Frankly, people for whom the work is "just a paycheck" I know in real life are simultaneously happy and simultaneously frequently produce actually good reliable work.

Work being "just a paycheck" does not mean you hate it or half ass it. But, it means you do go home to get rest, you do socialize outside of work instead of irrationally pushing it and then using meetings for socialization. It means you do not have ego tied to it so much you throw temper tantrum when things are imperfect (which is not the same as being able to change things for the better).

So is it not good for people to care and yet be blocked from being able to do good work.

Then pay people so they have a reason to care their work. This is like a wife beating husband wondering why his wife to care more about him.

every company in the united states could become a co-op and nothing would change for the business and everything would change for the workers. And everyone would be much happier at work and you would have the caring people you want.

It is the system that is the problem, not the people.

There's a difference between caring about your personal work product (and reputation), your colleagues on a personal and professional level, and your employer as an entity.

I expect my employees to show up to work and put forth a solid effort on a regular basis. Note that this doesn't mean a constant death march towards some unreasonable objective, or anything even close to it. Just apply yourself using the skills we agree you have for the pay we also agreed upon for 8 hours a day on average. In my field, this means you have pay that is well above the norm for an average software developer, and the working conditions are good or better.

A shocking number of people are incapable of this, and generally are also the same people who would claim that "they didn't start this".

I don't know how to explain any better that, if given the choice, I would simply not do what I do for the company for which I do it. Full stop. Somehow, when we talk about companies laying off thousands, that's "business as usual" and "nothing personal". But when an employee acts like the robot the company sees them as, suddenly people get upset! Why is it so hard to understand that people work because they have to, and not because they want to? Why is that so threatening to your worldview? Is it because, deep down, you know it's true?

I used to cope like that. I told myself that I could throw myself into my work, maybe stand out and make a difference. Guess what? I was overworked, burned out, and laid off right as I worked a few weekends and pushed through a crazy (and arbitrary) deadline. I still haven't recovered emotionally. I was sort of believing the lie, for a bit, but this severed the last thread.

My story isn't unique or special, but then I come on HN and I get told that I just have to "take pride in my work", like I'm not checking my e-mail every day to see if I even still have a job, during the worst cost of living crisis since 2008. I'm sorry, that's a fucking joke.

There are a million other things I'd rather be doing all day than this. And a lot of them involve programming a computer! But not things that allow some suit to send me a smarmy e-mail about "making 2026 our best year ever", no. Things that help me, my friends, my family, my community. Those are the only things that matter. Work exists because my landlord wants to retire comfortably in Florida. Bully for him. The rest of us, well. We have to grind it out and hope we make it to the finish line.

Give us a reason to care. It's that simple.

I believe that seeking external validation, inspiration and/or reason is not robust and a path to unhappiness. IMO, it's better if the reasons for you to care come from within.

I dont pay my bills from reasons within.

Got any recipes for delicious meals I can make with my pride?

I take pride in the stuff I enjoy doing. A job is just a paycheck because I need it.

He wasn't asking you to work for free.

I know. But people will worry about dollars first before they even think about pride.

I will do my job as well as necessary to keep it in order to keep receiving money. If I could find a job that pays well and made me happier I would.

If you can't find a better job, you should probably appreciate the one you have and not try to skate by with the bare minimum, if for no other reason than you're likely to miscalculate at some point.

That’s just another way of saying work harder for same pay because the company knows they have you by the balls.

No, it's recognizing you have no better alternative so you shouldn't take what you do have for granted, because it's not guaranteed to continue.

"Beatings will continue until morale improves."

People have a working contract and all you have to do is work according to the contract.

Ah, noble poverty! Be grateful to tha masta' for providing you the scraps he can provide! Your paycheck is the beautiful work you produce for tha masta'!

Seriously, pay people what they are worth and they will care. It is not that hard.

The vast majority of people significantly overestimate their worth, yet people with your attitude seem to believe it only exists with respect to highly compensated employees.

I agree with your second sentence, but it's harder than it should be due to what I said above.

Pride in the quality of my work is a phrase to make one feel bad about themselves. I take pride in my hobbies and in my hobby projects. I take pride in my family and friends. I do not take pride in being exploited for my work so some higher up can buy a new car every year.

And again, someone comes and makes a comment that proves my point. Unless you are working in very unusual (and illegal in the developed world) circumstances, you are not being exploited in any real sense.

In the end this depends on your definition of "fair". What percentage of your generated production do you think is fair for the company to take? 95%? 50%? 10%?

That depends on the value of your generated production, among many other things, and ultimately isn't the right question to ask.

Can an employee obtain better employment terms elsewhere (which is a complex concept to define in itself)? If so, they are underpaid, if not, they aren't.

You were talking about exploitation. Using the fact that the employee cannot obtain a better employment elsewhere to extract as much of the production or value from the employee smells a lot like exploitation to me.

If an employer offers an employee $100 per hour, and the next best offer that employee can obtain elsewhere is $90 for an otherwise equivalent job, should the employee take that job for granted? Is the employer exploiting them with their pay rate?

In my humble exploited worker opinion, you resemble Samuel L Jackson in Django Unchained. You dont even realize in what position you are in. Get back to the ground bootlicker.

And in my humble opinion, you will continue to be dissatisfied and somehow it's everyone's fault but your own.