can’t see how they should have any rights to the rest of your time —...
If you are fulfilling your duty to your employer (meaning you actually work the contractually specified hours for them), I can’t see how they should have any rights to the rest of your time — depending on how similar that work is. Like not working for a direct competitor sounds fair, eg. working for Uber and Lyft
Préface: no judgement to those who have different value systems. To me, this sounds terrible. I am under-compensated, but I have a dynamic job that engages me for at least 40 hours a week and...
Préface: no judgement to those who have different value systems.
To me, this sounds terrible. I am under-compensated, but I have a dynamic job that engages me for at least 40 hours a week and which I often think about after work. It is a big part of my identity.
I can't imagine doing a job that was so slow/boring that I had time to also do an entire other job... Or three. There's no amount of money you could pay me to get me to do that.
Not OP, but my job and my hobbies have always had a strong overlap, even when I wasn't self-employed. After going self-employed, my job/hobby overlap increased to probably 90%.
Not OP, but my job and my hobbies have always had a strong overlap, even when I wasn't self-employed. After going self-employed, my job/hobby overlap increased to probably 90%.
My best friend's partner is overemployed, and he's been trying to get me to join him in the train. I just don't want to work at all if I can avoid it. I would totally do something simple on the...
My best friend's partner is overemployed, and he's been trying to get me to join him in the train. I just don't want to work at all if I can avoid it. I would totally do something simple on the side that didn't involve me going to meetings, but that would cut into my personal/professional development time.
Maybe the strangest thing about this crowd is that they're mostly family focused, thrifty, and hardworking The article speculates there's 1% of folks who are over employed. Compare that to I would...
Maybe the strangest thing about this crowd is that they're mostly family focused, thrifty, and hardworking
I'll be told, 'Hey, we're going to groom you to promote you,' and then something will happen and that promotion just won't come through.
The article speculates there's 1% of folks who are over employed. Compare that to I would imagine 100% of us having been promised something they never deliver, and it's not hard to see why these folks have no hard qualms about the stability they've gotten for their families
I don’t have the bandwidth to pull off overemployment at the moment, but the idea is tempting. It’s not something I’d do long term but even just a year of doubled income can have life-changing...
I don’t have the bandwidth to pull off overemployment at the moment, but the idea is tempting. It’s not something I’d do long term but even just a year of doubled income can have life-changing implications for one’s financial situation. Keeping it going for multiple years can enable achievement of FIRE at hypersonic speeds. It’s easy to see the allure.
Yeah, a year of adderall, no social life, poor sleep but you get an income of a few hundred thousand seems like it might be a pretty fair trade actually. I cannot blame people who want to do it in...
Yeah, a year of adderall, no social life, poor sleep but you get an income of a few hundred thousand seems like it might be a pretty fair trade actually. I cannot blame people who want to do it in the slightest, the ladder is being actively pulled up.
100% this. The hard lesson that has been taught over and over again is that companies do not care. They are an amoral entity, they neither care nor hate you they just want your output. Individual...
At its core, overemployment represents a new social contract being forged in an era that has left the old, unspoken agreement around work — "stick with us for life and we'll treat you like family" — in tatters.
100% this. The hard lesson that has been taught over and over again is that companies do not care. They are an amoral entity, they neither care nor hate you they just want your output. Individual people in a company are often wonderful human beings, but that doesn't stop the larger entity from grinding through people.
I try to drive this point home directly and frequently with my younger coworkers that I see bending over backward and often going above and beyond. That's a fine trait to have, and your coworkers appreciate you, but don't make a habit of it. Save that extra energy and creativity for the things that really matter to you, because very few employers deserve it. And the ones that do, should never ask it of you.
has that quoted statement ever really been true, though? Maybe in smaller businesses and in co-ops, sure, but I feel that in larger businesses that hasn't really been the case. For a business to...
has that quoted statement ever really been true, though? Maybe in smaller businesses and in co-ops, sure, but I feel that in larger businesses that hasn't really been the case. For a business to grow large it needs to pull as much profit as possible, and I'd be amazed if there is a single one on the Fortune 500 that hasn't put the squeeze on the people who work for them to accomplish that goal. Exploitation is just a feature of capitalism. If companies could get away with paying nothing for labor they would. We have a history of that here in the US.
I question whether this kind of thing can actually be solved without modifying humans at the genetic level. I think the best we can do is try to mitigate some of the worst excesses.
I question whether this kind of thing can actually be solved without modifying humans at the genetic level. I think the best we can do is try to mitigate some of the worst excesses.
Seems that this is only workable when the jobs at least partially assign with David Graeber's concept of a "Bullshit Job". That's the only way I can make sense of it anyway. Personally, my job...
Seems that this is only workable when the jobs at least partially assign with David Graeber's concept of a "Bullshit Job". That's the only way I can make sense of it anyway.
Personally, my job belongs to the "box-checker" category (exists only to fulfill regulatory requirements) and is prone to regular quiet periods. The only thing that stops it from being a 2 hour a day cake walk most days is the lack of documentation and ambiguous instructions that plague the company.
I guess the thing stopping me from considering something like over employment is the sheer energy needed. If you just love hustling and find it satisfying to do a job well I can see that working, but meaningless tasks done well just doesn't do anything for me. No dopamine to keep the engine running. I'd rather the one job and have the strength left to follow creative pursuits after hours. But God speed to those who do this, you've got me beat.
At my first job out of university, I was fully remote and completed my work in about 2 hours every day. I wasn't particularly smart or anything, it was just an easy and boring job. I considered getting a second job with my free time, but decided against it because I couldn't stand the anxiety of being caught "two-timing" and having to lie all the time.
Casting the legality of this aside, I think I personally would be fine if I found out my colleague was working 2-3 other jobs, as long as it doesn't harm the quality of their work and I have to pick up their slack. On the other hand, they could also be denying the role for someone who was laid off or unemployed. And I find the whole "hustle culture" thing just exhausting.
I'm sort of in this position now. I landed myself in an incredibly fulfilling "dream job" (in a lot of ways) when I was 23, but it's a part-time and doesn't pay enough to cover the bills. My partner and I made it work in a high cost of living area initially because I had already been accepted to grad school and we knew we'd be moving very soon; I worked in that job all the way through grad school and for a year after while supplementing with side work/adjuncting in a much lower cost of living area.
But this summer we moved to a very high cost of living area and the side gig stuff wasn't going to be enough to keep us afloat, so I found a full time hybrid position where the work is extremely dull and rarely takes my full attention. I just never mention my other work at this full time job and I don't see how it would interfere ever.
The problem is the full time job is very very boring and if I weren't being compensated way above what the job actually entails, I probably would've tried to find some other work by now. I'm trying to stick it out for a full year but not sure I'll make it.
I could easily get a 2nd job right now, but I'm so lazy the prospect is daunting. I'd like to find something I can pick up and put down as I please, and still make ok money off of it. Something not completely mind-numbing like Amazon Turk.
…and if I'm on a jury for an overemployment trial, I'm voting to nullify.
State employees may have ethics violations and possibly criminal penalties or fines even without signing a contract. I'm not sure any company might not go after your pay if they feel it was fraudulently acquired.
I don't think the argument that there was no signed contract requiring you to work would necessarily get you out of a court considering your actions fraudulent. But I'm not up on the case law, just state employment stuff.
Unfortunately, "at will" states will 100% terminate without a second thought.
I mean would you really blame a company for terminating someone for working a second job at the same time as they are supposedly working full time for that company?
If they're performing their duties as required? Yes.
And if their duties (and contract) stipulate that they work on the company’s projects full time, for 40 hours per week?
This kind of thing also necessitates lying constantly to the company. When asked how long a project will take, the employee has to trick the company into thinking that every project is harder than it truly is so they can create extra time in the day to work on their second or third job, where they are also lying to those companies.
Well, the companies grift the employees of a living wage, so we can grift them of their time. Fair is fair imo.
What do you even mean, these aren’t minimum wage jobs — any competent software dev is making $100k+. From the article,
Even so, it’s not unusual for devs to be producing value for their employer that’s worth many times more than their compensation, meaning their pay despite being good isn’t proportional to their value.
Their paychecks are also only notable because software development is one of the few fields that’s somewhat tracked with inflation, meaning they only seem high because other fields are severely underpaid.
Most who are doing this seem to be aiming explicitly at not just being able to live, but achieving true long-term disaster-resilient (e.g. a spate of medical bills can’t wipe it all out) financial security, and these days there’s very little that can do that for an individual on any reasonable timeline. On the subject of timelines, retirement while one has some youth left is also a goal for some, because who wants to burn away their productive years on companies that won’t hesitate to discard you the second it becomes convenient?
With all of that in mind, I could see how some could find overemployment justifiable.
"Work hard in order to be successful," says the rich CEO who built on their inherited wealth.
Then some people take them at their word and work two jobs.
"No, don't do that. All of the value you generate is mine," says the CEO who is also on the board of several other companies.
Should the developers at companies that don't turn a profit get their pay cut to a degree until the company is profitable then? Even if negative? Many of the highly paid software engineers would suddenly find themselves unable to pay rent if so.
You work-for-hire when you want a known paycheck with minimal risk. You pony up capital when you want a greater share of profits, but at a greater risk. You can't say "I want almost-zero-risk, but the rights to a salary just a smidge below any future profits you make so long as I am employed here, and you can't replace me with anyone else either"
The ask isn’t for compensation to mirror profits, but rather for it to be more proportional, because at the end of the day a software company with no engineers has no product. It makes sense that there’s leeway on this for startups, but there’s no reason why an established, profitable company can’t pay increasingly proportionally as their revenue and margins grow.
Really, this principle applies to companies in several fields, not just in software. Labor is consistently and egregiously undervalued.
What do you mean "from the article"? We (you specifically) were talking about "a company" and I said "the companies" (referring to your "a company" comment) in response to kenc's comment, meaning vaguely any company, not specifically the one in the article. That's what I was talking about. Apologies if that wasn't clear. We're you specifically referring to the article when you said "a company"? I wasn't.
If someone decides to take a second job, I'd imagine it's not just for fun (for most people). Especially if you're talking about third jobs. I wouldn't guess that the average person who is already earing six figures would want another job.
I’m talking about overemployment, which is almost exclusively a tech sector phenomenon, where nobody is making less than a living wage to begin with. They are just lying about their hours and double or triple billing their employers.
Oh okay. Nvm then.
Well if they have that kind of job that actually has enough work to fill their day, then they obviously aren't fulfilling their duties if they're lying about their time so they can work another job.
I'll admit this situation isn't what the article is describing, but my company will terminate people for doing "similar" gig work (if they find out). So, if you are a software dev and do paid programming on the weekend, not even during business hours, you can get fired. I think that's super unfair, hence my bitterness with "at will" employment.
If you are fulfilling your duty to your employer (meaning you actually work the contractually specified hours for them), I can’t see how they should have any rights to the rest of your time — depending on how similar that work is. Like not working for a direct competitor sounds fair, eg. working for Uber and Lyft
Préface: no judgement to those who have different value systems.
To me, this sounds terrible. I am under-compensated, but I have a dynamic job that engages me for at least 40 hours a week and which I often think about after work. It is a big part of my identity.
I can't imagine doing a job that was so slow/boring that I had time to also do an entire other job... Or three. There's no amount of money you could pay me to get me to do that.
Well, a big part of why I'm so invested in my job is that it benefits society. : )
Not OP, but my job and my hobbies have always had a strong overlap, even when I wasn't self-employed. After going self-employed, my job/hobby overlap increased to probably 90%.
My best friend's partner is overemployed, and he's been trying to get me to join him in the train. I just don't want to work at all if I can avoid it. I would totally do something simple on the side that didn't involve me going to meetings, but that would cut into my personal/professional development time.
Maybe the strangest thing about this crowd is that they're mostly family focused, thrifty, and hardworking
The article speculates there's 1% of folks who are over employed. Compare that to I would imagine 100% of us having been promised something they never deliver, and it's not hard to see why these folks have no hard qualms about the stability they've gotten for their families
I don’t have the bandwidth to pull off overemployment at the moment, but the idea is tempting. It’s not something I’d do long term but even just a year of doubled income can have life-changing implications for one’s financial situation. Keeping it going for multiple years can enable achievement of FIRE at hypersonic speeds. It’s easy to see the allure.
Yeah, a year of adderall, no social life, poor sleep but you get an income of a few hundred thousand seems like it might be a pretty fair trade actually. I cannot blame people who want to do it in the slightest, the ladder is being actively pulled up.
100% this. The hard lesson that has been taught over and over again is that companies do not care. They are an amoral entity, they neither care nor hate you they just want your output. Individual people in a company are often wonderful human beings, but that doesn't stop the larger entity from grinding through people.
I try to drive this point home directly and frequently with my younger coworkers that I see bending over backward and often going above and beyond. That's a fine trait to have, and your coworkers appreciate you, but don't make a habit of it. Save that extra energy and creativity for the things that really matter to you, because very few employers deserve it. And the ones that do, should never ask it of you.
has that quoted statement ever really been true, though? Maybe in smaller businesses and in co-ops, sure, but I feel that in larger businesses that hasn't really been the case. For a business to grow large it needs to pull as much profit as possible, and I'd be amazed if there is a single one on the Fortune 500 that hasn't put the squeeze on the people who work for them to accomplish that goal. Exploitation is just a feature of capitalism. If companies could get away with paying nothing for labor they would. We have a history of that here in the US.
Has there been a scalable, complex economic system in which nobody has been exploited?
Lately I have been questioning the necessity of such things.
I question whether this kind of thing can actually be solved without modifying humans at the genetic level. I think the best we can do is try to mitigate some of the worst excesses.
Ties in nicely to this other discussion about the change in work ethic lately.
Seems that this is only workable when the jobs at least partially assign with David Graeber's concept of a "Bullshit Job". That's the only way I can make sense of it anyway.
Personally, my job belongs to the "box-checker" category (exists only to fulfill regulatory requirements) and is prone to regular quiet periods. The only thing that stops it from being a 2 hour a day cake walk most days is the lack of documentation and ambiguous instructions that plague the company.
I guess the thing stopping me from considering something like over employment is the sheer energy needed. If you just love hustling and find it satisfying to do a job well I can see that working, but meaningless tasks done well just doesn't do anything for me. No dopamine to keep the engine running. I'd rather the one job and have the strength left to follow creative pursuits after hours. But God speed to those who do this, you've got me beat.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/V1nuL