zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
I can't be the only person disturbed by the penetration of terms like "obsession" into nominally professional culture. You should not be asking your employees to qualify for DSM symptoms just to not get fired (with severance, lol, that is genuinely a step up from nothing even if it's clearly meant to soften the psychological shock of reading about A- B- and C- employees).

>>darby_+hK1
You may not find it appealing, but the truth is that most major successes are driven by obsession. It’s not a balanced or psychologically sound way to live—no one claims it is. If you believe great achievements come from people working regular hours, taking it slow, and maintaining a comfortable pace, you are mistaken.

Newton, Steve Jobs, Marie Curie...the list goes on. These people's success wasn't a product of balance or moderation

>>xwowse+gZ1
> You may not find it appealing, but the truth is that most major successes are driven by obsession.

Great, don't force it on your employees. I am not working for you for anything other than a paycheck and flexible working conditions and stimulating work.

>>darby_+N22
Nobody is forcing you to work for Mr Beast

>>humani+ab2
> Nobody is forcing you to work for Mr Beast

No, being unemployed is the coercive factor here. It's not fair to treat at-will employment as non-coercive unless non-employment is actually zero. Non-employment currently stands at about 7.7%: https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/non_em...

Why would anyone turn down a chance to make a living if a job is offered? Why do you think the fed ensures that there are never enough jobs for everyone? Why do you think the fed and the business world talks about the economy in terms of "jobs" and "unemployment" when these are metrics largely unrelated to stuff like "am I actually getting a fair wage" and "is housing priced anywhere near rationally"? etc—the non-coercive labor market is a complete illusion.