每次看到“躺平”(quitet quitting)這種詞匯,我都會心跳加速。Z世代在TikTok上讓這個詞流行起來。它鼓勵員工做最低限度的工作。它令我變得像少年時一樣恐慌。那時候,哪怕偷懶一分鐘,都可能毀掉我的未來。
高中時,我生活在寄養(yǎng)家庭,有時候無家可歸。我渴望能到常春藤名校就讀,能有一份可靠的工作,讓我可以過上穩(wěn)定的生活。早在少年時期,我就很清楚,進(jìn)入一所更頂級的高校就讀,畢業(yè)后我就更容易找到一份高薪工作。努力進(jìn)入頂級高校就能很快過上有保障的安穩(wěn)生活,否則就要像千禧一代的同齡人所苦惱的那樣背負(fù)沉重的債務(wù)。人們在談?wù)摴ぷ骺疋赖男侣剷r,很少有人會提到贏者通吃的大環(huán)境。在這樣的大環(huán)境下,許多人根本不敢有敷衍了事的想法。
我在少年時期就是奮斗文化的典范,不是因為我想要這樣做,而是我不得不這樣做。我出生在一個混亂的工薪家庭。父母的精神健康問題,意味著我無法享受到穩(wěn)定的家庭生活。在高中時,我只能到處借宿,有時候睡在車?yán)?,或者住在避難所。讀大學(xué)似乎成為我擺脫這種困境的唯一途徑,但只有少數(shù)幾所精英高校向低收入學(xué)生提供全額助學(xué)金。如果去稍差一些的大學(xué)就讀,我必須背負(fù)沉重的學(xué)生貸款,而這些貸款將成為我的負(fù)擔(dān),讓我很難過上渴望的生活。壓力始終困擾著我。我出現(xiàn)失眠,對考試成績和分?jǐn)?shù)感到恐懼。我大量服用治療注意力缺失的藥物阿德拉(Adderall),我用自殘的方式保持頭腦清醒,從而更努力地學(xué)習(xí)。
我從未考慮過這些做法是否健康。但我并非憑空做出了這些選擇。我基于可以得到的激勵進(jìn)行過計算。在收到錄取通知的那一刻,我感覺一切都值得了:哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard)為我提供了全額獎學(xué)金,包括每個學(xué)期一張用于支付差旅和書本費(fèi)的支票。其他常春藤盟校和文科學(xué)院要求我每年支付約13,000美元。如果我選擇就讀一家較為普通的高校,畢業(yè)后我將背負(fù)超過20萬美元學(xué)生貸款。
我很幸運(yùn)能獲得哈佛大學(xué)的全額獎學(xué)金。但我從身邊人身上看到了各種令人失望的經(jīng)歷和錯過機(jī)會的成本。我的母親在大衰退期間失業(yè),她曾申請過一份政府工作,希望重新開啟自己的事業(yè)。但她未能通過打字測試,因此沒有獲得那份工作。最終她做了三份零工,只夠維持日常開支,而且沒有醫(yī)療保險。
讀大學(xué)之后,我見到許多留學(xué)生擔(dān)心畢業(yè)后無法找到一份能夠提供簽證擔(dān)保的工作,可能被迫離開美國。成功與失敗往往只有一線之隔。而且一切都充滿了不確定性:你幾乎不可能預(yù)測自己能否成功,等到知道結(jié)果的時候卻為時已晚。我認(rèn)為,唯一的解決方案是時時刻刻全力以赴。奮斗文化不僅根植于我的思想,也深深地烙印在我的身體里,刻在了我的神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)當(dāng)中。
我有時候確實會松懈。在大四之前的暑假,我獲得了在谷歌(Google)的軟件工程師實習(xí)機(jī)會。當(dāng)時,我覺得事情已經(jīng)萬無一失,于是每天晚上下班后,我會去健身,進(jìn)行社交,而不是為面試進(jìn)行學(xué)習(xí)。到了秋季,谷歌確實給我提供了一份全職工作,但我沒有收到其他任何工作邀請。這意味著我沒有任何可以談判的籌碼。谷歌為我提供的年薪是13萬美元,這是一筆很高的報酬,是我年少時單親媽媽的工資的四倍以上,但我的同學(xué)都得到了比我更高的薪酬。在眾所周知對女性并不友好的行業(yè),我不愿意剛?cè)胄袝r的薪酬更低。我在12個周的時間里,每天與室友外出就餐,而不是學(xué)習(xí)《程序員面試金典》(Cracking the Coding Interview),這是否就是我與同學(xué)的工資相差六位數(shù)的原因呢?
我安慰自己,能在谷歌找到一份工作已經(jīng)很幸運(yùn),我不應(yīng)該有更高的奢望。在谷歌要求我做出決定的前一晚,另外一家公司的招聘人員打來電話,說他們弄丟了我的簡歷。于是第二天,我飛往加州,輕松得到了一份薪酬更高的工作。到周末,谷歌將我的薪酬提高到每年20萬美元。一次面試讓我每年的收入增加了7萬美元,在獲得股票之后更是增加到10萬美元。
這讓我感到震驚,不是出于狂喜,而是受到了沖擊。這個巨大的差額證實了我一直以來所堅信的一種偏執(zhí)的想法,那就是一個錯誤可能對我的未來產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重影響。與許多人一樣,我的工資不止是供我自己消費(fèi):我希望能在經(jīng)濟(jì)上幫助母親,我也愿意在需要的時候承擔(dān)侄子侄女們的學(xué)費(fèi)。我從哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)時沒有任何學(xué)生貸款,而且一畢業(yè)就找到了一份薪酬達(dá)到六位數(shù)的工作,因此我從畢業(yè)就可以開始攢錢,過上穩(wěn)定的生活,甚至可以考慮停止奮斗。
但我還是注意到,有關(guān)“默默放棄進(jìn)取”的對話中有太多關(guān)于種族和階級的假設(shè)。一名白人律師當(dāng)然可以每周工作四天,他的薪酬不會因此減少,一名中高階層的創(chuàng)意人員也可以只專注于他喜歡的項目。但這些假設(shè)卻忽視了我們的社會并不平等這個事實。收銀員、倉庫員工和家庭健康助手等長時間工作只能獲得微薄的報酬,而且工作安全沒有太大保障。大多數(shù)人努力奮斗并不是為了自我實現(xiàn),而只是為了生存。
關(guān)鍵是,我們需要承認(rèn)勞動力對社會的影響。但將奮斗文化視為個人的問題,卻忽視了它的“文化”屬性:這種行為源自少部分贏家獲得超額回報的體制。我們當(dāng)然可以后退一步問問自己,獲得的效益和付出的成本是否等值,但默默放棄進(jìn)取并不是適合所有人的答案。它無非是面對社會問題的一種個人解決方案,并不是為了服務(wù)所有人,但后果卻可能由最弱勢的勞動者來承擔(dān)。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾米·內(nèi)特菲爾德曾任谷歌和Facebook工程師,是回憶錄《Acceptance》一書的作者。
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
每次看到“躺平”(quitet quitting)這種詞匯,我都會心跳加速。Z世代在TikTok上讓這個詞流行起來。它鼓勵員工做最低限度的工作。它令我變得像少年時一樣恐慌。那時候,哪怕偷懶一分鐘,都可能毀掉我的未來。
高中時,我生活在寄養(yǎng)家庭,有時候無家可歸。我渴望能到常春藤名校就讀,能有一份可靠的工作,讓我可以過上穩(wěn)定的生活。早在少年時期,我就很清楚,進(jìn)入一所更頂級的高校就讀,畢業(yè)后我就更容易找到一份高薪工作。努力進(jìn)入頂級高校就能很快過上有保障的安穩(wěn)生活,否則就要像千禧一代的同齡人所苦惱的那樣背負(fù)沉重的債務(wù)。人們在談?wù)摴ぷ骺疋赖男侣剷r,很少有人會提到贏者通吃的大環(huán)境。在這樣的大環(huán)境下,許多人根本不敢有敷衍了事的想法。
我在少年時期就是奮斗文化的典范,不是因為我想要這樣做,而是我不得不這樣做。我出生在一個混亂的工薪家庭。父母的精神健康問題,意味著我無法享受到穩(wěn)定的家庭生活。在高中時,我只能到處借宿,有時候睡在車?yán)?,或者住在避難所。讀大學(xué)似乎成為我擺脫這種困境的唯一途徑,但只有少數(shù)幾所精英高校向低收入學(xué)生提供全額助學(xué)金。如果去稍差一些的大學(xué)就讀,我必須背負(fù)沉重的學(xué)生貸款,而這些貸款將成為我的負(fù)擔(dān),讓我很難過上渴望的生活。壓力始終困擾著我。我出現(xiàn)失眠,對考試成績和分?jǐn)?shù)感到恐懼。我大量服用治療注意力缺失的藥物阿德拉(Adderall),我用自殘的方式保持頭腦清醒,從而更努力地學(xué)習(xí)。
我從未考慮過這些做法是否健康。但我并非憑空做出了這些選擇。我基于可以得到的激勵進(jìn)行過計算。在收到錄取通知的那一刻,我感覺一切都值得了:哈佛大學(xué)(Harvard)為我提供了全額獎學(xué)金,包括每個學(xué)期一張用于支付差旅和書本費(fèi)的支票。其他常春藤盟校和文科學(xué)院要求我每年支付約13,000美元。如果我選擇就讀一家較為普通的高校,畢業(yè)后我將背負(fù)超過20萬美元學(xué)生貸款。
我很幸運(yùn)能獲得哈佛大學(xué)的全額獎學(xué)金。但我從身邊人身上看到了各種令人失望的經(jīng)歷和錯過機(jī)會的成本。我的母親在大衰退期間失業(yè),她曾申請過一份政府工作,希望重新開啟自己的事業(yè)。但她未能通過打字測試,因此沒有獲得那份工作。最終她做了三份零工,只夠維持日常開支,而且沒有醫(yī)療保險。
讀大學(xué)之后,我見到許多留學(xué)生擔(dān)心畢業(yè)后無法找到一份能夠提供簽證擔(dān)保的工作,可能被迫離開美國。成功與失敗往往只有一線之隔。而且一切都充滿了不確定性:你幾乎不可能預(yù)測自己能否成功,等到知道結(jié)果的時候卻為時已晚。我認(rèn)為,唯一的解決方案是時時刻刻全力以赴。奮斗文化不僅根植于我的思想,也深深地烙印在我的身體里,刻在了我的神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)當(dāng)中。
我有時候確實會松懈。在大四之前的暑假,我獲得了在谷歌(Google)的軟件工程師實習(xí)機(jī)會。當(dāng)時,我覺得事情已經(jīng)萬無一失,于是每天晚上下班后,我會去健身,進(jìn)行社交,而不是為面試進(jìn)行學(xué)習(xí)。到了秋季,谷歌確實給我提供了一份全職工作,但我沒有收到其他任何工作邀請。這意味著我沒有任何可以談判的籌碼。谷歌為我提供的年薪是13萬美元,這是一筆很高的報酬,是我年少時單親媽媽的工資的四倍以上,但我的同學(xué)都得到了比我更高的薪酬。在眾所周知對女性并不友好的行業(yè),我不愿意剛?cè)胄袝r的薪酬更低。我在12個周的時間里,每天與室友外出就餐,而不是學(xué)習(xí)《程序員面試金典》(Cracking the Coding Interview),這是否就是我與同學(xué)的工資相差六位數(shù)的原因呢?
我安慰自己,能在谷歌找到一份工作已經(jīng)很幸運(yùn),我不應(yīng)該有更高的奢望。在谷歌要求我做出決定的前一晚,另外一家公司的招聘人員打來電話,說他們弄丟了我的簡歷。于是第二天,我飛往加州,輕松得到了一份薪酬更高的工作。到周末,谷歌將我的薪酬提高到每年20萬美元。一次面試讓我每年的收入增加了7萬美元,在獲得股票之后更是增加到10萬美元。
這讓我感到震驚,不是出于狂喜,而是受到了沖擊。這個巨大的差額證實了我一直以來所堅信的一種偏執(zhí)的想法,那就是一個錯誤可能對我的未來產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重影響。與許多人一樣,我的工資不止是供我自己消費(fèi):我希望能在經(jīng)濟(jì)上幫助母親,我也愿意在需要的時候承擔(dān)侄子侄女們的學(xué)費(fèi)。我從哈佛大學(xué)畢業(yè)時沒有任何學(xué)生貸款,而且一畢業(yè)就找到了一份薪酬達(dá)到六位數(shù)的工作,因此我從畢業(yè)就可以開始攢錢,過上穩(wěn)定的生活,甚至可以考慮停止奮斗。
但我還是注意到,有關(guān)“默默放棄進(jìn)取”的對話中有太多關(guān)于種族和階級的假設(shè)。一名白人律師當(dāng)然可以每周工作四天,他的薪酬不會因此減少,一名中高階層的創(chuàng)意人員也可以只專注于他喜歡的項目。但這些假設(shè)卻忽視了我們的社會并不平等這個事實。收銀員、倉庫員工和家庭健康助手等長時間工作只能獲得微薄的報酬,而且工作安全沒有太大保障。大多數(shù)人努力奮斗并不是為了自我實現(xiàn),而只是為了生存。
關(guān)鍵是,我們需要承認(rèn)勞動力對社會的影響。但將奮斗文化視為個人的問題,卻忽視了它的“文化”屬性:這種行為源自少部分贏家獲得超額回報的體制。我們當(dāng)然可以后退一步問問自己,獲得的效益和付出的成本是否等值,但默默放棄進(jìn)取并不是適合所有人的答案。它無非是面對社會問題的一種個人解決方案,并不是為了服務(wù)所有人,但后果卻可能由最弱勢的勞動者來承擔(dān)。(財富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾米·內(nèi)特菲爾德曾任谷歌和Facebook工程師,是回憶錄《Acceptance》一書的作者。
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校: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.