> The kings and queeens have turned into the captailists and relgious zealots who espouse ideals of productivity and growth [...]

Advocatus Diaboli here. One has to be careful not to forget benefits of the hard work over millenia which we all enjoy: shelter, electricity, food in the fridge, medicine in the cabinet, transportation right outside of the house we live in. Countless people worked hard to get to this point. So the question is: is our society evolved enough to stop working hard and still enjoy these benefits?

Also, have our society evolved into one that we actually want? I would expect the answer to vary greatly, depending on whom you ask.

And, if not, should we stop now? Perhaps break-through is around the corner?

It's almost as if this wasn't a one-sided issue that could be solved by a few anonymous comments on a discussion forum aimed at a crowd that are relatively privileged compared to most of the World's population.

Jests aside, these are all valid points, and it's sad that the current political climate has become so polarized that it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this. Going from one extreme to the other won't necessarily result in a net improvement.

There have always been elites. There will always be elites. The question is, can we afford the rent overhead of our current elites in return for the stability they provide? If not, then a new elite will seize the opportunity and replace them. I'd wager the dissatisfaction with "productivity and growth" is an expression of frustration with a high rent-overhead from a rent-seeking elite, which has ceased to do what made them the elite in the first place.

> Ive switched markets/verticals from gov to private to startups in search of this balance.

Am I understanding correctly that you switched to startups to find better work/life balance?

I have to say I'm surprised by that. Usually startups have the highest demands and the fewest people to get things done. Can you expand on your experience?

There are a lot more variety of startups than there are big companies. If you're thinking of late-stage VC-driven companies who work hard to maintain the label of "startup" to perpetrate the mythology of rocket-ship riches that their ivy league hiring funnel relies on, then yeah, it's gonna be stressful. On the other hand, if you're willing to take less money for the ability to work with tighter constraints, less resources and more creativity then it's not too hard to find a company willing to accommodate you, especially if your talent level is validated by a big tech name brand on your resume (not saying it's the best signal, but hiring manager psychology is what it is).

> especially if your talent level is validated by a big tech name brand on your resume

This is unironically the best way to find a good WLB while working on interesting problems. I switched from a startup with great WLB to a big tech with worse WLB because I recognised that the brand name on my resume will open me up for more interesting work with better WLB later on. It sucks for me now, but I'm hoping it'll pay off soon enough.

There are plenty of big tech companies with good WLB. Not everywhere is Amazon.

That's a sort of outdated view on startups IME. Unless you're talking about the FAANG types (which, IMO, shouldn't be called startups anymore) I've found that many small startups are embracing a healthy work-life balance. I switched from a small startup working on an early-stage SaaS to a mature big tech company and my wlb got worse.

I think the reason is that small startups can't always compete on salaries, so they have to make up for it by giving you something else in return. The market is full of extremely talented people leaving big tech because they're unhappy with the wlb, or want full-time remote or so on, so it turns out to be a win-win for startups and engineers. Big Tech will continue to get meat for the grinder by their sheer reputation, so they can expect you to dedicate your life to them if you want to stay.

It's a different kind of stress, and some people prefer one over another.

I experienced both a megacorp and one-man-army setups, and I find fighting bureaucratic inertia, office politics, endless stream of status updates, ever-changing organization chart and product rebrands - all way more tiring than shipping out features at frantic pace.

There are more ways of doing startups than dreamed of in Silicon Valley, my friend.