Due to the recent news of other tech companies making their employees working nights and weekends before laying them off, it is easy to interpret your earlier message such that Stripe did the same.

> recent news of other tech companies making their employees work nights and weekends

Are there any companies aside from Twitter that would fall under this? Because that's the only one I've seen mentioned in the news that way, but you make it sound like there are plenty others. So I was curious if I simply missed something.

Startups. If they do the math and the trendline doesn't seem good, they'll make their teams go through a grind before layoffs. It's not necessarily to eke out a bit of productivity, per se, but they're essentially throwing hail marys in the hope that something will happen.

Of course, when it inevitably doesn't they axe a few and the rest go back to work.

Fair, I agree. For SV startups though, "working day and night" seems to be a fairly common scenario, not specific to these past few months.

The culture is the product of many personal decisions. If I was working nights and (especially) weekends at my current employer (another big tech company), I would be told to stop.

why is that a good thing?

To not drag down everyone else’s quality of life. Culture comes from the top. Defaults matter.

Overarching thesis is the people who work to live don’t want to be dragged by those who live to work.

The pressure is there if someone on your team works nights and weekends, especially if they are senior to you. They may not even realize they are pressuring you! But it is impossible to avoid.

Something to remember, especially if you have anyone working under you - your work level will be seen as the minimum for your team members, not the exception.

It seems unreasonable to dictate the way your colleagues work because it doesn't match your own value system. If the culture of the company/team is fast paced or long hours, maybe it isn't the right fit for you.

Generally speaking though, companies should value output and results over hours. Easier said than done. Additionally, value should be placed on what one commits to do and delivers on. So if somebody is constantly having to pull late nights to complete work, they may be overcommitting. It's also possible a manager will consistently push people to overcommit: this is a problem because that can indicate poor boundaries, bad planning, poor resourcing, and so on.

> If the culture of the company/team is fast paced or long hours, maybe it isn't the right fit for you.

Sure. And if the culture of the company/team is working 40 hours a week max and calling people out when they work more than that, then maybe it isn't the right fit for you.

I agree with the overarching sentiment, which is to lead by example (even if you're not explicitly in a leadership position).

At the same time I can accept some nuance here, e.g. working nights and weekends because you're taking some time back during the day in the week.

Similarly with remote working, if there's a wide enough timezone difference you might shift your routine to maximise overlap with the team.

I'm strongly in favour of maintaining harmony between work and life such that you're able to comfortably do both, but would not insist on a hard and fast rule.

If someone even further up the ladder says X does nights and weekends, so should the rest of the team, then the buck stops with that person, and they are contributing negatively to the culture.

If some % of people are doing it then everyone will eventually be pressured to do it, otherwise they'll be at the bottom of the performance list. (Unless they are very good)

In Germany that is required by law (if your employer sees you working when ill, working too long, working too much - they have to force you to stop).

If not by law, then because almost noone is happy working 60-70h and it puts pressure on others who feel like they also need to work similar hours. Additionally the efficiency gets worse as the weekly hours increase.

There are absolutely teams at Stripe where they would tell you to stop doing that and work normal hours.

Don’t worry. Online forums are always like that. They’ll pretend like they’ve never had a high pressure job that paid out handsomely if you applied yourself and hence motivated you to work harder. To them, they think everyone should have work life balance from the age of 23 just because they’ve discovered its importance at 32 years of age.

Young people have to work hard. I don’t expect my reports to work on any evenings or weekends and if they even suggest it, I tell them not to and give them more lead. At the same time, if they override my decision and work through the evening, I am ready to answer questions over IM if I’m free too. I’m not going to say “why are you working evenings?”.

People online are daft.

I just reached my 30s, and have pretty good WLB. Good WLB is just part of the picture though. You can work 5 hours a day and be miserable, and you can work 12 hours a day and be happy. It's also nice to have flexibility and independence I think. Being forced to work 12 hours always sucks over voluntarily working 12 hours.

I'd not recommend 23yo to stay chill in job, particularly if they have some ambition. At the same time, don't devoid yourself of other experiences in life if possible. Honestly, there is plenty of time in a day. If we have good discipline and prioritize correctly, lot can be done. That's what I struggle with personally.

Yes. Typically the guy who is working harder also happens to have varied interests. I’ve yet to see a work drone without an outside life who is doing 24/7 work. If I see them, I’d definitely limit them from work. I was the same 23 yo. I had an active social life and all the troubles of finding love etc. I did all right. Maybe a little worse than some of the folks I see today.

That is so willingly naive. A culture that allows something which grants an advantage eventually requires you do that thing by implicit force. Don’t fool yourself. This is 101 stuff and anyone who doesn’t understand this concept shouldn’t be in charge, because it doesn’t just lead to overwork but also to more pernicious evil things, see MeToo and others.

This is nonsense. You want to muzzle a hard worker because you think the rest of the workforce will not match up? What I count is the output, not if people are working evenings and nights or during the workday. Work output is capped by what I require so I hold all the cards and I’ll pay the guy who wants to work more.

Harrison Bergeron much?

It could be as well that it's an European thing. At least over here work is just work (9 to 5, or less if possible), so we prefer to spent life with friends and family. Yeah, we don't earn $500K/year, but that's alright.

Yeah exactly. I don’t think of a worker who wants to stick to 9-5 as worth less until appraisal. I may still give them a full rating but not as much in bonus. You’re already paid plenty just to do your daily job. If anyone is going above and beyond in meaningfully productive ways, they get paid more.

This feels odd to read as an American. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could make the next AWS on just a 9-5

Not sure if you're joking, but "we prefer to spent life with friends and family" implies that they have no interest or desire to build the next AWS.

> I have a hard time understanding how anyone could make the next AWS on just a 9-5

Why? Surely it's doable within the 9-5 schedule (plus some people for the on-call rotations), it would just take a bit longer?

Maybe because you'd have to go the extra mile to outdo competition and gain a majority market share.

It isn't just the 9-5, but the idea that your job stops when you leave the office. If people see it as a transactional relationship only, it means there's less investment in the product

People may have no desire to build the next aws. That is fine too. He’s not claiming to have a world changing job.

> Young people have to work hard

If people have to work hard to make a good living in the 21st century that we are now in, then it means that whatever society they are in has failed.

No it's not. Clearly our standard of living keeps improving, so costs keep going up.

I could work 10 hours a week and easily afford a 1920's lifestyle. But I prefer 21st century healthcare.

> But I prefer 21st century healthcare

Perfectly viable anywhere without privatized healthcare.

Today, we are able to have only ~10% of the population work, and keep all the living standards of the 90% majority.

No, you’re not going to be able to afford gene therapy on a 1920’s income

Gene therapy is still experimental. So its not an argument.

Unless you are born disabled, you’d better be born in a society that values hard work. At least until we reach self sustaining societies where no one needs to work, the dynamics of which are not worth speculation from our current standpoint in history.

> At least until we reach self sustaining societies

We are beyond 'self sustaining society'. We are throwing away food to protect market prices, we have planned obsolescence that makes perfectly fine devices to be thrown away to force people to buy new devices, we have more empty houses than the number of homeless.

The existing scarcity is artificial. Not something real.

Again this is incorrect. The only thing we have is artificial food security where we have issues with transport despite manufacturing enough to end global hunger. There isn’t enough housing to accommodate everyone. If you mean there are enough buildings, that is a cruel joke to the homeless.

Lol the best part though is thinking we are post scarcity. I thought this place had more brains than reddit or other idiotic forums.

Sorry, all of your propositions are incorrect. But Im not interested in engaging a lengthy discussion.

Maybe because they enjoy work and the learning that comes with it? Or because they want to outdo the preexisting products?

Actually, with a 3.1 WLB rating, it seems that it likely is very much part of the culture. https://www.teamblind.com/company/Stripe/reviews

It is.

But in doing so were you not influencing the culture? Depending on how promotions etc work others might feel they need to keep up with that one guy working in the weekend.

So you chose to undermine your colleagues and a somewhat decent culture, to gain a lead in a race to the bottom? That's even worse than enabling a company that's already shitty.

Stripe is a competitive company from reviews, maybe he enjoys a fast-paced busy environment. He gets paid for it. If people at Stripe don't like that culture they can very easily leave and get a more relaxed job.