To think the point of work is to do the least to get the most money, to enjoy other areas of your life

[JeffsanArsehole]

Even if you love your job (like I do)

Surely for most people in jobs they love/enjoy want to get enough money to live/have a family/have hobbies ?

And for the vast majority of folk in jobs they don't love and are paid poorly it applies even more?

Where did this idea come from that we should be grateful to work 50/60/70 hours a week for crap money just to feed our children and scrape through come from?

So even though I love my job and it's well paid I don't want to spend more than 40 hours doing it. As I like other things even more.

Maybe we should all stop thinking of other people's choices as sad. It's not sad to work 100 hours a week if that's what you want to do. It's not sad to work the minimum hours to earn enough to enjoy the rest of your life, if that's what you want to do. Or not work at all.

Sad is not having a choice about it. Having to work long hours in a job you hate and perhaps still not having enough money/time to enjoy life.

I agree with irregular. What Excited is describing is a person who has a whole load of achievements behind them, who is still using their skills. Surely that's better than lapsing into sitting on the sofa retirement? And healthier too. Not everyone is the same. Some of the attitudes on mumsnet towards work cause me to despair. Some people do actually want to be high fliers in their careers. Its not really a cause for condemnation!

I guess it isn't sad for Excited's ex-boss to work over 100 hours as long as his family don't suffer in the long term although I have to say it is hard to see how it wouldn't affect his home life. I've got a friend who's DH owns his own business and does similar hours, he drinks the rest of the time to cope with the stress of it and she's lonely, bored and unhappy. Interestingly she had a fantastic career before she married him (they met a bit later in life) which she gave up at almost 50 for and I do wonder if she thoroughly regrets it now.

Very complex in some cases.

Haven't read all the replies, but OP, I COMPLETELY agree with you.

I LOVE my life outside of work, friends, socialising, hobbies, spending time with DP and dog and only work purely to fund these things.

I wouldn't work if I didn't have to, though I would set up my own small business (I know I could if I had the time and funds, currently I don't) but then I would be my own boss and could pick and choose my hours.

I hate work, my job is okay and pretty well paid for what I do, but I just hate the 9-5 treadmill, the fact that my days are accounted for by someone else, every.single.day. I live purely for the weekends and am wishing my life away, sad really.

I honestly don't get people who work 70-80 hour weeks. When on earth would you get time to SPEND the money you're earning, get time to actually enjoy life whilst you're young and in good health?!

I totally agree with the OP. I find this culture of spending long hours in the office and constantly checking work emails at home quite sad. Fair enough if you're running your own business or curing cancer or something.

But a lot of young people just seem to get sucked into this culture, look down on the concept of regular hours after which you go home and switch off, start bragging about their long hours, lack of lunch breaks etc and don't seem to realise that they're actually handing back hard fought for employment rights.

There was a lot to be said for the old days of 9-5 jobs with an hour for lunch and no way of being contacted at weekends or during holidays.

It's difficult when 'work' is defined only as tasks you undertake for a wage (and the only people considered to have any value in the world are those who undertake tasks for a wage ie spend their time generating money for someone else). A few posters upthread mentioned voluntary work. Voluntary work often encompasses unpleasant, difficult, boring or even dangerous tasks (cleaning up spew/digging ditches/dealing with aggressive individuals) yet its position in the current political bash-the-poor climate is a peculiar one. If someone who is not employed and paid wages decides to donate his/her time independently to a good cause, s/he will probably be sanctioned. On the other hand, the DWP is quite keen on dumping unskilled, inexperienced and quite possibly resentful individuals on charity organisations, which doesn't appear to benefit anyone and seems mainly to serve only one purpose: punishing and humiliating the poor and reminding them that they must obey their 'betters' or starve.

Fair enough if you're running your own business or curing cancer or something.

But a lot of young people just seem to get sucked into this culture,

How do you think people get to the stage of running their own business or curing cancer? They start their working lives as young people, gain knowledge and experience and they go and progress to the point where they can start their own business or are smart enough to cure cancer. Do you think all monumentally clever and successful people are that way as soon as they leave college/university? No, they work for it, and part of what makes them successful is the willingness to invest their time. Sure, some people are successful very on, but that's not the norm.

No one who is lazy reaches the top of their field or profession. If young people want to succeed in their chosen field, they have to be better than a large proportion of the rest of the field, and they will be better than the ones who don't have the motivation, drive and enthusiasm for their field. Investing more time will allow them to advance quicker and higher than their less-investing competitors.

There is nothing wrong with anyone who wants a sensible work-life balance as many posters on this thread do, but our business and political leaders ten years from now are the young people of today who are willing to put all of themselves into their careers.

Yeah, and our current business and political leaders aren't at all people who left university (which they got into mainly by having attended a good public school) and walked into an undemanding but highly paid desk job that was arranged by friends of their parents or other 'connections'. They didn't have access to family money to punt into their careers.
They all worked really hard. Of course they did. That's why their understanding of how other people's working lives progress is so wonderfully logical and accurate.

OP your post doesn't apply to me at all. I love my job - I get intellectual stimulation from it that I'd really struggle to get elsewhere. And I believe that it fulfills an important social purpose within the world (though many would disagree).

My DH is in the early stages of setting up his own business. He's completely driven by his ambition to create something that will have lasting legacy in the world. He's very happy to put hobbies and outside interests on hold for a bit in the hope of realizing this dream.

Other people I know are more focused on their lives outside work - that's fine too.

Sweeping statements don't help clarify the issue. We need to acknowledge that different people want different things from jobs - and facilitate this as far as possible.

Whilst I agree broadly with OP, I do think that even if you manage get life so you are working the bare minimum in hours you're still going to spend a good % of your life at work and you're going to be more fulfilled if you have a positive attitude towards it, rather than thinking that you're only there until you can go home and do the things that matter.

I used to work in an industry where very long hours were the norm. Not because they were necessary, but because it was the norm and everyone wanted to be seen to be doing it IYSWIM. I never did, even long before DC, I worked more or less 9-5 which made some people go but my performance was as good as anyone else's. Thankfully at my boss at the time completely got it and knew that I was contributing as much as anyone (even though he worked long hours) and when challenged over my "lack of commitment" would say "there's a big difference between working 9-5 and having a 9-5 attitude"

SolidGoldBrass

I was going to make a mention of nepotism in my previous post.

If I am inferring the tone of your post correctly, you're suggesting all successful people have some sort of leg up the ladder. This is quite clearly bullshit. Yes, many of them do but certainly not all, Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne, to name a couple of famous examples.

Incompetent rich people given positions by family members still won't get very far because they will either run the business into the ground or they will be discovered as incompetent and sidelined (or removed) by shareholders. Rich people still need to be competent in a free market capitalist society, as competitors want a slice of the pie just as much. A rich person may pay someone else (or several people) to run the company because they have more expertise, in which case that rich person is an investor rather than being "top of the tree" in terms of expertise.

Politics is a slightly different matter (mostly because the electorate can br trusted about as much as politicians), but politicians don't get to the top by doing nothing (Dubya being a statistical anomaly). Yes, they may well buy or bribe their way into position, but to do that they must have (or be able to do) something the bribee wants. Yes, they have a massive team of people to support what they do, but do you think they can reach the top office and then just go on holiday, put in the minimum number of hours? (Again, Dubya being a statistical anomaly - as we know his re-election was controversial).

WMittens I was really talking about a culture where young people are pressurised and brainwashed into thinking they can't be seen to work their contracted hours or to be the first to leave the office; and who then start to believe this is right and begin to brag about their long working hours and start to look down on those who want to work regular hours and go home at 5pm.
A lot of them are just making a lot of money for some faceless CEO.

Of course there are those who have a passion or genuine dedication to something, often something that is of huge benefit to society eg medical research.

A lot of them are just making a lot of money for some faceless CEO.

That applies to pretty much anyone who is employed (certainly in the private sector). To be honest I see the opposite - young people working to the clock rather than the job and no pressure to do otherwise. I was the same when I was their age and have become a bit more flexible with hours as I've changed role and got older. I certainly don't see any "brainwashing". Maybe I've been brainwashed, that's why.

tax credits will often help you do the least and get the most money

Well I have been working for many years and have definitely witnessed an increasing culture of long hours, extra unpaid work beyond contractual obligations, and employees expected to be contactable at all times.

I only skimmed the replies, but it seems that the first 50 or so replies are mostly people agreeing with the OP, and the later ones giving a more balanced view.

Myself... I enjoy work. I like being challenged, and accomplishing, and giving back to society. I like to think that I was a valued employee, and now that I'm retired I volunteer - the antithesis of this thread title "do the least to get the most money". I want to contribute.

It seems to me that people who spend their work lives ducking and diving and skiving aren't going to be happy. Maybe I'm wrong.

And what will happen to a country where the citizens don't want to work? How long will it be before all the small businesses are run by immigrants, and all the jobs at the bottom of the totem pole - the low-paid low-status hard work that is essential - is done by immigrants?

" Some people do actually want to be high fliers in their careers. Its not really a cause for condemnation!"

It seems it is on mums net. But doing the bare minimum and the volunteering in your 'spare time' is applauded. Madness.

SolidGoldBrass Yeah, and our current business and political leaders aren't at all people who left university (which they got into mainly by having attended a good public school) and walked into an undemanding but highly paid desk job that was arranged by friends of their parents or other 'connections'. They didn't have access to family money to punt into their careers. They all worked really hard. Of course they did. That's why their understanding of how other people's working lives progress is so wonderfully logical and accurate.*

Aside from your ignoring the many people who work hard and who do well in life through developing their own skills and talents, with no parental help (hardly unusual), I note that none of the people you are referring to have the luxury of posting embittered posts throughout the normal working day on mumsnet.

You and posts like yours have made me vow to stop posting on mumsnet. Its so unutterably depressing to listen to this anti-social drivel, which promotes the lazy and the unreliable at the expense of decent hard working people, as if having a job and doing well were some kind of hideous crime which must be atoned for.

Mumsnet is becoming increasingly loony left and there is a reason that most people on here won't contradict your views - they have more productive things to do with your life. As have I.

Honestly, I had my education disrupted enough by idiots like you, and despite that, did well.

No doubt you will chunder out some self righteous reply, but honestly, the biggest favour you've done me is to remind me not to waste time posting on an internet site.

Oh, and I'd love to know how all these volunteers have so much time to post on mumsnet...

Sadly this ethos does not apply if you are a Doctor/Surgeon

I sort of agree, OP, but surely it depends on what job you do?

For a lot of jobs - mine, for example - it's perfectly possible (and the norm) to do what you say. Work hard while you're there and then enjoy the rest of your life without thinking about it.

However, I'm not entirely sure I want my surgeon, or heart consultant, or a police officer, or fireman, or paramedic, or anyone like that to have quite that sort of attitude. I'd quite rather the person cutting me open wasn't just "doing the least".

Won't say anymore as I got attacked for stating in another thread that as a Doctor I've worked quite hard and still do... no silver spoon in my mouth and had to learn many new skills (including surgery).

It's a career which is demanding and time consuming sometimes but the rewards are worth it. Not about the money (though sometimes I wonder in my specialty!)

It's not just a job and I think it's quite depressing that this sort of attitude is not looked on favourablely on mumsnet. People seem to think people in top careers and professions don't work hard and had it handed to them on a plate... Might be true in some cases but certainly not the majority.

I'd be perfectly happy if my surgeon was doing a few hours a week and didn't give work a second thought in between times. Agree, I'd quite like him to be 100% committed while at work though.

OP, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a freelancer - I take the contracts I need to pay the bills plus save enough to ward off the inevitable panic whenever a dry spell sets in. And that's it - I don't take on any more than that. I'm good at what I do, I work hard and take pride in my work, but it's not my life and I'd do a lot less if I could afford to. And yes, I also do pro-bono work for organisations I choose to support and I volunteer twice a week. These things are rewarding in a way that work, however interesting or challenging it may be (and I do enjoy a challenge), is not. It's a "lifestyle choice" and I don't expect other people to make the same choices. But I'm not lazy or anti-social and there's nothing the hell wrong with my attitude.

I'd be perfectly happy if my surgeon was doing a few hours a week and didn't give work a second thought in between times.

Really? You'd prefer a surgeon who was less experienced, less learned and less practised over one who honed their skills daily and kept at the top of their game? One who never gave a thought to work in between times, so never attended conferences, never learned or researched new advances in medicine or surgical techniques or technologies, who never cared about developing their skills further?

If I had a choice between those two surgeons, I know who I'd pick.

No, genuinely. Of course they need to be adequately trained and experienced, but I'd rather a surgeon who was well rested and enjoying life, than one who was exhausted and begrudged being there.