The Chinese 996 work schedule is indeed hard work but it doesn't mean working 72 hours according to how westerners calculate working hours. For one, tech workers arrive at the office at 9am, not that they start working at 9am: once they arrive they simply head to the office cafeteria to have breakfast between 9am and 10am. And it's really common to spend one hour each for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Unlike westerners who'd be happy eating some cold sandwiches for lunch, the Chinese are rather picky about their food being hot and served with soup. Second, the Chinese have a weird culture of napping at the office after lunch. Not just some nap pods here and there, but institutionalized naps with day beds for all. So right off the bat, you deduct up to four hours of non-working time from twelve hours of in-office time. Finally, the Chinese also have a culture of not leaving before their bosses leave the office. This means even if a worker has finished all assigned tasks, the worker simply kills time and waits for their boss to leave. It might be reading internal documentation, or it might be something less productive.
996 refers to time in office, not time worked. The actual hours worked is closer to 48 hours per week than 72 hours.
IMO that really is still the same thing as working because you can't spend that time with your family. The fact that it's nice doesn't change that you're working, spending time away from those you love.
Very true, but that's 12 hours spent at your workspace. Having dinner at home is different from at your job, that's obvious, right? I bet that most people would rather have 30 minute meals and go home one hour early, with everything else the same, because that's one extra hour spent however the way they want.
It's actually not weird to nap after lunch. It's weird not to (when considering a global perspective).
Since there are no nap pods in the West, the closest I found myself doing is relaxation exercises in a phone booth for 30 minutes, and this significantly boosted my afternoon productivity.
The distinction between hours in the office and hours working is interesting to an employer. It is not interesting to the employee. The fact of the matter is that 996, assuming a 30 minute commute, means people are spending 2/3 of their lives working for someone else. And then when the exit comes, the founders and the investors can screw you in a heartbeat and still get theirs (see Windsurf).
Everything we know about systems resilience shows that 60% to 80% utilization is the sweet spot. We treat our silicon topology better than our human topology.
I have worked hours like that, for years. Over time, i learned that it's mainly good if you don't know what you're doing, and you want to waste lots of time, and not be at your sharpest. While also often feeling like crap.
The next time I'm leading a team, I'm leaning towards 40 solid hours/wk being the official way to go.
Up to around 60 hours/wk of mixed-solidity work is also sustainable long-term for most people, without ill health effects iff some of that will be much lower-productivity time and the people don't have daily family obligations and the overall stress isn't too high.
But if some people wanted to try 50-60 hours and a mix of pace themselves, I'd probably have them structure it so that they appeared to 40-hour colleagues as if they were also doing 40 hours. Which means no slacking off in front of them, nobody getting disturbed on off hours with messages or pull request reviews, etc.
Does anyone else feel more productive doing about 4 hours per day? I really have found it to be a sweet spot and since it’s so sustainable (endurance pace), I enjoy getting a couple hours in during weekend early mornings.
Definitely. I'd much rather have people put in a smart 4 hours, then more hours. The older I get, the smarter I work, and the fewer hours it takes to get more done.
This will upset people, but I love programming enough that I would do 996 at 40k-50k usd, with half going to rent and potentially even paying out of pocket for medical insurance.
By bullshitting to employees that what they're building is the next big thing.
AI has created a very bad culture and these startups have become very good at grabbing new grads or junior engineers that have a lot of energy and time and by saying they're going to be doing amazing things by working these 996 schedules...
The reality is the vast majority of these companies will be hit hard by a burst of the AI bubble. It won't be a surprise the so called millions they're looking for end up being a 0.
with this and the recent Windsurf “acquisition”, what’s even the draw to startups anymore? 25% base pay increase for 80% more hours (not even considering overtime) with equity that is tantamount to useless (with or without Windsurf being the new norm)? super hard pass and I hope everyone with half a brain does the same
AI is being used as an excuse to strip away every labor norm and law in the name of “not being left behind”, with a product that has yet to truly be earth shattering on the scale it’s been predicted to be. hard not to see the current slate of VCs and founders as leechs
“The 996 work culture is, in fact, a symptom of corporate incompetence.”
Only when management is unable to deliver real results to investors do they fall back on saying, “Look, we’re all working passionately, we’re doing 996!”
The implicit message is: “Even though I’m incapable, we’re working hard—please keep investing in us.”
It’s a methodology of working for performance theater, not actual productivity.
I’ve worked as a professional executive in China for over 20 years. From 2000 to 2008, I grew in foreign enterprises. After 2010, I joined Chinese internet companies and worked with many firms, mainly focusing on IT governance to meet IPO-level audit requirements.
One principle has remained consistent throughout my career:
Overtime is a sign of managerial failure.
And when a company turns overtime into culture, it is collective incompetence—from the organization and its leadership. That should be a source of shame.
When I began working in Chinese internet companies around 2010, leadership both appreciated my capabilities and deeply resented my foreign-corporate mindset.
They felt I always touched their most painful nerve: that 996 is a mark of failure.
They found it hard to work with me because I always structured everything with clarity, and what they hated most was clarity.
I spoke in logic and market truths; they hated that, always insisting they were “crossing the river by feeling the stones.”
So when I see Silicon Valley now embracing 996, I know this is the final straw for the AI bubble:
When people start working for the performance, not for the purpose, the collapse is already on its way.
Every time I am stressed by work, I think of this obnoxious work "ethic", and I feel better.
In other news, what happened to AI? Isn't it supposed to make life easier? Work for one weekend day, no health insurance, etc - we back to preindustrial oligarchy, fam?
I interviewed at one AI startup that basically was doing this. From what I could tell, they were feeling pressured to get something out fast since there is so much money and competition.
What was odd was that they were already doing this for about 6 months and needed people who could build things, the founder was very frustrated. Technically it looked like there were severely over complicating their code base (I never saw it, this was just based on discussions) and needed people to fix their perf issues/etc, which AI is very bad at.
It really feels like the purpose of AI is realizing the capitalist's dream of the perpetual value machine which would solve the problem of human labor.
Monetary systems and their economies are innately dystopian, and that can't be changed, but given that I'm a reluctant capitalist. Simply because the other option is much worse and incomparably more dishonest. But if private industry wants to remain relatively unrestricted it has to operate in good faith. Which means not pushing the envelope toward de facto slavery conditions, as is its nature to do. It needs self-control. If industry can't control itself, it's making the case for being hyper-regulated. And then its down-hill from there.
Industry and labor are in an inescapable social contract, the balance of which determines wider society's quality of life. Both factions have to commit to the middle, relatively speaking.
In part, that means that the job market standard doesn't evolve to six days of double shifts. Hire a second shift, and retreat from the type of psychopathy that advanced society wisely left behind.
It's self correcting. Corporations aren't needed for the software industry, they were just the best way to structure things for a while. If collaborating that way continues to become intractable forward looking, creative people (the kind you need to write good software) will find other ways to collaborate.
A lot of people working these jobs are being paid millions per year, it's really not the right group to feel bad for. Also nearly everyone I know who does this loves it
[+] [-] nbonaparte|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] kccqzy|8 months ago|reply
996 refers to time in office, not time worked. The actual hours worked is closer to 48 hours per week than 72 hours.
[+] [-] threatofrain|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rs186|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] OutOfHere|8 months ago|reply
Since there are no nap pods in the West, the closest I found myself doing is relaxation exercises in a phone booth for 30 minutes, and this significantly boosted my afternoon productivity.
[+] [-] kevinventullo|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mrangle|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] fellowniusmonk|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ckelly|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|8 months ago|reply
The next time I'm leading a team, I'm leaning towards 40 solid hours/wk being the official way to go.
Up to around 60 hours/wk of mixed-solidity work is also sustainable long-term for most people, without ill health effects iff some of that will be much lower-productivity time and the people don't have daily family obligations and the overall stress isn't too high.
But if some people wanted to try 50-60 hours and a mix of pace themselves, I'd probably have them structure it so that they appeared to 40-hour colleagues as if they were also doing 40 hours. Which means no slacking off in front of them, nobody getting disturbed on off hours with messages or pull request reviews, etc.
[+] [-] happytoexplain|8 months ago|reply
We are sick as a civilization and a species.
[+] [-] AaronAPU|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] danjl|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] tennisflyi|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] nextworddev|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] boredatoms|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] preommr|8 months ago|reply
This will upset people, but I love programming enough that I would do 996 at 40k-50k usd, with half going to rent and potentially even paying out of pocket for medical insurance.
[+] [-] bpodgursky|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] princevegeta89|8 months ago|reply
The reality is the vast majority of these companies will be hit hard by a burst of the AI bubble. It won't be a surprise the so called millions they're looking for end up being a 0.
[+] [-] ausbah|8 months ago|reply
AI is being used as an excuse to strip away every labor norm and law in the name of “not being left behind”, with a product that has yet to truly be earth shattering on the scale it’s been predicted to be. hard not to see the current slate of VCs and founders as leechs
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RainyDayTmrw|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] reactordev|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] xiasanhuasi|8 months ago|reply
Only when management is unable to deliver real results to investors do they fall back on saying, “Look, we’re all working passionately, we’re doing 996!” The implicit message is: “Even though I’m incapable, we’re working hard—please keep investing in us.” It’s a methodology of working for performance theater, not actual productivity.
I’ve worked as a professional executive in China for over 20 years. From 2000 to 2008, I grew in foreign enterprises. After 2010, I joined Chinese internet companies and worked with many firms, mainly focusing on IT governance to meet IPO-level audit requirements.
One principle has remained consistent throughout my career:
Overtime is a sign of managerial failure. And when a company turns overtime into culture, it is collective incompetence—from the organization and its leadership. That should be a source of shame.
When I began working in Chinese internet companies around 2010, leadership both appreciated my capabilities and deeply resented my foreign-corporate mindset. They felt I always touched their most painful nerve: that 996 is a mark of failure. They found it hard to work with me because I always structured everything with clarity, and what they hated most was clarity. I spoke in logic and market truths; they hated that, always insisting they were “crossing the river by feeling the stones.”
So when I see Silicon Valley now embracing 996, I know this is the final straw for the AI bubble:
When people start working for the performance, not for the purpose, the collapse is already on its way.
[+] [-] avidphantasm|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] rexreed|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] renegade-otter|8 months ago|reply
In other news, what happened to AI? Isn't it supposed to make life easier? Work for one weekend day, no health insurance, etc - we back to preindustrial oligarchy, fam?
[+] [-] mosdl|8 months ago|reply
What was odd was that they were already doing this for about 6 months and needed people who could build things, the founder was very frustrated. Technically it looked like there were severely over complicating their code base (I never saw it, this was just based on discussions) and needed people to fix their perf issues/etc, which AI is very bad at.
[+] [-] azemetre|8 months ago|reply
Hard to feel optimistic for such a future.
We need more class traitors.
[+] [-] mrangle|8 months ago|reply
Monetary systems and their economies are innately dystopian, and that can't be changed, but given that I'm a reluctant capitalist. Simply because the other option is much worse and incomparably more dishonest. But if private industry wants to remain relatively unrestricted it has to operate in good faith. Which means not pushing the envelope toward de facto slavery conditions, as is its nature to do. It needs self-control. If industry can't control itself, it's making the case for being hyper-regulated. And then its down-hill from there.
Industry and labor are in an inescapable social contract, the balance of which determines wider society's quality of life. Both factions have to commit to the middle, relatively speaking.
In part, that means that the job market standard doesn't evolve to six days of double shifts. Hire a second shift, and retreat from the type of psychopathy that advanced society wisely left behind.
[+] [-] msgodel|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jordemort|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mgraczyk|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mgraczyk|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] SJC_Hacker|8 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] msgodel|8 months ago|reply