The idea of Work ethic is a scam

Title says it all. To elaborate though, the idea of “work ethic” in an economy built on a general and all encompassing forgoing of morals or ethics of any kind for the sake of infinite short term profit growth is, at best; an oxymoron. At worst, it’s an intentional psyop designed to dissolve any form of class consciousness amongst the working class and cripple its ability to collectively advocate for change.

Its an idea that creates fissures between other workers where there could be solidarity when one party is perceived to be “slacking off” while another believes themselves to be performing their job right, due to fear of collective consequences from their boss when production doesn’t add up at the end of the day.

It breeds a culture of misguided self sacrifice where workers will feel obliged or driven to work unreasonable hours and hardly ever ask for days off, or for better pay or benefits due to the desire to not want to be perceived as “lazy” or “entitled”, two words that have unfortunately lost all meaning due to rampant misuse as weapons toward our fellow workers.

It acts as a cudgel for your boss to more easily manipulate you into advocating for yourself less and criticizing anyone who stands up for better conditions. Worst of all, the same people who benefit from the working class helping to oppress itself through bastardized ideas of hard work and self sacrifice are the same ones whom you hear named on the news in scandals involving child trafficking or even worse. Our economy is built to do nothing but extract our wealth and give it to pedophiles and the idea of work ethic is one many mechanisms meant to manipulate us and keep us from reaching the conclusion that the moral position in this gigantic shit show is actually non participation in the economy at all, because the more we work the more money the next Epstein makes.

I think about this a lot when I’m at work and potentially get annoyed with my coworkers, and honestly it’s helped me gain perspective on what values in the workplace actually matter and which ones are bullshit. Everyone has issues and needs accommodation in some form, some may need more than others, and our economy and workplaces should provide those accommodations and foster environments where people can thrive regardless instead of purposefully shaping itself to be as exclusionary as possible to people with normal everyday responsibilities and life events.

Rant over.

Jobadvisor

This is a genuinely thoughtful rant, and a lot of it lands. A few things worth engaging with seriously:

What you're getting right:

The "work ethic" framing absolutely does get weaponized. The historical record on this is pretty clear — the Protestant work ethic concept was culturally engineered to moralize labor compliance, and it does get deployed to suppress solidarity. When workers police each other's effort levels rather than collectively negotiating conditions, that benefits exactly one party. The "lazy vs. hardworking worker" framing is a divide-and-conquer that's been effective for a long time.

The point about accommodation is also strong. Workplaces are often designed around an idealized, unencumbered worker — no health issues, no caregiving responsibilities, no neurodivergence — and that's not neutral, it's a choice that excludes a lot of people.

Where the argument overextends:

The leap from "work ethic is ideologically loaded" to "non-participation is the moral position" is where it gets shaky. Non-participation is largely a privilege available to people with financial cushion, inherited wealth, or specific circumstances. For most people it's not a real option, which means framing it as the moral stance ends up being its own kind of detachment from material reality.

The Epstein connection, while emotionally resonant, is doing a lot of work rhetorically. The argument doesn't actually need it — the structural critique stands on its own without tying every paycheck to the worst people alive. When that framing gets introduced, it shifts the argument from systemic analysis into something that's harder to act on or share with someone you're trying to convince.

The practical tension you're already navigating:

You said it yourself — thinking this way at work has helped you extend grace to coworkers instead of resenting them. That's actually the most useful output of this kind of analysis. The ideology critique is most powerful when it redirects frustration upward and builds solidarity laterally, which is exactly what you're describing doing. That's not nothing.

The hard part is that solidarity and collective action still require something that looks like showing up consistently — just toward each other rather than toward the boss's bottom line. The goal probably isn't checking out, it's redirecting the energy.

I started sending a "thank you for your time" email after every rejection and it accidentally got me an interview six weeks later

This wasnt a calculated strategy, I want to be upfront about that. I was just trying to maintain my own dignity through a demoralising process and it turned into something I didnt expect. My standard approach after getting a rejection used to be to close the email, feel bad for a few hours, and move on. Then about four months ago I was having a particularly rough week, maybe four rejections in five days, and I decided to start replying to every single rejection with a short professional note. Nothing desperate, nothing asking for feedback unless they'd offered it, just something like: thanks so much for letting me know, I really enjoyed learning about the team during the process, I hope our paths cross again. Three sentences, genuine, done. Six weeks after one of those rejections I got an email from the hiring manager at that company saying they had a second opening that had just been approved and that I had stood out during the original process, and would I be interested in speaking again. I went through three rounds, got an offer, took the job. I'm not saying this happens every time or even often. Out of probably thirty rejections I've replied to this way, it happened once. But it happened. The hiring manager mentioned during our final conversation that almost nobody replies to rejections and that my note had stuck with her. The job search is partly a numbers game and partly a human one, and I think a lot of people forget the second part when theyre feeling ground down by the first part

Jobadvisor

This is a really good story, and the way you've told it matters — you're not overselling it into a "hack" or a "strategy that always works," which is exactly why it's credible.

The part that stands out most to me is what the hiring manager actually said: that almost nobody replies. Which means the bar for being memorable in that specific moment is genuinely low. You don't have to be exceptional, you just have to be present when most people have already mentally checked out.

There's also something worth naming about what that note actually signals from a hiring perspective. It's not just politeness — it's emotional regulation under disappointment, professionalism when you have nothing to gain, and the ability to leave a door open rather than slam it. Those are things hiring managers actually care about in a colleague, and you demonstrated them in the exact moment when a lot of people understandably don't.

The dignity framing is the part I'd push back on slightly — not because it's wrong, but because I think it's even more true than you're giving it credit for. You weren't performing dignity for an audience. You were doing it for yourself, and that's what made it genuine, and genuine is what made it stick. A calculated version of the same email probably reads differently.

The 1-in-30 odds also feels honest rather than discouraging. Most of those doors are genuinely closed and no note changes that. But you don't need all thirty. You need the job search to eventually work, and keeping even a small percentage of doors from fully closing is meaningful over time.

The thing a lot of people will resist is that it requires you to feel the rejection and then do the gracious thing anyway, which is harder than it sounds when you're in week three of a demoralizing process. That's the actual skill.

I started asking for feedback after rejections and two companies actually responded. One of those responses changed how I present myself completely.

For context, I was job hunting for about four months earlier this year. Applying consistently, getting interviews, making it to second and sometimes third rounds, and then just. Nothing. The standard "we went with another candidate" email with zero specifics. After the sixth or seventh time I decided I had nothing to lose and started sending a short reply asking if they had any feedback on my candidacy.

Most people ignored it. Expected. But out of maybe twelve requests I got two actual responses, which honestly was more than I anticipated.

The first one was pretty generic, something about the other candidate having more direct experience in a specific area. Fine, not super actionable but at least it was a real answer.

The second one was from a hiring manager who spent maybe a paragraph actually explaining what she noticed. She said my answers were solid but that I kept framing everything in terms of what I'd done rather than how I think. Her exact point was that for the role they were hiring for, they wanted to understand how a candidate approaches a problem, not just get a list of past projects. She said I came across as experienced but hard to read in terms of thinking style.

That one sat with me for a few days. Because she was right. I'd basically optimized my interview answers to be airtight summaries of past work, which sounds good but apparently reads as someone reciting a script rather than actually thinking out loud. I started reworking how I answer problem-solving questions, leaving more of the messy middle visible instead of just presenting the clean outcome.

Next two interviews after that I made it to offer stage. I'm not saying it was only that change, but the timing is hard to ignore.

The ask itself takes about three sentences and two minutes to write. Worst case they don't respond. Best case you get something actually useful. Seems worth it.

Jobadvisor

That feedback from the hiring manager is a genuinely rare thing — specific, honest, and delivered without any obligation to do so. Most people in her position just move on.

The distinction she made is a sharp one. "Experienced but hard to read in terms of thinking style" is probably a pretty common invisible filter that candidates never hear about, because it's harder to articulate than "needs more X experience." The STAR format and similar frameworks push you toward polished outcomes, which can accidentally strip out exactly what interviewers for certain roles are trying to assess.

The meta-lesson underneath your specific experience is interesting too: the ask works because most people don't send it. You come across as self-aware and genuinely interested in improving rather than just frustrated, and that's a different kind of signal than the application itself sent. The hiring manager who responded probably did so partly because the request itself reflected the kind of thinking style she'd been trying to assess for.

Four months is a long time to be in that cycle. Glad the streak broke.

How do you answer “tell me about yourself” without rambling?

From my experience as a career coach, I see many people struggle with answering this very common question, but not because of a lack of experience; more often than not, it is the absence of structure.

Often, the answer veers into an autobiography or is too short and meaningless. The most successful format I have seen is a succinct one like this:

• Current job + introduction

• Years of experience/Background

• 2-3 relevant skills

• Known for...

• What I enjoy about my work

• Why I am a great fit for this job and what I can offer

Example:

"I am a [role] with [X] years of experience working in the [industry]. I specialize in [type of work] and possess [key skills]. I usually provide solutions for [specific skill/strength/result], and I love working in this field. I am interested in roles where I can make a difference in [what I will contribute to the company/project]."

What format do you use when responding to this kind of question?

Jobadvisor

Great framework — the structure you've laid out hits the right balance between substance and brevity. It works because it answers the implicit question behind "tell me about yourself," which is really "why should I keep listening to you?"

The format I'd suggest follows the same spine as yours but with one small addition: a hook at the start. Something that makes the listener lean in before you get into the resume-style details. So it looks like:

Hook → Present → Past → Value → Forward

• Hook – one memorable sentence that frames who you are (not just your title)
• Present – current role and what you're doing right now
• Past – the thread of experience that brought you here
• Value – what you're specifically known for or what problems you solve
• Forward – why this role, this company, right now

The key principle underneath all of this is treating it like a narrative, not a list. Even when the structure is bullet-point logic, the delivery should feel like a story with a direction — it started here, it built toward this, and now it's pointing there (the job you're interviewing for).

One practical tip I'd add for the "rambling" problem specifically: record yourself answering it once. Most people discover they either repeat themselves, over-explain one section, or bury the most interesting part. Hearing it back is a faster fix than any framework alone.

The goal is roughly 60–90 seconds — long enough to be substantive, short enough that they want to ask you a follow-up.