每次看到“躺平”(quitet quitting)这种词汇,我都会心跳加速。Z世代在TikTok上让这个词流行起来。它鼓励员工做最低限度的工作。它令我变得像少年时一样恐慌。那时候,哪怕偷懒一分钟,都可能毁掉我的未来。
高中时,我生活在寄养家庭,有时候无家可归。我渴望能到常春藤名校就读,能有一份可靠的工作,让我可以过上稳定的生活。早在少年时期,我就很清楚,进入一所更顶级的高校就读,毕业后我就更容易找到一份高薪工作。努力进入顶级高校就能很快过上有保障的安稳生活,否则就要像千禧一代的同龄人所苦恼的那样背负沉重的债务。人们在谈论工作狂猝死的新闻时,很少有人会提到赢者通吃的大环境。在这样的大环境下,许多人根本不敢有敷衍了事的想法。
我在少年时期就是奋斗文化的典范,不是因为我想要这样做,而是我不得不这样做。我出生在一个混乱的工薪家庭。父母的精神健康问题,意味着我无法享受到稳定的家庭生活。在高中时,我只能到处借宿,有时候睡在车里,或者住在避难所。读大学似乎成为我摆脱这种困境的唯一途径,但只有少数几所精英高校向低收入学生提供全额助学金。如果去稍差一些的大学就读,我必须背负沉重的学生贷款,而这些贷款将成为我的负担,让我很难过上渴望的生活。压力始终困扰着我。我出现失眠,对考试成绩和分数感到恐惧。我大量服用治疗注意力缺失的药物阿德拉(Adderall),我用自残的方式保持头脑清醒,从而更努力地学习。
我从未考虑过这些做法是否健康。但我并非凭空做出了这些选择。我基于可以得到的激励进行过计算。在收到录取通知的那一刻,我感觉一切都值得了:哈佛大学(Harvard)为我提供了全额奖学金,包括每个学期一张用于支付差旅和书本费的支票。其他常春藤盟校和文科学院要求我每年支付约13,000美元。如果我选择就读一家较为普通的高校,毕业后我将背负超过20万美元学生贷款。
我很幸运能获得哈佛大学的全额奖学金。但我从身边人身上看到了各种令人失望的经历和错过机会的成本。我的母亲在大衰退期间失业,她曾申请过一份政府工作,希望重新开启自己的事业。但她未能通过打字测试,因此没有获得那份工作。最终她做了三份零工,只够维持日常开支,而且没有医疗保险。
读大学之后,我见到许多留学生担心毕业后无法找到一份能够提供签证担保的工作,可能被迫离开美国。成功与失败往往只有一线之隔。而且一切都充满了不确定性:你几乎不可能预测自己能否成功,等到知道结果的时候却为时已晚。我认为,唯一的解决方案是时时刻刻全力以赴。奋斗文化不仅根植于我的思想,也深深地烙印在我的身体里,刻在了我的神经系统当中。
我有时候确实会松懈。在大四之前的暑假,我获得了在谷歌(Google)的软件工程师实习机会。当时,我觉得事情已经万无一失,于是每天晚上下班后,我会去健身,进行社交,而不是为面试进行学习。到了秋季,谷歌确实给我提供了一份全职工作,但我没有收到其他任何工作邀请。这意味着我没有任何可以谈判的筹码。谷歌为我提供的年薪是13万美元,这是一笔很高的报酬,是我年少时单亲妈妈的工资的四倍以上,但我的同学都得到了比我更高的薪酬。在众所周知对女性并不友好的行业,我不愿意刚入行时的薪酬更低。我在12个周的时间里,每天与室友外出就餐,而不是学习《程序员面试金典》(Cracking the Coding Interview),这是否就是我与同学的工资相差六位数的原因呢?
我安慰自己,能在谷歌找到一份工作已经很幸运,我不应该有更高的奢望。在谷歌要求我做出决定的前一晚,另外一家公司的招聘人员打来电话,说他们弄丢了我的简历。于是第二天,我飞往加州,轻松得到了一份薪酬更高的工作。到周末,谷歌将我的薪酬提高到每年20万美元。一次面试让我每年的收入增加了7万美元,在获得股票之后更是增加到10万美元。
这让我感到震惊,不是出于狂喜,而是受到了冲击。这个巨大的差额证实了我一直以来所坚信的一种偏执的想法,那就是一个错误可能对我的未来产生严重影响。与许多人一样,我的工资不止是供我自己消费:我希望能在经济上帮助母亲,我也愿意在需要的时候承担侄子侄女们的学费。我从哈佛大学毕业时没有任何学生贷款,而且一毕业就找到了一份薪酬达到六位数的工作,因此我从毕业就可以开始攒钱,过上稳定的生活,甚至可以考虑停止奋斗。
但我还是注意到,有关“默默放弃进取”的对话中有太多关于种族和阶级的假设。一名白人律师当然可以每周工作四天,他的薪酬不会因此减少,一名中高阶层的创意人员也可以只专注于他喜欢的项目。但这些假设却忽视了我们的社会并不平等这个事实。收银员、仓库员工和家庭健康助手等长时间工作只能获得微薄的报酬,而且工作安全没有太大保障。大多数人努力奋斗并不是为了自我实现,而只是为了生存。
关键是,我们需要承认劳动力对社会的影响。但将奋斗文化视为个人的问题,却忽视了它的“文化”属性:这种行为源自少部分赢家获得超额回报的体制。我们当然可以后退一步问问自己,获得的效益和付出的成本是否等值,但默默放弃进取并不是适合所有人的答案。它无非是面对社会问题的一种个人解决方案,并不是为了服务所有人,但后果却可能由最弱势的劳动者来承担。(财富中文网)
本文作者艾米·内特菲尔德曾任谷歌和Facebook工程师,是回忆录《Acceptance》一书的作者。
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
每次看到“躺平”(quitet quitting)这种词汇,我都会心跳加速。Z世代在TikTok上让这个词流行起来。它鼓励员工做最低限度的工作。它令我变得像少年时一样恐慌。那时候,哪怕偷懒一分钟,都可能毁掉我的未来。
高中时,我生活在寄养家庭,有时候无家可归。我渴望能到常春藤名校就读,能有一份可靠的工作,让我可以过上稳定的生活。早在少年时期,我就很清楚,进入一所更顶级的高校就读,毕业后我就更容易找到一份高薪工作。努力进入顶级高校就能很快过上有保障的安稳生活,否则就要像千禧一代的同龄人所苦恼的那样背负沉重的债务。人们在谈论工作狂猝死的新闻时,很少有人会提到赢者通吃的大环境。在这样的大环境下,许多人根本不敢有敷衍了事的想法。
我在少年时期就是奋斗文化的典范,不是因为我想要这样做,而是我不得不这样做。我出生在一个混乱的工薪家庭。父母的精神健康问题,意味着我无法享受到稳定的家庭生活。在高中时,我只能到处借宿,有时候睡在车里,或者住在避难所。读大学似乎成为我摆脱这种困境的唯一途径,但只有少数几所精英高校向低收入学生提供全额助学金。如果去稍差一些的大学就读,我必须背负沉重的学生贷款,而这些贷款将成为我的负担,让我很难过上渴望的生活。压力始终困扰着我。我出现失眠,对考试成绩和分数感到恐惧。我大量服用治疗注意力缺失的药物阿德拉(Adderall),我用自残的方式保持头脑清醒,从而更努力地学习。
我从未考虑过这些做法是否健康。但我并非凭空做出了这些选择。我基于可以得到的激励进行过计算。在收到录取通知的那一刻,我感觉一切都值得了:哈佛大学(Harvard)为我提供了全额奖学金,包括每个学期一张用于支付差旅和书本费的支票。其他常春藤盟校和文科学院要求我每年支付约13,000美元。如果我选择就读一家较为普通的高校,毕业后我将背负超过20万美元学生贷款。
我很幸运能获得哈佛大学的全额奖学金。但我从身边人身上看到了各种令人失望的经历和错过机会的成本。我的母亲在大衰退期间失业,她曾申请过一份政府工作,希望重新开启自己的事业。但她未能通过打字测试,因此没有获得那份工作。最终她做了三份零工,只够维持日常开支,而且没有医疗保险。
读大学之后,我见到许多留学生担心毕业后无法找到一份能够提供签证担保的工作,可能被迫离开美国。成功与失败往往只有一线之隔。而且一切都充满了不确定性:你几乎不可能预测自己能否成功,等到知道结果的时候却为时已晚。我认为,唯一的解决方案是时时刻刻全力以赴。奋斗文化不仅根植于我的思想,也深深地烙印在我的身体里,刻在了我的神经系统当中。
我有时候确实会松懈。在大四之前的暑假,我获得了在谷歌(Google)的软件工程师实习机会。当时,我觉得事情已经万无一失,于是每天晚上下班后,我会去健身,进行社交,而不是为面试进行学习。到了秋季,谷歌确实给我提供了一份全职工作,但我没有收到其他任何工作邀请。这意味着我没有任何可以谈判的筹码。谷歌为我提供的年薪是13万美元,这是一笔很高的报酬,是我年少时单亲妈妈的工资的四倍以上,但我的同学都得到了比我更高的薪酬。在众所周知对女性并不友好的行业,我不愿意刚入行时的薪酬更低。我在12个周的时间里,每天与室友外出就餐,而不是学习《程序员面试金典》(Cracking the Coding Interview),这是否就是我与同学的工资相差六位数的原因呢?
我安慰自己,能在谷歌找到一份工作已经很幸运,我不应该有更高的奢望。在谷歌要求我做出决定的前一晚,另外一家公司的招聘人员打来电话,说他们弄丢了我的简历。于是第二天,我飞往加州,轻松得到了一份薪酬更高的工作。到周末,谷歌将我的薪酬提高到每年20万美元。一次面试让我每年的收入增加了7万美元,在获得股票之后更是增加到10万美元。
这让我感到震惊,不是出于狂喜,而是受到了冲击。这个巨大的差额证实了我一直以来所坚信的一种偏执的想法,那就是一个错误可能对我的未来产生严重影响。与许多人一样,我的工资不止是供我自己消费:我希望能在经济上帮助母亲,我也愿意在需要的时候承担侄子侄女们的学费。我从哈佛大学毕业时没有任何学生贷款,而且一毕业就找到了一份薪酬达到六位数的工作,因此我从毕业就可以开始攒钱,过上稳定的生活,甚至可以考虑停止奋斗。
但我还是注意到,有关“默默放弃进取”的对话中有太多关于种族和阶级的假设。一名白人律师当然可以每周工作四天,他的薪酬不会因此减少,一名中高阶层的创意人员也可以只专注于他喜欢的项目。但这些假设却忽视了我们的社会并不平等这个事实。收银员、仓库员工和家庭健康助手等长时间工作只能获得微薄的报酬,而且工作安全没有太大保障。大多数人努力奋斗并不是为了自我实现,而只是为了生存。
关键是,我们需要承认劳动力对社会的影响。但将奋斗文化视为个人的问题,却忽视了它的“文化”属性:这种行为源自少部分赢家获得超额回报的体制。我们当然可以后退一步问问自己,获得的效益和付出的成本是否等值,但默默放弃进取并不是适合所有人的答案。它无非是面对社会问题的一种个人解决方案,并不是为了服务所有人,但后果却可能由最弱势的劳动者来承担。(财富中文网)
本文作者艾米·内特菲尔德曾任谷歌和Facebook工程师,是回忆录《Acceptance》一书的作者。
译者:刘进龙
审校:汪皓
Every time I see the words “quiet quitting,” my heart starts racing. The term, popularized by a Gen Z TikToker encouraging employees to do the bare minimum at work, floods me with the same panic I felt as an adolescent when it seemed like even one minute of slacking could sabotage my future.
In high school, I spent time in foster care and homeless, praying that an Ivy League college and a blue-chip job could catapult me into stability. Even as a teenager, I understood that getting into a slightly more exclusive university would make it easier for me to land a high-paying job right out of college—and that would mean the difference between shouldering the debt that plagues many of my millennial peers or immediate security. In the discourse about the death of workaholism, few are talking about the winner-take-all circumstances that make phoning it in an impossible proposition for many of us.
As a teenager, I exemplified hustle culture—not because I wanted to, but because I had to. I grew up in a chaotic working-class family. My parents’ mental health issues meant an unsteady home life. In high school, I bounced from sofa to sofa, slept in my car, and stayed at a shelter. College seemed like my only way out, but only a few elite universities offered full financial aid to low-income students. At a school even one tier down, I’d have to take out massive student loans that would’ve kept me tethered to the life I was fighting to leave. The pressure weighed on me constantly. I couldn’t sleep, gripped with terror over test scores and grades. I abused Adderall and cut myself to clear my mind so I could study harder.
I’d never argue that this was healthy. But I wasn’t making these choices in a vacuum. They were calculated, based on the incentives at hand. And when admissions decisions came in, I felt vindicated: Harvard offered me a full ride, including a check every semester for travel and books. The other Ivies and liberal art schools I got into asked me to pay roughly $13,000 a year. If I had chosen to attend one slightly less-selective school, I would have graduated with more than $200,000 in student loans.
While I was overwhelmingly lucky to land a full ride to Harvard, I saw all around me the disappointment and cost of missed opportunities. After losing her job during the Great Recession, my mom tried to reboot her career by applying for a government job. But after failing a typing test—and not getting the job—she ended up working three gigs to pay the bills, none with health insurance.
Once I was on campus, I met international students terrified they wouldn’t land a job that sponsored visas and would be forced to leave the country after graduation. The line between success and failure seemed razor thin. And it was all so unpredictable: It was almost impossible to know if you succeeded until it was too late. The only solution I could think of was to work as hard as humanly possible at every possible moment. Hustle culture was ingrained not only in my mind but in my body, etched into my nervous system.
At times, I did loosen up. I landed a software engineering internship at Google for the summer before my senior year of college. Feeling more secure, I spent my evenings after work at the gym and socializing instead of studying for interviews. In the fall, Google offered me a full-time role—but I didn’t get any other offers. This meant I had no leverage to negotiate. Google was offering me $130,000 a year, an impressive sum and more than four times what my single mom earned when I was a teenager—but classmates were getting offers for far more. In an industry notoriously hostile to women, I was loath to go in making less. Could it really be the case that 12 weeks of eating dinner with my roommates instead of studying Cracking the Coding Interview would make a six-figure difference?
I consoled myself by thinking I was lucky to get the job at Google, that I couldn’t have hoped for more. Then the night before Google’s decision deadline, I got a call from another company’s recruiter who told me they’d lost my résumé. I flew out to California the next day and easily got the more lucrative job. By the end of the week, Google had matched the offer to pay me $200,000 a year. Thanks to a single interview, I was going to earn $70,000 more annually—and that amount ballooned to a $100,000 gap by the time my stocks vested.
I was stunned, less ecstatic than in shock. The massive difference confirmed my long-held paranoia that one wrong move could materially alter my future. Like many people, my salary wasn’t just for me: I wanted to be able to support my mom financially, and when the time came, chip in for my nieces’ and nephews’ education. Because I graduated from Harvard without any student loans and immediately landed a job making six figures, I was able to save money straight out of school, gain stability, and eventually have the type of life where I could consider pulling back.
But I can’t help but notice how the dialogue around quiet quitting makes so many assumptions about race and class. Yes, it’s great that a white lawyer can go down to four days a week without taking a pay cut or that an upper-middle-class creative can step back to focus only on the projects he loves. But those hypotheticals ignore the realities of our unequal society, where cashiers, warehouse employees, and home health aides pull long hours for low pay and not much job security. Most people are not hustling to self-actualize. They’re hustling because they need to survive.
It’s crucial that, as a society, we acknowledge the toll that labor takes on us. But to treat hustle culture as an individual ailment ignores the “culture” part of it: This behavior arises from a system where tiny wins lead to outsize prizes. While it’s healthy to step back and ask if the benefits are worth the cost, quiet quitting is not the answer for everyone. It risks being yet another individual solution for a social problem—a solution that does not serve everyone and may leave the most vulnerable workers picking up the slack.
Emi Nietfeld is a former engineer at Google and Facebook. She’s the author of a memoir, Acceptance. You can find her on twitter @eminietfeld.