I suspect many task deadlines are designed to force engineers to work for free - <AUTHOR> http://misc-stuff.terraaeon.com/articles/engineering-deadlines.html <comment><USER3> >>The engineer's boss, an engineering manager, asks him how long a new task will take to complete. Sometimes the engineer has not done this particular thing before, so he responds honestly that he has no idea how long it will take. His boss will not accept that answer. He asks again. So, the engineer makes a wild guess and his boss responds with, "That's too long." Even if the engineer knows how long a task will take to complete and gives a realistic estimate, his boss often responds with, "That's too long. You have until Friday." When the engineer asks how long his boss has known about the task, the boss says he has known for a month. When the engineer asks why he didn't tell him a month ago, the boss just looks at the engineer like he doesn't understand the question.

If this describes your workplace, please find a better managed workplace if you can. They are out there

The correct way to do things here would be to:

1\. Do a probe project to evaluate complexity and/or look at similar projects

2\. Trade time (deadlines) for scope and resources. Yes, we can deliver in a month, but only if we cut scope and get 2 more QA folks, etc.

EDIT 2a: You can also negotiate to trade time for quality and/or take on technical debt knowing it reduces future velocity.

3\. If neither of the above happen, you should trade absurdity for more salary/growth. I've seen this at places such as hedge funds and consultancies and they compensate and "pay" for it with better comp and growth.

<comment><USER4> Why can't engineers simply tell managers that it can't be done by the specified deadline? Why do managers even ask this question if they're gonna ignore the answer and impose an impossible deadline anyway?

It looks like they're assuming we're all lazy. They think the job isn't that hard. A fundamental lack of respect.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps some managers think they are a clever Cpt Kirk who's gotten wise to their Scotty's miracle-worker tactics, even though they're a manager with an honest Geordi La Forge.

No offence to Geordi La Forge.

<comment><USER6> mandatory clip: [https://youtu.be/8xRqXYsksFg?t=9](https://youtu.be/8xRqXYsksFg?t=9)

<comment><USER7> Related, from the newest member of Star Trek family:

[https://youtu.be/latWmQtm8fw?t=22](https://youtu.be/latWmQtm8fw?t=22)

In your estimating, remember to always add _buffer time_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> As a former product manager with lots of experience with both engineering and management: no, that's not what deadlines are designed for.

Deadlines exist because software doesn't exist in a vacuum, but other people depend on it being delivered. Whether so it can be sold to make money before someone goes out of business or a partnership fails, or its features arrive on time as promised for the start of the school year which can't be moved, or as the foundation for another project that has its own equally valid deadline later on.

Deadlines exist because people need to make plans and be able to rely on them, which is how our entire society and economy function.

People work overtime in _every_ industry to meet deadlines, it's not just engineers. The only question is whether or it's good for you financially.

Whenever you take a job, it's up to you to do your due diligence in talking to other employees to find out what the working hours and flexibility are like in practice, and judge that against the salary, and decide if it makes sense for you.

Fortunately, there is _huge_ variation in both salaries and expectations of hours per week, and the best thing you can do about places that pay little and work you long is to not take their job offer, or leave. Then supply and demand can do its thing and they'll be forced to adjust or go out of business.

<comment><USER9> Well put and fully agreed. I don't think engineers are in any way a special case here. In fact it can be much worse for people whose skillset is easier to replace.

<comment><USER10> If you ask around I think you will discover that non-engineers DO NOT relate to this topic at all the same way engineers do.

That's all the evidence that I need to take the view that this phenomenon is wide-spread and pervasive in engineering and does not usually reach the same level of pathology in other professions -- a level where people are forced into 'playing a game' with regard to estimates and deadlines.

In short this is really UNHEALTHY behavior and whether it occurs in all industries or just engineering seems beside the point.

<comment><USER8> Ask around who?

Talk to consultants, investment bankers, doctors, lawyers -- you know, other high-intellect jobs like engineers.

Lawyers are playing the game of billable hours. Consultants are playing the game of working day and night to produce the report by the promised deadline, to move on to their next scheduled client the following Monday. Doctors complete grueling residencies with "artificially" insane requirements, then follow insane schedules juggling hospitals and private practice. And the investment bankers I know haven't had a full weekend off in years.

I fail to see what's different about engineering, or what makes it inherently any more of a "game" than what billable hours or hospital residences or consulting deadlines are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is why film scheduling is a real discipline, while software scheduling is not. Film production is unionized, and overtime costs real money, at least time and a half, often more.

As I've mentioned before, there's something called a "completion bond" in the film industry.[1] A completion bond guarantees third party investors that a completed, releasable film results, or your money back. Completion bond companies will take a shooting script and cost it out, then quote on what the bond will cost. It's usually 3-5% of production cost.

Completion bond companies are thus very good at cost estimation. They keep records on what and who has overrun budgets in the past, and by how much, and adjust their estimates accordingly.

The completion bond company has several options when a film is in trouble. They can put people on set to watch where the money is going. They can put in more money, which is the first thing to be paid back when the film releases. As a last resort, they can _fire the director and producer_ and put their own people in, to get something finished. That's seldom done. "Bad Girls" (1994) is a film where that happened. It's a terrible movie, but they got half the production cost back, which beats zero.

The threat of that happening keeps management in line. Big career setback for a director and producer when that happens.

[1] [https://www.eqgroup.com/completion_bond/](https://www.eqgroup.com/completion_bond/)

<comment><USER12> Film scheduling is a "real" discipline because the range of effort for (major motion picture) filmmaking projects is extremely narrow, the dependencies are all known, and all the projects are bottom up in nature i.e. this number of shots, sets, cameras, explosions, etc. equals X more dollars and Y more hours to produce it.

If every software project ever made was just a CRUD app, with the only variations being the number of fields and the amount of data validation, and we'd been doing it for 100 years, I'm sure our ability to finish on time and on budget would be much less maligned.

<comment><USER11> Someone directly involved with movie production should comment on this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've no doubt some folks do that thing with the intent described in the article "force engineers to work for free".

But I also think people are really quick to imagine managers / bosses to be Snidely Whiplash or something when really it's more ignorance and bad choices and etc.

I wonder if the introverted engineering culture has something to do with it too?

I used to work in other fields until I started coding later in life. I've found a huge % of engineers asking about what to do about situations and my first question is:

"Wait ... have you talked to your manager about this yet?"

And the answer very often is "no" and they're talking about really strong feelings of pressure and rage quitting is pretty shocking to me. This was very rare in other fields that I was in, but in engineering it seems surprisingly common.... Let alone the stories where it seems like the manager and the employee only talk during quarterly meetings and that's it.

I think without any kind of relationship with your manager, team or employer can make a given situation seem like it is menacing, manipulative.... but you really don't know.

Granted, there are bad managers who do such things intentionally, but if you talk to them you'll probably figure that out too. If you don't, you don't know.

I've worked with plenty of folks who were very sure / felt strongly about some management manipulation and yet I saw no reason to think it was occurring at all.

</comment><comment><USER14> There's a lot to unpack here.

"So, the engineer makes a wild guess and his boss responds with, "That's too long."" -> You have a dysfunctional relationship with your boss. They don't trust your estimates - whether based on their hubris, or your past results, or something else. You need to either find a way to reset that trust or leave the company and start anew with a new manager. Otherwise you'd going to have this same problem forever and neither of you will be happy.

"Very often, if he chooses to do a lousy job, everyone seems happy that something was produced, even though what was produced may have been total garbage that was good for absolutely nothing." Reading between the lines here, this sounds like an engineer who wants to satisfy requirements that the project doesn't actually have. In my experience, this often looks like an engineer who wants to add more adjectives (modifiability, robustness, scalability, etc) than is actually needed. If you delivered a result that the stakeholders are happy with, that's a good outcome as an engineer. If you want to overengineer something, consider either doing it on your own time or switching to a job where, for example, more scalability, is actually a requirement.

"In other words, if a boss is not totally clueless (which some seem to be), he knows an engineer can't complete a job in three days that will take a month" -> the author clearly assumes their boss has a ton more insight into the engineering work than most do. Actual engineers working on a given project are usually pretty bad at estimating how long tasks will take - a manager (even a non-"clueless", technical one) generally has very little idea how long something will actually take. Assuming that their manager knows and is intentionally screwing you over is just another sign that the author has a completely broken relationship with their boss and is incredibly bitter about it. They would probably benefit from a reset (eg at a new job).

<comment><USER15> _> Reading between the lines here, this sounds like an engineer who wants to satisfy requirements that the project doesn't actually have._

In my experience, this is one of the least understood aspects of the engineer's job, often by engineers themselves. An engineer's job is not to create the absolute highest quality solution every time. The engineer's job is to match solutions with requirements. Often that means _not_ implementing something that, from a purely technical perspective, would be an improvement, because it's not needed to meet the actual requirement, and would take time and effort from something that _is_ needed.

<comment><USER16> I get frustrated when it seems like _no one_ is maintaining requirements (or aware of them) and I'm just expected to make something work, as though I can read minds about what's expected.

I have no problem with developing solutions on my own with the right accommodations and compensation - but stop handing me sprints based on things where the greatest extent of planning is a single sentence fragment of a Jira issue title.

<comment><USER15> _> I get frustrated when it seems like no one is maintaining requirements (or aware of them) and I'm just expected to make something work, as though I can read minds about what's expected._

Yes, another (often frustrating) part of the engineer's job is to try to get the client (or a manager or someone else who is supposed to be communicating the client's requirements to you) to understand what "requirements" actually means and what does and doesn't count as actually specifying a requirement so it can be met, or at least so that a reasonable estimate of the time and resources required can be given.

As others in this thread have said, sometimes the only real cure for this problem is to find a new job where you have different, and more reasonable, clients and/or managers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I don't know if I agree with the word "design". In my experience most managers aren't trying to design a way to force people to work for free (though that may be the unintended result). Most managers seem to fly by the seat of their pants and make up deadlines based on what will make the client/stakeholders happy and not as some sort of malicious design.

<comment><USER4> > Most managers seem to fly by the seat of their pants and make up deadlines > based on what will make the client/stakeholders happy and not as some sort > of malicious design.

So developers must suffer because managers routinely make promises they can't keep?

<comment><USER18> More like the managers make promises they don't understand.

<comment><USER4> Isn't understanding the capabilities of the people they manage the job of the manager? I always thought that was the whole point. If they don't know this, then maybe they shouldn't be making any promises at all.

<comment><USER19> Making correct estimate on how much time feature will take is something different then just understanding the capabilities of the people.

Even developers themselves are often unable to produce good estimates. In fact, most developers tend to systematically underestimate how much time they will need for this or that task.

I have seen management to even add padding to estimate and it is still not enough in the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> IMO the whole "we don't pay for overtime" thing with salaried employees is a scam that needs to be made illegal. There were times in my career (in the past now) where I had to put in 10-12 hours a day, and often without weekends just to meet the schedule, because some manager somewhere wanted the product for the trade show. I don't see how this is reasonable, or why it should be legal, yet under the current US labor laws it is legal.

When I managed my own teams, the most I would ask folks to do is to very rarely work a bit more for a day or two (there are sometimes legitimate reasons why things need to be done by a certain date, or crises to resolve ASAP), giving them days off later to compensate. This was entirely voluntary, with NO repercussions, career or otherwise, if they don't want to do it. There always were 3-4 folks who were happy to oblige. I'm also proud to say, that not once have I made anyone work over a weekend.

</comment><comment><USER21> At a well-managed company that's growing properly, such as Apple was from 1998-2012, this effect is employed in a way that compensates engineers very well via the gains in stock price.

If you're a great engineer, it behooves you to see yourself as an investor in the company you end up choosing to work for.

This means learning about things like the disruptive growth era we're in, how monetary policy affects growth, etc. You should know what an inverted yield curve is, and where to look to keep up with those charts ([https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y)).

It's important to read Clayton Christensen "The Innovator's Dilemma". I also highly recommend reading ARK Invest's research reports. They cost nothing but an email address, and I have found these all to be enormously valuable in my own research on this. If you just want to sit and watch some stuff on YouTube that can help, give "Chicken Genius Singapore", "Dave Lee on Investing", and "Solving the Money Problem" a whirl.

Great management is incredibly rare. But it's on _you_ to learn how to identify it. If you want to be paid the most, you have to know more than just the field you specialize in! There is little value in putting your head in the sand.

<comment><USER22> > If you're a great engineer, it behooves you to see yourself as an investor > in the company you end up choosing to work for.

That's great for Apple engineers but what if you work for HP/Intel/IBM and just see a steady declining stock?

<comment><USER23> they should realize their company business model sucks and bail

<comment><USER24> It's easy to say that for one person, but these are some of the largest tech companies around, and you're talking about 10s of thousands of engineers. Where are they all supposed to go? FAANG won't hire most of them, and it's not because they're incompetent.

<comment><USER21> I'm 39, and I didn't major in CS. FAANG wouldn't touch me with a 10-foot pole.

What to do? Take your skills and put them into your own startup. I rolled with the times, hedged my bets and invested my life savings, as documented here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958528](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22958528) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22970810](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22970810)

(The only thing I'd amend my 4-month old comments with, is, chill out! The daily ups and downs are not important compared to the Fed Put. And, long-term, watch out for the ultimate decline of the dollar, the shift from fiat to bitcoin. Palihapitiya has sage advice in keeping at least 1% of your net worth in bitcoin.)

Investing well is a mindset, and the essential thing to do is focus on your methodology, and your connection to the world around you. There is no substitute for critical, rational, non-cynical thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Usual disclaimer: does not apply to most civilized countries with mandatory overtime pay (including nighttime and weekend multipliers), maximum hours worked per week etc..

I'm still amazed that there is so much migration _into_ the US at this point. (But I also do get it.)

<comment><USER26> Right -- in those "civilized" countries (you probably mean the higher income European countries?) the total pay is just 20 Euros an hour net of taxes, so software engineers' salaries even with overtime don't match the US. But at least your boss can't play these games.

<comment><USER27> For skilled programmers, pay in Germany tends to be $5k to $6k per month after all taxes and the highest level of health insurance and a generous retirement insurance and disability and private unemployment insurance (additional to the government one).

That is enough for an entire family to rent a house and live a very comfortable life pretty much everywhere in Germany, except maybe Munich city center.

There are strong overtime protections, I've heard from people who were paid 4x their regular salary because they were called in on a Sunday.

I'm sure the FAANG pay better, but maybe house + family + free time is nicer than high numbers in your online banking?

<comment><USER28> The US is pretty awesome if you're in the top 10%. Of course, more than 10% of the US population likes to believe they are in the top 10% or have a chance at being in the top 10% in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The picture this paints of a career in software engineering is utterly unrecognizable to me, someone who has worked in this industry for well over a decade at this point. I can't tell how much of this is pertains to whatever specific situation the author finds himself in vs. how much of it relates to the author's worldview. If I treated team members like this author describes being treated, they would leave in an instant for any of the myriad of companies hungry for engineers that will not treat them like crap.

</comment><comment><USER30> Leverage is your tool. If you don't have enough, create more. You won't get fired if they need you. You can always find a place that compensates you enough for your work. Forget about what the engineering managers want. What's in your power? If you're a professional, give your stakeholders a meaningful time quote. If they don't like it, they can try finding someone who can satisfy their requirements. Or they can make sacrifices so that you can satisfy their requirements, given the amount of workers they have.

If you were selling someone watermelons, yet your client wants to pay you 50%, should you give it away for free? There are other people that like watermelons. And if he's the only guy out there that likes watermelons, it's time to start selling oranges.

Start cooperating. If your stakeholders won't, find ones that do.

<comment><USER31> We as laborers have cognitive bias towards the commodity we sell: our time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hanlon's razor is an aphorism, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

<comment><USER33> "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice." - Grey's law

<comment><USER7> "Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by systemic incentives promoting malice."

\-- Yours Truly's Razor ;) (though I still prefer "Hanlon's Handgun")

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691718](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21691718)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Marketing and Sales don't seem to have much respect for the laws of physics. They aren't deliberately assuming that engineers will work for free; they just don't care.

I removed an anecdote, here, to protect the guilty.

Let's say that you talk to a marketing/sales person, and they give an absurdly optimistic estimate for a significant project.

So either they would deliver a steaming heap of garbage, at their estimate, or (more likely), the project would take a lot longer than the estimate. Since it is often a "cost plus" contract, we are unlikely to be happy with the outcome.

It would probably still be a steaming heap of garbage, but at a much higher price and months late.

The thing about late projects, is that there's this huge rush to deliver all the features by the ridiculous date, and, when it gets there, you have this horrendous Rube Goldberg device that is a creaking, barely-usable bug farm.

All the rest of the time is spent trying to get it working properly[0]. It would consist of slapping kludge on top of kludge, until the result is 90% cruft.

Good estimation is a black art that no one I know has ever gotten right. That includes Yours Truly.

I have a friend that wants to do a fairly ambitious NPO project. I was unsatisfied with the interactions he's been having with potential contractors, and just started to do the project myself, which includes adapting the backend (which I already wrote, taking seven months), and writing one of the frontends (which looks to be on track for a couple of months, at least).

As usual, it's going about 50% slower than I had planned, but it's definitely coming along. It will be really, really good, but quality takes time. One of the things that I do, is have a very loose project plan that solidifies as the project progresses. It really requires me working alone. Doesn't scale well to teams.

Since I'm working on it for free, I guess that I'm a chump, eh?

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkQ58I53mjk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkQ58I53mjk)

</comment><comment><USER35> Is it unreasonable to expect someone being paid 300K a year to work more than an average of eight hours a day every once in a while?

It's hilarious how when there is a general article about developer productivity, the comments section is full of people claiming how programming is not like manual labor that you can do for eight hours straight, and that most work in bursts of a few hours of intense intellectual activity surrounded by taking time off.

How many software engineers can, hand to heart, claim honestly that they put in 8 full productive working hours day after day the way a cashier or warehouse worker does?

<comment><USER36> Very few, and I don't think it's a reasonable parallel.

I don't think 8 hours of cognitively demanding, yet physically sedentary work, is part of our human nature.

If you frame it in the sense that we are just monkeys in shoes, it wouldn't be at all reasonable to expect someone to crouch in the grass and be highly alert for hours at a time.

The corollary would be a job that's physically engaging (read, not demanding) but cognitively basic, e.g. moving boxes in a warehouse, gardening.

The difference is one form of labor has leveraged output (writing code), vs linear output (moving boxes).

<comment><USER35> You are completely right but that is precisely my point.

Counting hours for a job like programming is pointless. If you also agree that it's not reasonable to expect 8 continuous hours of intellectual labor, it should also not be reasonable on part of employees to be wedded to their 8-hour-workday. No one seems to have a problem chit-chatting at work, or engaging in other forms of recreation, but everyone seems to love counting hours when it comes to reasonable work expected from them.

I notice this in my job working with a team in Europe that my company has acqui-hired (this is relevant because until then they were a purely European company in terms of composition and culture). We are a pretty standard SV startup in terms of culture, we are in the office for ~9 hours a day (that includes lunch etc.) but we trust our employees to manage their work, which includes the self-awareness of knowing when you have not done enough during the day and compensating by working a bit more whenever you see fit.

In contrast, the European team does strict 8 hours a day (including lunch), does NOT have better average productivity than ours, but gets very upset at the occasional expectation that they meet deadlines with similar 'vigor' as their SV counterparts. I'm sure the same people would complain about pay disparity between the bay area and Europe and find it unfair.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I've seen this many places I worked. Probably most.

It's especially prevalent in agencies, because the are two or more layers of this crap happening simultaneously.

First, the client does it to the agency, then the big boss does it to the managers, then the managers do it to the programmers.

I think it is also [connected with|the primary reason for] ageism in the industry:

As you gain experience, you learn to not fall for this kind of crap anymore.

When I was new and insecure, clinging to my job thinking no one else will hire me, I put up with all sorts of crap I wouldn't put up with later in my career.

</comment><comment><USER38> "My suspicion is that this interplay between engineering manager and engineer is nothing but a game. Either to the manager, or to the company. Either it is a show of power by the manager, or it is a strategy for increasing the company's profits. In other words, if a boss is not totally clueless (which some seem to be), he knows an engineer can't complete a job in three days that will take a month. But, he must appear to be playing the company's game. The company wants the engineer working unpaid overtime, as much unpaid over time as the engineer can possibly endure."

At my last job, this was definitely the case.

I'd come in with a realistic estimate, and everyone would be shocked. This is too much time, they'd say. How can we cut this down? There would be a discussion. We'd play a little game where we'd pretend we could cut corners over here and find efficiencies over there, and hey presto, we'd get it done in half the time. Now everyone is happy. Except nothing has changed. The job ends up taking as long, or longer, than the original estimate, but everyone has to work overtime to reach the deadline.

I suspect the same thing as the author; everyone knew we weren't actually cutting the time down. We were just promising to get it done faster for free.

</comment><comment><USER39> Wow, I suspect milage may vary depending on where you work.

I've only been at well run tech companies, and have a very different experience.

I would never refer to my manager as "boss". Lol, I've rarely been told what to do next..

My current manager describes his job as "herding cats" :)

<comment><USER40> This is how I feel as well, and I can't tell if the author has only ever worked in really bad companies, or doesn't have the maturity to understand his work relationships or how a business runs. The anecdotes in the article also feel cliche, they feel like something pulled out of generic articles about "bad bosses". Are there actually many engineering managers like this in tech companies in the modern day? Have I just been lucky in the past 15 years in my career?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> IMO, and this is what the engineers never get to find out, at the managerial level, a big concern is to keep the 'labor' "fed" (fed here means fed with list of tasks). Meaning, an ideal for a manager in this aspect is to have tasks ready one after the other, so that there is no time during the work week where the engineer is under the impression that (s)he doesn't have anything to do.

This is actually not easy. Real work, and real productivity is nonlinear. You have times of serious crunch, and times where there really is not much to do.

Entrepreneurs do this better, but in startups there is almost never a time where there is not much to do (there is always something to do). Or flat hierarchies, especially one where the boss is also an ex-engineer, also do relatively better.

This really gets worse in the case of org-chart hierarchies in established/blue-chippy companies, where middle management, especially one that has no clue of tech work, solves this problem by creating pipelines of tasks that can safely be described as "bullshit jobs".

Some middle managers decide to use up the pipeline in a way so as to keep the engineers occupied 60-70 hours a week, others 40-50 hours a week, something that varies from team to team.

</comment><comment><USER42> This author is writing about a situation in which the employee is earning a fixed salary but his time is billed out on an hourly basis. That is very much a recipe for abuse, and may well have been designed to be exploited from the very beginning.

I'm curious to know how common this employment situation is in engineering. Perhaps only in the large consulting firms? But... aren't annual bonuses supposed to compensate for the "extra" time?

<comment><USER43> It's every consulting firm. Given that consulting doesn't scale, I would not be surprised if consulting firms represented the majority of software engineering employment.

<comment><USER42> That's a good point. And except in fixed-price contracts, there is no incentive to become more productive - they would rather you work more hours.

<comment><USER43> I've also never worked at any consulting firm that gave an annual bonus, except for one, and it was a joke. I think I got $1.5k one year, after having worked 65hr weeks for the entire year (and some part time while I was supposed to be on family leave).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> IT director for a multinational here: I apologize if this has been said, but here are a few reasons why these deadlines are set to be broken from the start:

1) estimating dev time is a hard (as in NP-hard) problem. Nobody in the world can do it well. Ultimately, deadlines are meaningless in terms of actual dev time.

2) being an engineer myself, I know full well that if I'm given a fair or comfortable deadline, I'll code the thing quickly and enjoy some free time until the deadline. When the deadline comes, we'll find out there was lots of bugs. We're lazy/efficient animals.

3) if I'm given a short deadline, I'll complain but will work much harder under pressure. I'll still deliver something with bugs, but they will be fixed quickly, still under pressure.

      And so we give deadlines that are far off the mark, sometimes knowingly, in order to make sure the actual finished, *debugged* product is ready by the time we make the announcement/presentation/sale.

</comment><comment><USER45> I think there is a better explanation here, one that does not require such nefarious motives. If you're producing a physical product, then there is usually a more or less linear relationship between the amount of product you produce and the time and effort you put into producing it. If you can make a widget in an hour, then it probably will take you more or less two hours to make two widgets. The constant of proportionality can change with practice and according to skill, but there probably isn't an order of magnitude of difference between an extraordinarily skilled factory worker and a moderately skilled one.

With engineering things are radically different. In engineering, and particularly in software engineering, everything is easy once you know how, otherwise it is borderline impossible. Most of the effort involved in engineering work is not in the actual work, but in the figuring-out-how. As a result, there can be multi-order-of-magnitude differences between the effort required by someone who already knows how to do something and someone who still needs to figure it out for the first time. This difference is most pronounced at the bleeding edge of theoretical research, where it can literally take decades to figure out something for the first time, after which the same problem (or variations on the theme) can be solved in minutes or seconds.

So the problem becomes: do you pay someone for their _efforts_ or do you pay them for the _results_? Historically we've paid people for their effort because that was correlated with results, but that is no longer the case. But people tend to bristle at paying for results, particularly if they see that very little (apparent) effort was involved in producing it. There's the old chestnut about the plumber who charged $100 for banging on a pipe. When challenged, the plumber produced an itemized invoice: $5 for banging on the pipe and $95 for knowing where to bang.

Engineering problems are often solved by taking a shower. But Harvard MBAs don't like to pay people to take showers. We really need a radical re-thinking of the whole compensation model for this kind of work.

</comment><comment><USER46> This write-up indicates a serious problem in the org:

\- the tasks are not scoped and thus arbitrary dates are given

\- the tasks are not scoped and thus no trade-off discussions are had

Every time I had to work crazy hrs it was for a good reason in decent companies. Examples being: We literally don't have the money to operate if xyz doesn't get delivered by a specific date. Cut what you can, but not what is critical.

With good managers / execs you always debate between what they want build, and what can be built given current realities.

If your company just throws arbitrary dates and wants the perfect product expecting you to work like mad... there is a problem in that company.

</comment><comment><USER47> I hope the author and the 200 upvoters find better employment soon. The tone of the article suggests that this is assumed to be the universal way of software development, but it's basically the opposite of how things are done at my workplace. OP's company sounds like it's run by some Charles Dickens villains.

My manager only gives me a few tasks per year, mostly administrative things like peer reviews that everyone at the company needs to do. All my real work comes from my team's product owner (not in my reporting chain, aka a product manager), who defines objectives and sets priorities for my team. My fellow developer teammates and I collaborate to give an estimate for the objective, architect a plan for it, break it down into smaller 'stories' that ideally take less than a week each to complete, and then actually implement those stories with programming. If we don't know enough to estimate something, we'll make a task devoting some time to researching just enough for an estimate. It's always collegial, often fun, and very efficient at producing high quality software on a predictable timeline.

But my employer's product is basically a SaaS and the author works at a consulting company that rents our engineers by the hour. Is this kind of dysfunction the norm at consulting companies?

</comment><comment><USER48> Perhaps. But in my experience as an engineer, there is a widespread human tendency to take requests into a cave and not come out until something too 'opinionated' is built. When creating for/with others, often what is preferred is a 'dialogue' approach, because everyone has an opinion on what to build. If a product manager asks you to build a Twitter clone, which you reply would take a year, and they counter with 'you've got two days', then make a 2-day Twitter clone. You might build just a couple of key interactions, and it might only operate at toy-scale, or you might just write a bunch of stubs that print out what the system would do, but in general, if someone counters in response to your estimate with a request to do it in 1/x of the time, they are usually communicating "I don't need something built to that level, I want a 1/x pass of what you imagine".

So really these aggressive deadlines are more about project stakeholder's desire to have more control over the design process. Of course a creator might not want to share control, but that is a different issue to 'being forced to work for free'.

</comment><comment><USER49> If this is true, it's too focused on engineering. This is project management in general, not just for technical jobs.

But I also think the author gives too much credit to management. There's no conspiracy to tighten deadlines to get free work, at least not in a vast majority of places. Hanlon's Razor comes in to play here: don't attribute it to malice if it can also be attributed to stupidity.

</comment><comment><USER50> >> Unfortunately, many of our companies appear to have become Orwellian machines that put these people in power, and once there, they create utter chaos for the rest of us.

I keep saying this because it's relevant to so many topics and so many problems that people talk about these days...

The way all newly 'printed' money enters into our economy is through big financial institutions - This means that the financial institutions are in the position of choosing who will get a share of that new money (which the Fed printed out of thin air). Once you understand that the global monetary system is a scam, you'll understand why psychopaths rise to the top; because the psychopaths who run the world can't rely on altruists to keep their mouths shut.

If you don't believe me, just watch Hidden Secrets of Money: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU&t=2s)

The good news is that this is likely a sign that the system is on the brink of failure.

</comment><comment><USER51> In my experience many (though not all) deadlines are simple mitigation of Parkinson's Law[0], not exploitation of workers. I don't work in the commercial game industry though, so YMMV.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law)

<comment><USER52> There are a number of (good) reasons for deadlines--even deadlines that are a bit of a stretch goal.

\- One is as you say. Absent a deadline, a lot of projects will meander along forever iterating endlessly to refine and improve or even just dither around. A deadline serves as a forcing function to decide what's actually important and ship it.

\- Another is that projects often don't exist in isolation. Even if they are somewhat standalone, like a game, they certainly don't exist outside of revenue targets, big retail selling seasons, advertising plans, etc. It often isn't practical to say "It will be done when it's done and you'll be the first to know."

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm sure none of this applies to any of us here, but I've heard rumors that some people _need_ deadlines to complete tasks. As in you set a deadline, and it doesn't really matter when, and check up with the employee on a regular basis. The interim feedback is always that things are coming along, but there is an awful lot of office chit-chat, browsing Facebook when I walk by, etc.. And then one week before the deadline all of a sudden there is griping and moaning about crunch time, but now there is sudden focus, and things get done. I'm a new manager, so I wish I had a better way to work with this dynamic. Smaller milestones? How small before it becomes micromanaging? But to the main point, if you are routinely working 70 hours a week that is a toxic work environment and you should leave.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is one of those times when you shouldn't attribute malice (or greed, I guess) to something that ought to be attributed to incompetence.

I've been a PM for long enough to have dealt with lots of situations like this, and never once have I had the slightest inkling that there was any plan to overwork engineers in order to get them to work for free.

The good companies I've dealt with understood that engineers are vital to their success and try to make them happy. The short term benefits of getting free work by bullying them with deadlines doesn't outweigh the downside of them leaving.

The bad companies just don't think like this - they want cheap labor so they outsource engineering to the cheapest possible places.

Based on this post, I would strongly recommend the author get a new job.

</comment><comment><USER55> Having a job is an abstraction. It allows you to trade predictable effort for predictable pay. Deadlines are an abstraction leak: Ultimately, market dynamics and business P&L exists, it can't be totally ignored in a healthy organization.

</comment><comment><USER56> The irony though is that the code that is written is shit and will cost the company so much to maintain, which eventually leads to that shitty manager being fired. The poor souls are the ones who need to maintain that crap software after

</comment><comment><USER57> This is interesting because one of the first project scoping lessons I learned was that engineers rarely give accurate time estimates. I would always go back to my boss having tacked on 20-30% of the time and make sure it's clear that it's an estimate and could take longer.

Who wants a product that was rushed? If there's not enough time, cut scope.

As a Project/product/eng manager, it's my job to buy time, hit the dates I set, and make my boss more $$$. If I'm saying stuff like "a month is too long; you have until Friday," I screwed something up or got screwed by someone else. Regardless, the engineers should leave because it'll keep happening.

</comment><comment><USER58> I'm only about 8 years into my career and if there is one thing I've come to realise, it's that a good chunk of deadlines are arbitrary dates plucked out of thin air.

We as engineers are horrible at guessing how long something things. I've yet to meet anyone who has been able to accurately guess how long a certain task takes. Rightly so, because engineering wouldn't be engineering if all the problems were already solved.

If you're in a workplace that imposes arbitrary dates on you, you should probably look elsewhere. There are better companies out there.

</comment><comment><USER59> Also has the effect of having most engineers with a track record of "missed deadlines" and "failures". So they are continually in fear of their managers and review time.

</comment><comment><USER60> It isn't just engineers—it's all employees. Deadlines are often unrealistic or arbitrary. It's just something to use as a cudgel to beat your employees over the head with.

</comment><comment><USER61> > The company wants the engineer working unpaid overtime, as much unpaid over > time as the engineer can possibly endure. This is why so many engineers at > some companies routinely work 70 hour weeks.

I am fine doing (justified) overtime, but there's no way I will do this from the goodness of my heart. Some additional work is required for the upcoming release? No problem, but make sure to plan some overtime reduction for me next month.

</comment><comment><USER62> Hm this article describes a bureaucratic management nightmare BUT, the opposite is also bad.

Parkinson's Principle is real.

If you give yourself a long time to complete a project, it will take that long. Also many projects are a total waste of time. It's often a good strategy to get the smallest possible experiment (to test your hypothesis) in front of customers ASAP and get the feedback loop rolling before you sink months into something untested.

</comment><comment><USER63> My pet peeve was managers that didn't ask for an estimation and said to be done in Feb 2021 and then forced you to work late/do overtime while they went home at 5pm every day. Long ago I decided if the (project) manager can't be arsed to be around, to answer questions, arrange dinner, why should I work late? If it's not that important for the manager stay late too, even to give moral support.

</comment><comment><USER64> This seems to be describing a particular problem of working at an engineering consulting company. I have never had this experience in my career.

</comment><comment><USER10> Thank you so much for this. I think you have managed to strike a perfect balance in tone -- no small task.

You are quite direct in your message and do not sugar-coat any of your points but still avoid sounding 'bitter'.

It has been my direct experience that the phenomenon you describe seems to be widely in practice at this point, across many organization of different size and disciplines.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's not like that where I work. Scheduling and tracking tasks is hard but it sounds like the author needs to find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER66> If this is you, then quit. You're not cattle, and there are better environments to spend your time in.

</comment><comment><USER67> Don't need to read the comments to know mine is redundant but whatever drives one to leave comments on websites compels me.

I have never worked in such an environment and don't see how one could.

You can demand someone jump off the building but not onto it.

If there isn't enough time, then there isn't enough time.

</comment><comment><USER68> >It probably has something to do with the fact that large engineering companies can afford to hire lobbyists and engineers cannot.

i'd lobbyists for employees are called unions. you can afford to hire lobbyists by paying union dues.

</comment><comment><USER69> A lot of the comments on here seem to have missed the fact that this is about _engineering firms_, not tech companies that employee "software engineers" and what have you. It's not the same world at all.

</comment><comment><USER70> It started well and devolved into a bitter rant about the universe. So... here's some perspective from a career on both sides of the table.... (manager and engineer)

\- For many teams and personalities, it is very hard to ship anything without a deadline. (as a solo founder, I actually use this psychology on myself to stay on track.)

\- Short chunks and deadlines work better than longer ones.

\- Peer pressure is a powerful stimulant.

\- Your time is not of equal value. You don't really have seventy hours of quality work in a week. You've got maybe 15 "truly inspired" hours, 25 "grind it out" hours, and a lot of filler, face time, and paper shuffling after that. If you're smart, you slip in some employer funded personal growth & education time into that mix.

The classic mistake is to screw up the mix. I actually run into this as a freelancer. My rate for "truly inspired" time (real thinking about theory, architecture, influencing others, lecturing, or consulting on high level topics - eg. I must be fully present and prepared) is between $150 - $500 per hour (depending on the degree to which I'm inspired by the topic in question; $500 if I couldn't give a crap, $150 if I'm truly interested), "grind time" is $75 - $90 (you're paying for work without face time or deep insights, done at my convenience), and I'm unsure how to sell people filler, face-time, and paper shuffling. My typical solution is to go take a nap.

By the way... once you deduct pitching and running the business (10 hours, mix of inspired & grind), that means a freelancer REALLY has only 20 - 25 hours of useful time to sell in the course of a week. Past that, you're either working much harder than an employee or trying sub in filler and hoping your client doesn't notice it...

The typical employee is selling 15 - 25 hours of grind, perhaps 5 of inspired time (if you're lucky) and as much filler and self-directed time as you can get away with. From an employee satisfaction perspective, inspired is a win, filler / self-directed time is neutral to a win (depending on how well you entertain yourself), grind is a negative. Grind time is less onerous if you feel like you are accomplishing something in the process.

My goal as a boss is to get as much grind / inspired time for my buck as possible, since that's what generates output. (employee development matters but is a complex payback balancing future productivity / retention / motivation; filler doesn't really help me at all) The essential management challenge is spotting people slipping filler into a day and telling them to get back to grind. Good bosses protect your inspired time. Someday I'll hopefully get to work for one again.... (LOL)

There's nothing REALLY wrong with doing an 80 hour sprint one week if you can engineer some paid downtime later. I have weeks where I'm exploited and - <USER2> be fair - others where I'm massively overcharging my employer. It evens out.

</comment><comment><USER71> I had a co-founder who really thrived on challenges. Not impossible deadlines, but almost "I dare you to do this by Monday" kind of thing.

</comment><comment><USER72> If you don't stand up for yourself, and accept whatever shit people throw at you, then you will get crushed.

</comment><comment><USER73> Here is the thing: most developers have very weak personalities. So yes, the sociopaths figured out that by stressing the engineers, they can get more work done, until they burnout at least.

You owe it to society to let a deadline slide by a large margin.

</comment><comment><USER74> In Europe, giving employee less time than it's needed to complete a task is called mobbing.

</comment><comment><USER75> I figured this out shortly before I started my career and screen out these kinds of employers.

</comment><comment><USER76> Is this article set in the late 90's. Times have changed, get a new job.

</comment><comment><USER77> I have an impression that the article is about programmers, not engineers.

</comment><comment><USER78> Penny dropping..

Now to figure out how to set boundaries in the abusive relationship.

</comment><comment><USER79> Engineer here, i can't relate to this. Find a new job.

</comment><comment><USER80> From a good manager of mine, "deadlines are cost control methods, unless we sent an email to a client or there's some pending legal requirement, those deadlines are to keep the costs of a project from skyrocketing".

2 years later, only two deadlines have ever been set in stone: the GDPR one and one we sent an email from Marketing about. I think he was right.

</comment><comment><USER81> I'm going to provide a contrarian opinion here:

Managers do this because engineers can rarely be trusted to estimate timelines properly, or at least communicate them. Or it's a rare engineer who does this well.

Either they don't even think about timelines, or they grossly underestimate the amount of time that something will take, find dependencies that add a week of unexplained time to fix, or handwave off the parts with least clarity, assuming it will be straightforward. And then you find out it actually takes double the time to do it properly, or the original timeline produced an output that was fully of bugs in the edge cases.

So, what happens, managers start to not trust when engineers give estimates, make up their own more "believable" estimates, and also start to expect that if they compress the timeline, it won't be a major issue because the engineering team is putzing around with non-essential work anyway.

So, if you want managers to respect and work with realistic timelines, you'd better give them a solid track record of delivering what you said you would in the past.

There's blame to go around.

</comment><comment><USER82> It goes both ways. Many weak deadlines allow engineers to slack off when they otherwise might not have.</comment>


First experimental campaign of  Wendelstein 7-X successfully completed [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.ipp.mpg.de/4038491/017_12_2016_en.pdf <comment><USER2> The thing with the dream of fusion power is how truly far out it still is, and how thousands of engineering challenges will have to be tackled.

The neutron challenge: Fusion creates A LOT of neutrons bombarding the vessel - that is also why modern nuclear bombs use fission to ignite fusion so that those neutrons in turn boost fission even further. Bombarding any material with lots of neutrons puts a lot of stress on the kit, so it needs to be replaced on a fairly regular basis. Given how difficult it is to assemble the Stellarator design, an industrial replacement process driven by robots (because of the radiation induced by the free roaming neutrons) is decades out.

The impurity/inadvertent cooling challenge: The fusion process is extremely sensitive to any impurities in the fuel, and the slightest inaccuracies in the magnetic field. Once the plasma touches something, it cools of at once, and fusion is over.

There are countless other challenges. I for one am all for still pumping billions into fusion research, cause the next time a meteor hits earth and darkens our atmosphere, our fancy photovoltaic power future will look ... cloudy. What are billions for the world economy as an insurance contract on long term clean energy security.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wendelstein 7-X is a fascinating device and I'm glad it seems to be working so well. The first plasma garnered some attention on here seven months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710670](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10710670)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In particular "The success of the first experimental campaign exceeded our initial expectations."

The only problem is that the next stage is not occurring until late 2017.</comment>


Ask HN: How to get into maths again? - <AUTHOR> During high school and afterwards I never really cared about maths. Now through web development I got really into cryptography and suffer from my lack of interest a few years ago.<p>Can any of you recommend resources (e.g. MOOC's or books) to learn on my own? <comment><USER2> As always, it depends ...

If you just want to learn the maths relevant to your specific interests then you can simply pick a page on wikipedia, build a tree of topics you need to cover, then start to knock them off one by one, building a web of knowledge as you go. Then ask questions on [http://math.stackexchange.com/](http://math.stackexchange.com/) making sure you take the advice about how to ask questions the smart way[0][1].

If, on the other hand, you want to get into studying maths generally and build your maths study skills, then I would recommend starting with a really good maths text book and work through it, doing all the exercises, reviewing earlier material, and taking it seriously. Two options are Spivak[2][3] which claims to be about calculus, but is really about analysis, or "Sets and Groups" by Green[4]. The latter is great to create the underlying basic knowledge you need for cryptography, but more, it teaches you how to do maths properly.

You could also just pick something you think is interesting on Khan Academy[5] and go for it.

But having said all that, it's tough to get back into maths, and you need to make sure you really understand your motivation. Most people don't want to write a book, they want to _have written_ a book. Most people don't want to study maths, they want to _have studied_ maths. If you're not serious, you won't succeed, especially with no one to track your progress, answer questions, and generally encourage, coax, support, and inspire you, it will be tough.

How well motivated are you?

[0] [http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart- questions.html](http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html)

[1] [https://www.mikeash.com/getting_answers.html](https://www.mikeash.com/getting_answers.html)

[2] [http://computo.fismat.umich.mx/~fhernandez/Cursos/Calculo201...](http://computo.fismat.umich.mx/~fhernandez/Cursos/Calculo2015/spivak.pdf)

[3] [http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-4th-Michael- Spivak/dp/0914098...](http://www.amazon.com/Calculus-4th-Michael- Spivak/dp/0914098918)

[4] [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Groups-Course-Algebra- Second/d...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sets-Groups-Course-Algebra- Second/dp/0710212275)

[5] [https://www.khanacademy.org/](https://www.khanacademy.org/)</comment>


Swine Flu latest statistics: Visualized - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/swine-flu-latest-visualized/ <comment> onreact-com Sadly these stats don't show that the swine flu scare is mostly hype and that it's far less deadly than seasonal flu.

For instance in Germany there are 15k swine flu cases after roughly 4 months and not a single death while overall there are 20k seasonal flu and similar disases related deaths in Germany per year.

So basically swine flu is a joke.

People die in South America, Asia and the US because they have no health insurance there and poverty is endemic. Thus they don't get real treatment.

In Germany still everybody eats well and get decent treatment. Btw. you don't need Tamiflu which has severe side effects (teenagers get suicidal after taking it). Simple home made remedies are enough to treat this very harmless kind of flu.</comment>


Octopart has a social news site - <AUTHOR> http://news.octopart.com/

<comment><USER2> The idea behind the site was to be more oriented towards forums than news stories. Basically, we wanted to provide a way for somebody to ask design questions to a community of smart hardware hackers. Of course, cool hardware stories are hard to come by so they make great submissions as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks like it's built on the same codebase as news.yc...

<comment><USER2> I asked Paul if we could use his code but it was too much work to integrate it into Octopart so we wrote it from scratch in python.

<comment><USER4> It would be a good idea to give to the users the option to save links so they could read them later again or something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It looks like there is some more info about their news site here: <http://news.octopart.com/faq>

</comment><comment><USER6> Interesting that they don't require registration to submit links, presumably relying on javascript + obscurity to avoid spam.

</comment><comment><USER7> Cool. So the hardware nuts go there and talk about building stuff, then they look for the parts on the site before buying it from the site.</comment>


Throwww Introduces More Features - <AUTHOR> http://throwww.com/a/1i8

<comment><USER2> You're doing a really great job with this and I hope it encourages people to write from the heart. One thing I'd suggest (if it hasn't already) is adding a padding at the bottom of the pages so that the last comment isn't butting up against the bottom of the browser. I like being able to scroll past the content enough so that it is 100-200px above the page end.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. I hope so too.

And good feedback. I was meaning to add some padding, but it somehow slipped my mind!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I enjoyed the get-going immediacy - something more apps should do more of.

One thing that threw me off my stride: hitting return in the Article Title field let me make arbitrarily multiline article titles. I expected it would take my cursor to the Article Body. Is this deliberate? How often do people want titles containing linebreaks?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks - I think more apps don't do it partly because they don't prioritize the single thing they want to be amazing at. Throwww only really has one broad-use case... writing shit... so it makes it easier to do this.

Wish I could say it was optional, but I'm not that clever.

I thought most people used "tab" to go to the next field. Didn't occur to me that "enter" was common. Looks like it is for at least one person. Let me do some reading/surveying. I might add that to next version. Thanks again.

<comment><USER3> It's because interacting with the app felt like interacting with a page in a word processor.

e.g. in Microsoft Word, if you select Heading Style, type heading text and then hit enter, the cursor is moved to a new paragraph (with the style automatically changed to body text or similar).

LibreOffice Writer does the same.</comment></comment></comment>


Rich Retirees Are Hoarding Cash Out of Fear - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-16/rich-retirees-are-hoarding-cash-out-of-fear?cmpid=BBD051617_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170516&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily <comment><USER2> My grandfather worked at Exxon Mobile for 60 years and retired around 1988 with a few million dollars in stock. I remember my dad saying he had about 3 Million in stock he purchased as his retirement plan.

He built a house and bought a couple of nice cars living on about 100,000 a year. About 12 years ago he had a heart attack and stroke and was bed ridden. 12 years of doctor bills and hospice ate through almost every dollar he saved.

My grandmother sold the house and now lives on her social security. Maybe people 60 should not be so fast to go spend their cash. He was 72 when he got sick and 84 this year when he finally passed away. If something happens to our grandmother there wont be a nice $3 million to cover 12 years of hospitalizations and surgeries.

<comment><USER3> Whatever you save with your blood, sweat and tears (if you are lucky) will be blown on medical expenses. The trick is to convert to cash (literal), then give it to your wife, convert medical expenses to debt and die.

<comment><USER4> The trick is to move to a country with proper healthcare

<comment><USER5> Or just die when you're old? Maybe that sounds harsh, but being bedridden for 12 years doesn't sound like any idea of a good life to me.

The old die to make way and free up resources for the young. That's the way it's supposed to work.

<comment><USER6> Someone's a fan of _Logan 's Run_.

Enjoy your manadatory execution when you're forty you old bastard.

<comment><USER5> False dichotomy. There's a pretty big difference between dying after having a stroke that leaves you permanently disabled in your 70s vs. mandatory execution of healthy 40-year-olds.

<comment><USER7> And you're trusting someone else to make that decision.

<comment><USER8> We should enable a culture where people are free to make that decision for themselves. California and several other US states allow for this - not sure about internationally.

I wouldn't want to live on life support. I'd rather my wife/kids get a nice (well managed) trust fund for the remaining savings and just go in peace early.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Fear? Seems more that there are simply no safe investments with decent returns, interest rates are abysmal. I think folks are 'hoarding' simply to not run out by the time they die.

Low interest rates are painted as great for the economy, but they amount to a war on savers and fixed incomes.

<comment><USER10> Oh, if we had high interest rates and inflation, people with fixed incomes and savers would be feeling horrible too.

The idea that there would be safe investments with decent returns is inherently ridiculous. The closest one can come is oligarchs buying tax policy, or baby boomers making sure that housing stock is inadequate so the prioe of the their home goes up artificially at the expense of the young and poor.

<comment><USER11> To me it seems that getting a decent return was a lot easier prior to 2007. Banks would pay interest rates of 6% or so and inflation was low. The stock market only gradually became overvalued.

<comment><USER12> Citation needed. In 2007 a 1 year cd was paying about half of that.

Savings account rates have not kept up with inflation in my adult life time and I'm middle aged.

<comment><USER13> I remember having a savings account at Emigrant Direct that was paying somewhere around 5%, back in 2006 or so.

See [https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/579954](https://www.fatwallet.com/forums/finance/579954)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I feel this is another down-stream effect of weak social support. If a country offers reasonable basic pension and healthcare, retirees will spend because they know if they run out of cash they have their basics covered. Without this support of course they will hoard money.

I saw this living in Norway where people in general tend to save less aggressively because they know if things go bad they are covered. And it worries me in my country of Australia where we are following the US model of ever reducing social services. It makes great short term savings but I feel there are these kind of longer term effects we pay the price for. And these effects are hard for many people to consider when its that far ahead so politically it is unlikely to change.

<comment><USER15> Healthcare is still so terrifying that I feel like I have to have millions of dollars saved up just in case. And the insufficient coverage we have now might not make it through the next two years unscathed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is a really good argument for subsidized medical care. This fear of not having enough for medical expenses is perfectly reasonable, and I wouldn't fault sometime for hoarding cash for a second.

Solve the inherited inequality problem with inheritance taxes or guarantee medical care. Otherwise of course people will save for medical expenses. And they should, it's prudent.

<comment><USER17> Retirees do have Medicare though, but with any socialized medical system you won't be covered for everything

<comment><USER11> Where I live, you still have to pay for opticians and dentists, and perhaps other medical treatments if you don't want to stay in a queue for a year or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fuck. I'm 30, and I just went through this. I quit a bad job to try to do my own thing; after a few months without a paycheck - despite having plenty of saving six ways from Sunday - I clammed up almost completely, not wanting to spend a dime. I was miserable. It's the same feeling as item hoarding in CRPGs.

Seems like I either need to never retire, or set up a trust for myself so I have a guaranteed allowance. (Or deal with the implicated fear....)

<comment><USER19> This is tough, man. Some things I did when I was younger that helped me with this:

1) Go for a period of time (I did a month) living off of rice and beans (as far as I can find, the cheapest way to get close to a complete meal)[1]

2) Pare down everything in your life that isn't absolutely necessary. I put my bed in storage and lived in a hammock for a year. Cut out hot water for a period, stuff like that.

Once you do some of those things and realize that you _can_ do it, living on a small income (or savings) in order to work on something becomes a lot easier.

I'm _really_ lucky in that my runway is infinite, and a big part of it is because of the things that I listed. I know exactly how much the minimum I need to live off of is, I know what its like to live on that amount of money, and I know that it isn't scary.

[0]: A lot of the world lives off of this. I'm not saying that this is a path to complete nutrition. It isn't. Everyone should eat a balanced diet.

<comment><USER20> Question... how did your back feel sleeping on a hammock for a year?

<comment><USER21> In hammocks from Brazil you sleep diagonal to the "axis" of the hammock and your body is almost rod-straight. Your back will feel just fine after a night sleeping like this.

<comment><USER22> > In hammocks from Brazil you sleep diagonal to the "axis" of the hammock and > your body is almost rod-straight.

Can you find a pic demonstrating what you mean?

<comment><USER23> [http://www.treklightgear.com/treklife/hammock- angle/](http://www.treklightgear.com/treklife/hammock-angle/) ... skip to where it talks about the angle.

<comment><USER22> That's some website, forcing me to enable javascript so I can use their "totally necessary" custom scrollbar </getoffmylawn>

Anyway, that's interesting. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> As your parents age you get a chance to see how they handle retirement. You may also get to see their critical thinking facilities deteriorate which, I can tell you, is very sad.

One of the things my parents get exposed to fairly heavily are stories that our entire financial system is teetering on the brink of massive depression. Often times it comes with an offer for a 'sure fire' investment that will ride out this calamity. Well if you're parents are still clued in enough to not buy the snake oil, they might miss that their future outlook is being swayed by these pitches even if they don't buy into them. My great aunt, before she passed, had a suitcase in her closet with lots of cash in it to survive the coming collapse of society.

It can be very sad to watch.

That said, a number of financial planners have moved their estimates of the 'safe withdrawal rate' from 7% down to 4% or sometimes lower. This based on the anemic rate of returns over the last decade. As a result if you reduced your withdrawal rate to 4% and you were still getting returns that could have supported 7% your retirement funds will in fact grow by 3% per year.

And finally there is the whole inheritance thing. When you have kids, anything you leave them when you pass will help, except if you live in the US your "kids" will be retired already when you die. So perhaps you leave your estate to your grandchildren, or your great grandchildren. Then the kids who chose to lower their carbon footprint by not having kids themselves get angry that they don't get any of your inheritance. That causes a family dispute and all your children stop talking to each other. It isn't a laughing matter, although it is predictable. Sometimes I think it is better to leave nothing but memories, at least everyone gets to keep all of those.

<comment><USER25> > My great aunt, before she passed, had a suitcase in her closet with lots of > cash in it to survive the coming collapse of society.

This in itself is poor preparation because it assumes the currency will still be worth something should some financial calamity on the purported scale occurs.

<comment><USER24> Agreed, I've had a couple of fun discussions with friends over what might be the "best" post apocalyptic future currency. Cigarettes were a popular suggestion, as was whisky, I thought perhaps medical supplies might make the cut, or bolts of canvas. What would you consider to be the 'best' barter currency, assuming cash had no specific value?

<comment><USER26> Guns, ammo, and whiskey. I don't expect humanity to stay civilized or play by the same rules.

The whiskey gives you something to trade. Guns & ammo make sure the trade isn't a robbery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are a lot of reasons why retirees could wind up spending less money aside form 'hoarding'. For one thing, retirees often have paid off their homes, and have no mortgage payments. In addition to that, having a daily job entails a lot of soft costs that often go unnoticed - without your daily commute, your car (and tank of gas) will last a lot longer, you won't eat out for lunch as often, and even your wardrobe will likely stretch further.

If my grandfather and father in law are any indication, the extra time around the house also mean that you can do a lot of work on your house yourself that you may have had to pay a plumber, carpenter, or electrician to do before.

Basically, a retired person can generally maintain their lifestyle on less money than a working person...

<comment><USER28> Unless they need health insurance. Employer plans often won't discriminate against you for your age, but on the public market, you will be taken for all you're worth.

You're also more likely to need medical care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > "As a result, millions of Americans are living too frugally"

WTF, really? Reminds me of Edward Bernays [1], the "father of public relations", who set out to help Americans become materialistic (and succeeded!).

If someone is enjoying their life without blowing all their money, that person is BETTER off. It's just corporations that want to suck the money away from them that need to "train them to spend."

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays)

<comment><USER30> Optionality has value but it decays over time. If you forgo consumption in favor of savings up until the very end then you haven't been better off, you've been worse off. The dead can't benefit from spending money.

<comment><USER27> The benefit of leaving my heirs a legacy far outweighs any 'benefit' I'd get from spending money needlessly...

<comment><USER30> Consider, it's up to you but consider, that you might get more joy out of gifts while you are alive to watch the recipients benefit from them than you do out of imagining how much they'll benefit from bequests you intend to leave when you die.

<comment><USER31> A valid concern. But estate planning lawyers like to remind people that it's quite possible you will get more love and attention from your relatives in your old age while they are still expecting an inheritance than when they know you have already given it to them. A bit cynical, but relevant to consider.

<comment><USER32> I sincerely hope that when I'm that old, I'll be above such pettiness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Read "Sending Jobs Overseas" and it makes sense.

1\. Their children and their children's children are competing with 100s of millions that they didn't have to. They are worried about them. There is no guarantee that the quality of life of their family will be like their own.

2\. They are worried about destabilization that could occur as the west declines.

</comment><comment><USER34> Maybe these people are well off because the developed the habit of saving over a lifetime and they are simply continuing the habit. If they were spenders, they wouldn't have the reserves to speak of.

It might not be fear but simply a practical habit that there is no real reason for them to break.

Keep in mind many people will have purchased items or experiences they desire throughout their life, rather than simply waiting for retirement.

</comment><comment><USER35>
      "We have to get people comfortable with enjoying their retirement and spending their money," Fellowes said.

Implying that the only way to enjoy retirement involves spending money

<comment><USER9> I'd be comfortable 'spending my money' in a future retirement if the retirement could generate decent passive income. As it stands, though, it's looking like many folks like me will have to work until we die and/or save enough to burn with just living and healthcare costs.

<comment><USER27> Do you foresee medicare failing?

Also, what's stopping you from setting up your retirement such that you do have passive income?

<comment><USER36> > Do you foresee medicare failing?

I see a non-zero chance that it won't be there when I reach retirement age in ~20 years.

These days, the US political climate is looking far friendlier to those who want to destroy wealth transfers that benefit the non-rich.

Also, the US political establishment in general is looking substantially less stable than it did 20 years ago. That's not to say it is going to break down in a year or five. But I do think making bets on it should only be done with money you don't need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Unexpected healthcare costs keep seniors nervous. Although Medicare and Medigap insurance plans offer good coverage, long term care and home health care is dauntingly expensive. Many rely on a mix of family + caregivers. Even then, the hourly/weekly/monthly costs are quite high.

</comment><comment><USER38> Surprised no comments that I've seen have mentioned the Great Recession. There were many, many stories in 2009 such as [0] about retirees forced to return to work due to decimated 401k's and investments, or people on the verge of retirement who saw their hopes vanish. Considering that the economy is likely due for another recession at any time, it doesn't seem surprising that many people are terrified.

[0]: [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-dreams-disappear- with...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/retirement-dreams-disappear-with-401ks/)

</comment><comment><USER39> _> After a lifetime of saving, it requires some psychological gymnastics to start spending your nest egg. Browning's suggestion is that financial planners urge their thriftiest clients to make big purchases–like a second home or a fancy car–before they retire, out of their pot of savings. The idea, he said, is "training people to spend."_

And that right there is where the article tipped over from "dumb" to "evil".

</comment><comment><USER40> Just another way in which "the world is becoming more like Japan" (wrt to its demographic and economic woes).

(The generaltional wealth gap is such that corporations have been shifting product strategy away from the youth and towards the elderly)

<comment><USER41> Japan has real health care

<comment><USER42> For the most part, US retirees have health care too.. more so than the rest of the population at younger ages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Excuse me while I align my values with the needs of the US economy.

</comment><comment><USER44> FTA, the value of the average retiree's estate is ~300k in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Using the 4% rule (make your money last 30 years), that's 12,000 a year, and that's probably skewed upward by the compounding of the super wealthy (20 richest people worth more than bottom 50%, 150 million people). The median is probably much, much lower (I'd wager 50k). That's living off of cat food in both cases, and if you're worried about social security or your pension... Did I miss something?

<comment><USER27> That's how much they had left when they died - not what they had when they retired. So that's _after_ the 20-30 years of living off those savings...

<comment><USER45> Spending down your principal may not be a smart idea though, especially if one is in good health. It runs the risk of them outliving their savings. Spending 4% or less of your assets annually is sustainable indefinitely, statistically speaking.

<comment><USER46> That's optimal from an individual perspective, but not necessarily from a societal perspective. The author suggests it might be better if people had insurance which paid an annuity after reaching a certain age (say 80) and then people could plan to have their savings run out at 80 instead of everyone having to plan to live until 100 with only a tiny fraction making it to that age.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It really comes down to healthcare. It's the one thing in the US that can completely bankrupt you in your later years.

<comment><USER48> Yes. Knowing that risk, it is completely rational to oversave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Surprising that cost of healthcare, especially for those who are 60+ is not factored in. If the same rich retiree lives in a country with same cost of living (but with super cheap/affordable healthcare), spending behavior would probably be very very different.

</comment><comment><USER50> Interesting choice of words to frame the discussion. When it comes to cash, hoarding is no different than saving. But hoarding has a negative connotation and saving is positive.

<comment><USER51> Absolutely. Also hilarious to me when a bunch of economists start whining about "stingy consumers" when inflation numbers aren't ticking up as much as the central bank hoped for. Meanwhile over half of Americans don't have enough savings to cover a $500 emergency car repair[0], but apparently they need to stop being so stingy and get out spend more to help the economy.

[0] [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant- handle-a-500...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-americans-cant- handle-a-500-surprise-bill/)

<comment><USER52> That's a pretty willful misrepresentation of his position. He acknowledges that many people don't have any savings; and makes it pretty clear that he isn't talking about them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Nobody hoards money. The money is invested into stocks and bonds where it flows back into the economy. Even bank deposits get loaned out, and people who borrow money spend it.

</comment><comment><USER54> Funny. In other words, we're not making enough people rich through our overspending already - those in retirement, who are supposed to feel security in their old age, should overspend too.

</comment><comment><USER55> On one hand there are articles saying young people don't have enough savings, and on the other hand there are these articles ruing that the older generation don't spend more.

Maybe we need to check which kind of industries are sponsoring the respective articles.

</comment><comment><USER56> Why is it painted as a problem? Why should you spend more than you need? Why is "enjoying a retirement" supposed to only be achieved by spending more money?

I don't get the point of the article.

<comment><USER57> Why should you save more than you need? What good does it do?

<comment><USER56> Why are buildings built with 3 times the structural integrity than they need?

Why are wires several times thicker than they need to carry the power the house needs?

Why are hammers much harder than nails?

It's called redundancy - you can never predict exactly what the needs would be, so you leave a healthy safety margin.

<comment><USER57> Overdoing any of each of your examples is a waste of resources, just like dying with a pile of cash.

<comment><USER58> You can engineer wiring to be the right size for the 99% use case. You can't do that with savings.

<comment><USER57> > _You can engineer wiring to be the right size for the 99% use case. You can > 't do that with savings._

This is not remotely correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Apparently the author thinks transferring wealth to one's heirs is a bad thing, but transferring it to insurance companies and nursing homes is not. But let's continue.

"What can get rich elderly Americans spending more? One way is to reassure them they're not going to run out of cash. Tools such as annuities and bond- ladders can turn a retirement account into a regular stream of income, mimicking a paycheck. Insurance products could also protect retirees against huge, late-in-life expenses from medical care—a dominant fear. Browning likes longevity insurance, an annuity that kicks in only if you live to 80 or 85. Other options are reverse mortgages or long-term care insurance."

With only a brief comment on health care costs (>10% yearly increases), let's discuss the various solutions --

Annuities - take your nest egg that rode decades of market fluctuations, and give it to another company to ride another decade or two of market fluctuations in exchange for a fixed monthly distribution. Never mind that every 401(k) plan I ever had would start paying you out of your acct after you reached 59.5 if you wanted it, and HAS to pay you out of your acct once you reach 70.5.

The various forms of insurance noted have a couple of things in common -- 1) they are overpriced relative to the benefit provided; 2) The benefit will be known and factored into the cost of your healthcare, thanks to the miracle of the SSN.

The best deal mentioned might be the reverse mortgage, but only if your heirs wouldn't need your house - which in my experience, they don't, but in 20 years, with current employment and social trends, who knows?

</comment><comment><USER60> I know a couple in their 70s, moderately successful entrepreneurs, who not only hoarded millions in cash but also refused to put any in the stock market since the early 2000s. They have kept it in ultra-safe, ultra low yield bank and bond accounts, with a relatively small investment in a Florida condo.

Their fear, borne from experiencing repeated stock market and real estate bubbles over many decades, is that yet another crash will decimate their savings.

</comment><comment><USER61> Maybe the government should consider spend more on public healthcare, so there is less fear

<comment><USER62> I like that argument. It seems tangential at first, but it would make a lot of retirees much more comfortable and willing to spend their money.

That line of reasoning sounds similar to the establishment of the FDIC bank account guarantee that helped end the Great Depression by alleviating people's fear of failing banks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Have you watched television or listened to radio aimed at older viewers / listeners? If it isn't about the upcoming apocalypse and how you need all the gold in the world that you haven't spent on supplies for your armageddon shelter, it's about Fred Thompson selling you reverse mortgages. Nobody's easier to scare than people who feel their vitality slipping away from them day by day.

<comment><USER64> Haha true, Fox News and fear-mongering gold ads seem to go hand-in-hand. I remember seeing them during Glenn Beck's show and thinking "wow, this is so right for his audience."

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Maybe some kind of inverse life insurance. Give pile of cash to insurance company and receive monthly paycheck for the remainder of your life. Essentially you are betting on a long life and they are betting on you driving your golf cart off the edge of a cliff. I think products like this exist in my country of residence; I'd be surprised if there is not a similar thing in the US.

On a side note, I read at one point that in France there is a tradition (not sure how widespread) of selling your home with the condition that the buyer must wait for you to move out, whether for health reason or because you die, and that you pay no rent while staying. Of course, the price is adjusted accordingly. Again, both parties are making a bet on the duration of your lifespan.

<comment><USER66> JFYI it is a rather common contract in Italy too, besides France, basically "full" property is divided into two parts:

1) "Nuda proprietà" (literally "Naked Property" but actually "bare ownership")

2) "Usufrutto" (usufruct or "life interest")

Selling the bare ownership is a rather convenient way to monetize your house when you are old and need some money (for medical expenses or whatever), while retaining the usufruct, which resolves _usually_ to the right to live in it (but could be also be pocketing the income from renting the building). The buyer of the bare ownership, on the other hand, pays in advance a (reduced) amount of money for the asset, but essentially "bets" on how soon it will become available.

It is often used also to reduce the amount of taxes payed to the state by the (future) heirs.

It isn't really applicable to the US, mainly for taxation reasons:

[http://publications.ruchelaw.com/news/2016-09/Usufruct- Code-...](http://publications.ruchelaw.com/news/2016-09/Usufruct- Code-2036.pdf)

The above article includes a French table of the percentages attributed to the two parts and here are the same valid in Italy (they are not much different):

[http://www.tonalini.it/resources/pdf/Usufrutto-vitalizio- Tab...](http://www.tonalini.it/resources/pdf/Usufrutto-vitalizio- Tabella2017.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> _too frugally_

hmmm...spending habit established over decades is not an easy thing to change, no matter how much money one has. I am not convinced _FEAR_ is a dominant factor. It could simply be that people think there is no need to spend much in order to have a decent life after retirement.

<comment><USER68> > spending habit established over decades is not an easy thing to change

I think that you are right. A lot of people is arguing about investments, health care, etc. like if human beings where "Homo economicus". We are not. We are not immune to rational arguments, but we take a lot of decisions based in what we learned in our youth. "Homo economicus" was an interesting way of thinking about humans, it is no more.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus)

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> There are two tracks in America. On one track are people with almost no net worth who will depend on social security and their homes, if they own one, for retirement savings.

The other track is people who actually read articles about retirement savings. They are a smaller group, often getting the advice meant for the former. They constantly hear that Americans don't save enough for retirement. The financial industry is constantly saying people aren't saving enough, in media venues that appeal to the affluent who don't really need that advice. But the more those affluent invest the more commissions they collect. So they stoke the anxiety to those who shouldn't feel anxious.

<comment><USER64> That's very interesting. I think this happens a lot (people getting advice meant for other people). The ones who care enough to hear the advice aren't the ones who typically need the advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> This graph in particular left me confused.

[https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ib_EJj3p7cW...](https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ib_EJj3p7cWQ/v1/800x-1.png)

So, in 1974, Americans didn't have retirement savings? Or the total sum was just too small to display on the graph?

Or is this just graphing one particular type of easily measurable asset which was introduced around then and has grown in popularity...

<comment><USER71> Pensions before. 401K and IRA now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> > On average and adjusting for inflation, retirees are entering their 80s > richer than they were in their 60s and 70s.

This is a misleading interpretation of data. On average, yes, but at the median, no. The median retiree's net worth is less than $100k at 60 and continues to decline with age.

[https://unitedincome.com/documents/papers/LivingTooFrugal.pd...](https://unitedincome.com/documents/papers/LivingTooFrugal.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER73> This is a really sloppy headline. "Cash" implies moving money out of stocks and into actual hard currency, which is not what they are talking about at all.

</comment><comment><USER74> I found the tone of this article somewhat obnoxious. "Why aren't these old codgers getting out there and spending like they should? We gotta find ways to make them feel more comfortable!" As someone whose father is 75 and doesn't have a dime, because he didn't watch his spending or have a savings plan, I find this attitude rather disconcerting.

</comment><comment><USER75> The money is being used productively in their various retirement investments. It's not like this is just cash under the bed.

</comment><comment><USER76> Haha, the owners of this economy are looking at the last, great reserve of consumer cash they can suck dry.

Labor has no pricing power. People working real jobs won't be spending wild dollars anytime soon. They've been neutered by wide-open valves of cheap imports.

</comment><comment><USER77> Maybe there is need for a startup that can pool the retirement money from retirees and assure them of a comfortable life style till the time they die. I think this will allow the retirees to enjoy their life much more rather than worrying about "what might happen...".

<comment><AUTHOR> You're thinking of an annuity [1], or more directly, government bonds.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_(American)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuity_\(American\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Okay so:

\- They think they are gonna live long, and need money.

\- They are confident cash is gonna be worth something. (They aren't getting rid of cash and hoarding gold, for instance).

Fear? I'm getting intoxicated with the sheer optimism of this.

</comment><comment><USER79> This is entirely rational behavior. Without credible ironclad insurance to backstop one's risks, "hoarding" assets is the proper path to take.

</comment><comment><USER80> > The average American over the age of 60 cuts spending 2.5 percent per year, > or about 20 percent over a 10-year period

That's not how math works...

</comment><comment><USER81> a table in the article implies that $300,000 nest egg makes you rich. Lol. that's not rich. that's marginal retirement.

<comment><USER46> $300k at the end of retirement not at the start. Having $300k more than you actually need isn't what I would call rich, but it's also not marginal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> This shows why the inheritance tax is so important. It's that or a stagnant economy.

</comment><comment><USER83> I suspect the biggest reason this is happening is there's no healthcare in U.S. and retirees simply have to account for that. Who will help pay the hospital bills of the "educated spenders" with no money when they get a serious disease?

</comment><comment><USER84> Who makes money of the retiree spend more money?

</comment><comment><USER84> This is some crazy shit.</comment>