This is the exact same dilemma that you face in any other job. Working extremely hard and burning yourself out does nothing except cover up the problem that the function you are providing is under-resourced.

> The days where a cop, judge or prosecutor identified as the function they render to society are over, I suspect. It’s work life balance all the way.

This is terrifying and also true in many other industries, including software.

I worked a decade in the public sector in Denmark and I think it’s sort of natural when MBAs enter and flood the work with pseudo work. A nurse went from maybe filling out paperwork a few hours a week to two full days a week. What was “fun” about that is that I worked on the data, and I may have been the only one to ever come hear 99% or it as it was only ever audited after someone did something bad. They didn’t even use the data for anything analytical because it tended to show just how bad their budget cuts were hurting the area and that the best way to improve quality was through more resources and less administration.

Add to this that most public servants make very little money and that nobody in the chain of command actually listens to the people on the floor… Well why would they care?

I'm really confused as to why it's bad we identify people by their preferences and the content of their character instead of by the role they play in our capitalist economy.

People not giving a shit about their jobs means their jobs don’t get done well - if at all.

We’re quite dependent on the fastidiousness and conscientiousness of our peers, at least if you want life to be pleasant. People don’t have the ability to contractually enforce and codify good work ethic (see: people just trying to define SLOs for machines).

Especially with “public servant” type jobs which the comment was referring to.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to go from "has a life outside their job" to "doesn't give a shit about their job".

> The days where a cop, judge or prosecutor identified as the function they render to society are over, I suspect.

The are in fact people who take their jobs seriously today. Are there actual hard numbers on how the prevalence of this has changed over the long term?

> To do good work means risking divorce, lowering your per hour wage, becoming a target for the bad guys, watching your lazier colleagues pass you by, and putting your health in jeopardy.

It is in fact possible to do quality work without martyring yourself.

> This was seen as heroic in the 80s. Today it is seen as dumb, naïve and futile.

"Was seen"... by whom? Both now and then, you'll get different answers on whether it's a good thing depending on who you ask.

Yeah, I think the uncaring, untrying cop goes way back. I think it was some fatso that only eats donuts and drinks coffee. These critiques go way back. I think the force had a few of these guys in the break room; they'd laugh their ass off if you suggested it was a good idea to work hard.

Only difference is he would be smoking a cigarette. Or perhaps a cigar.

>The woman who solved the Golden State Killer case, didn’t she die quite young because of the stress?

She died of an accidental overdose exacerbated by an underlying and undiagnosed heart condition. She had some level of opioid addiction prior to her death.

This is such a sign of our times. It's pretty much just stupid to work hard.

The weird thing, to me, is that it should be much more fulfilling to do one thing well than to pretend to be doing ten things and doing them badly. The former is the attitude of the craftsman. The latter the attitude of a slave.

It is the truth. I've been thinking lately about how working in tech is literally almost the same conditions as slavery. Sure they let you have a car but that's just to drive in. Then you get a house over your head. Clothing. That's it.

A 401k is no solice for a life lived into chains. It wrenches my tears. Never. To. Be. Free... Never freedom.