Well, sure, you need to apply the “hard work” towards something useful. I’m taking it as a given in this thread that no one thinks that “hard work” at a useless task will get them ahead.
You can work hard at basketball. You’re not going to make a living at it.
You can work hard at art. You’re not going to make a living at it.
You can work hard at ditch-digging. That’s still only going to take you so far.
What I’m judging “hard work” against is “not hard work” in the same field. If you DO work hard at basketball, you’re probably not going to make a living at it, but you have a better chance of that happening than if you don’t work hard.
Perhaps we’re just being too abstract here. No, “hard work” in a hamster wheel doesn’t get you any further than napping in a hamster wheel. But, none of us has a job running a hamster wheel do we? If your job is running a hamster wheel, don’t complain that “hard work” doesn’t get you ahead. Complain because you’re in a bad job.
Let’s be concrete. At my programming job. . .well, I supervise, and I get supervised. And the people I supervise. . .I know who gets their shit done, and who doesn’t. Whether those people are working hard or extra-talented, I don’t know and I don’t give a shit. When it comes to review time, the ones who get good reviews are the ones who get their shit done.
They get more responsibility, more interesting work, and more pay.
They don’t get advances because of who they know. They’re not just making some old lazy guy rich.
Luck does play a part in success. So does hard work. It’s silly to ignore either of these.
When I was in my early 20s, I put aside aspirations for a music career in favor of studying electrical engineering and mathematics. That was around twenty years ago, and I’ve done pretty well – I earn a low six-figure income doing interesting work in a pleasant, low-stress environment.
I had the benefit of living in the US, specifically, in a place with a good, low-tuition state university. This enabled me to work my way through and graduate (it took me five years for a four-year degree) debt-free. I acknowledge that this would be harder (maybe impossible) to do today, with the rate that tuition has gone up over the last twenty years.
There are people I went to school with – people as every bit as hard-working and smart as me – who aren’t doing as well as I am. Some of them had family or health problems. Some of them just got fewer lucky breaks than I seemed to. One guy, who actually tutored me when I first took calculus, later got his Ph.D. and taught for six years at a very good university. But he didn’t get tenure. When I talked to him at our twenty-year reunion, he was teaching math in a high school. This guy was the smartest math mind in our graduating class, and probably earns less than half what I do.
There are also people I grew up with who still haven’t connected those years I spent in college with the ‘lucky breaks’ I’ve had since. One guy, an electrician I played in a band with, was always telling me I was wasting my time staying up late studying. (I’m reminded of a headline in The Onion: “49 Year Old Roofer Declares College ‘A Waste of Time’”).
There’s no guarantee that working hard will put you ahead of people luckier or more talented. But I can’t think of an instance where it will make things worse for you.
And, FWIW, I now have time to pursue music more seriously than I ever have in my life.
The kind of “success” and “hard work” we’re talking about in this thread IS what msmith is talking about. And, I was using my “annoyingly extreme” example, intentionally, as a way of pointing that out.
I don’t know if msmith ONLY defines success as a well-connected consulting job, or as a successful business owner. Probably not. But certainly, the OP isn’t getting at a more holistic definition of success, “inner peace, happiness, family, security”.
Personally, I find that to be a more worthy goal, too. But, it’s just not what we’re talking about.
That probably is what we are talking about though. While it is possible to have inner peace and happiness in a van down by the river, most people won’t find inner peace, happiness, family and security down there. Everyone has different needs, but for most people, some amount of financial success (even if that is "being able to pay the insurance and car tabs for the van down by the river) is important to that happiness and inner peace.
Let’s say you are happy living in your VW bus. You still need gas and food. So you’ll need some way of paying for it. Maybe you put out a hat and play your guitar…it probably is in your best interest to do this regularly, to go through the effort of finding a productive corner, and to play well enough that people will drop money in your hat. That takes some work…it may not be HARD work, but few of us are fortunate enough to have our needs met sitting on our butts.
Even if you are a Buddhist monk and do nothing but meditate for inner peace, perfecting inner peace is something that takes constant practice and work.
Hmm. Professional success = being a big time consultant. And in fact, working hard only includes climbing the corporate ladder by such serious applications to one’s job as “networking” and nudging around to find out all the latest corporate gossip? Who knew?
Funny. I work for a company where I’d be willing to bet that zero employees fit msmith537’s description. Mind you, most of them are PHDs in biology and/or chemistry. Mind you, they’re identifying potential medical treatments for minor little ailments like rheumatoid arthritis. Mind you, there isn’t one of them who isn’t making enough money to live quite comfortably. No, they’re failures for the sake of this argument!
If kissing corporate ass and majoring in smarmy in order to pull down 6 or 7 figures in your twenties is your sole definition of success for the sake of this argument, then I think I not only don’t want to participate, I don’t think I want to know any of you!
If on the other hand, we’re talking “paying off” in the sense of being able to do reasonably acceptable (or even enjoyable) work and earn a reasonably comfortable living (by which I mean upper middle class) and retire without wondering how you’re going to live more than two weeks each month, then yes, hard work (of by no means necessarily msmith537’s or trunk’s definition) is certainly going to make that more probable. But there are no guarantees, folks. No matter how much real skill your job should require, there are always the people who will talk themselves into it, and not do a bloody thing, and there are always people who will have simple shitty luck or obligations that prevent them from doing as well as they might.
So is listening to a bunch of losers complain about how life has dealt them a bum hand who then go on about how they slip under the radar at work and put in the bare minimum and THEN bitch about how much of a jerk their boss is for asking them to actually do their job!
There are other schools besides the Ivy League. My school was probably not dissimilar. Maybe one or two go to Yale, or UPenn. Some more go to the Villanovas and Boston Colleges. The vast majority go to mediocre state schools.
Just because I can’t get into Harvard should I throw up my hands and say “fuck it! State U Auxillary Campus is good enough!”?
Well I was under the assumption the OP was talking about professional “hard work”. If that is in fact what we are talking about then by “pay off” it is usually assumed that one means tangible rewards like higher compensation, greater position and title and maybe some less tangible rewards like job satisfaction and recognition.
For those people their hard work has paid off. They went and got PHDs and are pursuing meaningful work in their field.
Now if their beef is that they worked hard and they aren’t being compensated well compared to other industries, well, they should have considered that as part of their career selection process. I have to believe that there are some good financial opportunities in healthcare though.
I don’t think I said that “pay off” had to simply be pure financial success. I also understand that the environment you are born into is a big factor in the opportunities available to you. But some people choose to work with the tools they are given the best they can while others use it as an excuse to do jack shit. Now if you are content with doing nothing, more power to you. But I sense that some of you aren’t.
Well, you should have left it like it was. People were giving you the benefit of the doubt even though your real message makes no sense.
You have a broken bike and need it fixed to ride to school on Monday. One person goes around to find parts, eventually locates some, goes home and opens the manual, and struggles through the repair. He has a working bike and learned something. The non-hard worker goes to the first bike shop, finds out they don’t have the part and the mechanic isn’t in, figures that is enough for one day and goes home.
Relationships are work too. Some people are lucky enough to have something fall in their lap. Other people know the right person is hard to find and make an effort to meet people, join things, and maybe join a dating service meeting new people week after week until they find someone. Other people just say “all the good ones are taken” and give up on their dream of a long-term mate and maybe even children.
Is it mind-boggling that you can sit there and see your own statements on the screen and still believe they have merit.
I think one component of this argument that people are missing, is that in many jobs, there isn’t a very direct correlation between hard work and any sort of advancement or extra rewards.
To frame it a different way, imagine you’re taking a class in college where you come up to the final exam, which is worth 20% of your final grade, and you have an 86% average on your previous coursework. Assuming a 10 point grading scale, this is a solid B.
Now you can bust your ass, stay up cramming, re-read the book, form study groups, make flash cards, etc… and make that 100% on the final exam, which still gives you a 89% final average, and you still get a B.
Or… you can do a moderate amount of studying, get a good night’s sleep, have a good dinner and a few beers, and make an 83% on the exam, and still get an 85.4% final average, and you still get a B.
That, I think, is a good illustration of what people are griping about- there’s not always much point to “working hard” in many jobs or situations, since much is decided by dumb luck, political factors, etc…
That’s not the problem of not working hard, that’s the problem of applying work where it won’t do you any good. Had you worked hard on your previous coursework, you could be going into the final with a 99 (after all the material isn’t beyond you - you got 100% if you studied). Which is the same problem when people complain about working hard in a job and getting nowhere - chances are good they are applying their work in the wrong place. Either their employer isn’t one to reward hard work (doesn’t matter how hard you work if the promotion is going to the owner’s son anyway), or they are working where it won’t be noticed, or they are huffing and puffing against the wrong thing. I really don’t care how hard you work at getting something done I don’t need done. I do care if you turn around the thing I need done in half the expected time and with good quality.
You’re looking at this in a biblical manner and taking the sentence literally. It’s meant to convey a way of life and there is more meaning to the statement than the words themselves.
Think of it as a way of saying that if you apply yourself and keep at it you will be leagues ahead of the game. That applies to most situations. There’s a great Farside cartoon that shows the absurdity of the literal statement. It shows a kid going into to a school for the gifted and he’s putting everything he has into pushing a door open that is marked pull.
This is a very valid point. But the thing is, you had a chance to get hire than an 86% earlier in the semester. By finals time, you are stuck with what you are stuck with.
Same with careers. If you blew off classes in high school, subsequently went to a mediocre college where you just squeeked by, and worked half ass at the same BS job for 5 years, you are more limited in your career options.
That’s kind of how companies develop a culture of mediocrity. If you create an environment where there is no room for growth or advancement, people with the means will take better offers elsewhere. The only people left will be other screwups who can’t get a better job or wont because they like the environment.
It generally does pay off a lot more than not working at those things. Provided you work smart.
If there’s anything this thread has taught me, it’s that I should be thankful for living in Canada where tuition is much cheaper and your opportunities aren’t always defined by what school you go to - a person who goes to the #10 rated medical program and another in the #1 could very well work together in the same position later. If I would have had to worry about getting into an Ivy League school, I’d probably have gone nuts, and the lower tuition does offer me more options.
I’m still not sure if we’ve come to agreement on what working hard means, but I’m also wondering what the OP meant by “pay off.” In the most literal sense, I guess pay = paycheck.
But there’s more to compensation than a paycheck. In my field (education), pay is relatively low, but the compensation also includes more time off than you can shake a stick at. I’d be annoyed that all my hard work wasn’t paying off if I was looking for it in my bank account, but I’m living large when it comes to having time to pursue my non-professional interests (and lest I sound too lofty, I will note that my non-professional interests include sitting around on my front porch wearing cut-offs and drinking beer while plenty of other people are still at their jobs).
I assert that you need to identify what pay off you have in mind before figuring out what kind of work is going to get you there.
They aren’t defined here that way either. They are in msmith’s industry and experience, but I’ve worked with a lot of senior executives at Fortune 500 companies, and not all of them have Ivy League degrees - some of them don’t even have graduate degrees. And where they did get an Ivy League education, its often grad school - undergrad was (here in the Midwest) often at some Midwestern private liberal arts college.
I’ve also met Harvard grads (and Columbia and Stanford grads) who are sitting in cubes near me doing very similar jobs to what I do (and I never finished my state school bachelor’s degree).
If I study my ass off, I want at least a “B” in a class.
If I work my ass off at work, I want more than a nickel raise.
If I do just about everything to help or please someone, I want something in return. That could be more respect, a favor, gift, compliment…or anything that shows that I’m appreciated.
I should point out that it’s really at the graduate level where school name matters. At the undergrad level, provided you didn’t go to a complete joke school, your academic and extraciricular acomplishments matter more. For MBAs or law schools, much greater attention is paid to the school name.
Of course a lot of it depends on what kind of work you want to do. If you want to do strategy consulting for McKinsey or Bain you really need to have graduated from one of the schools on their recruiting list. There are different levels of companies and as you move down the list in terms of prestige, the criteria for entry as well as the pay lowers.
A lot of people do “go nuts”. There can be an incredible amount of pressure if you are expected to go to Wharton and get a job at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker. A lot of those people have a one track mindset that if they don’t get a job on Wall Street making $300,000 a year or a job with a top law firm their life is over.
I think the word “work” is what’s causing much of the confusion here. Well, not even so much the classic definition of work but what it encompasses.
Person A might consider 37.5 hours a week on the phone at a customer call center to be his work week. Anything outside of that is his play time and should not involve any job/career related activities.
Person B might work the same job but join happy hours with co-workers to “network” as well as take evening classes to enhance his skills to apply for a more technical or senior position.
One can’t say that Person A is not working hard or diligently over the 37.5 hour stretch. But Person B is working with a goal in mind that isn’t to just get to the weekend.
So there is hard work and there is hard work with a goal/purpose for greater success.
As for well educated people with PhD’s working for 5 figure salaries in university labs in pursuit of loftier goals than personal wealth (curing cancer, etc…) well, that’s a personal choice, isn’t it? They could have opted to join a private pharmaceutical company that would have offered them higher salaries and a chance to move up the corporate ladder with greater financial success. Instead they chose a path of academia because that sort of insular environment suits them best and jibes better with their character. BTW, I’ve worked with academics. Don’t think for a second that the politics in academia are not as bad as in the corporate world. In some ways it’s worse. As someone once put it, “The politics in academia is much worse precisely because there is so little to gain.”
So “hard work” is really a very loose term and is better defined with the additional dimensions of direction and purpose. Does one work hard to stay where they are in a job, or does one work hard to move up the food chain?
