Ask HN: How did Soham Parekh get so many jobs?

That's... peculiar.

What is an issue is working employed for two jobs and going over the 48 hour limits.

Working that much is very unhealthy so the state needs to protect people from being exploited. People should be able to live from working full time. Having to work multiple jobs and to destroy your own health is morally abhorrent.

Under German law being employed by a company and being self-employed are legally very distinct things. If you are employed you get protection from being fired, you have to have health care, pay into the retirement fond and so on.

If you are self-employed you are on your own. You can decide if you use public or private health care, you need to figure out how to save up for retirement yourself and so own. You get more freedom but less protection. That is because the law realizes that working people need protection from exploitation but also wants to give freedom to those that want to try their own business.

Also you don't really need to track your hours when freelancing other than maybe for billing purposes so you really don't need to worry about hours anyway. Generally you are considered part-time self-employed when doing less than 18 hours per week.

Earning a bit on the side is really not an issue in Germany. In fact the combination of having a part time employed job and then doing freelancing is very popular.

What doesn't work is being full time employed at two companies but that would make no sense even if you could as you would earn much less and pay insane taxes.

I get that the state needs to protect people from being exploited but I'm not sure this is the right way to go about it.

It seems to me that it would be better if the state had policies in place to ensure that one full-time job (or less even) provided sufficient income to enable a person to live self-sufficiently and raise a family.

Working a full-time job and raising a family is often a more stressful thing than a single person working a job that requires over-time. I don't see why the state should regulate how someone without kids spends their free time if that person wants to work.

Some people are just naturally inclined to be active, whether it's some combination of work, family, volunteering, and sports activities while others are not. I have a friend who is constantly working and constantly going to concerts and playing on several sports teams. His life seems stressful to me and far beyond how I want to spend my life but he enjoys it.

The state shouldn't restrict people from choosing how to spend their time, but instead should strive to create a society where people aren't forced to spend too much of their time working to meet their basic needs, with the ultimate goal of gradually reducing the time needed to do so over time.

So single people that can work 60 hours a day would get all the careers options while the person raising children is left in the dust? Does not sound fair.

> Some people are just naturally inclined to be active, whether it's some combination of work, family, volunteering, and sports activities while others are not.

That sounds like a healthy mix of activities. On the other hand working 60 hours a week is not.

> The state shouldn't restrict people from choosing how to spend their time,

It does not. You can create your own business and work yourself to death if you wish to. Again, the protection is for those that are employed by others.

Or in other words: You are allowed to hurt your own health as an entrepreneur but you are not allowed to employ people in such a way that it excessively hurts their health, even if they "consent" to it. Thing is, they can't consent because there is a power imbalance. Even if you make laws that people working less hours should not be discriminated, you can't really stop it.

Not to mention someone who is a workaholic needs psychological help not the "freedom" to work more.

> but instead should strive to create a society where people aren't forced to spend too much of their time working to meet their basic needs, with the ultimate goal of gradually reducing the time needed to do so over time.

We already could already be working significantly less. I always like to link https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

That is just not how capitalism works. Yes, you can fight for wage increases. You can fight for limits of working hours. But those gains will have to be paid in blood.

You idea would only work under socialism which had the Subbotnik which was volunteer unpaid labor on the weekends for the betterment of society.

Raising kids is but one kind of life stressor and it's not the state’s job to "equalize" life paths by punishing those who don’t have children or want to pursue different goals. Instead, the state should ensure a strong safety net so people are free to find their own balance.

Some pursuits genuinely take a monk-like dedication to see breakthroughs and we shouldn't hobble ambitious people who want to undertake them in the interest of fairness. You're describing a world where someone can't become a viruouso cellist, pioneer a life saving neurosurgery technique or revolutionize computer architecture because someone else decides to have kids. That doesn't sit right with me -- it's a little too Harrison Bergeron.

People might want to throw themselves into intense work for a decade before changing direction and focusing on raising a family or giving back to their community. Or maybe they want to do that the other way, start a family first and then once their kids are adults they want to pursue dreams that they spent decades dreaming of. Flexibility and dynamism in life roles is part of a healthy society.

The role of the state should be to ensure that no one has to 60 hours a week to survive and to ensure that everyone has real opportunities to live their best life that they choose -- not to make that choice for them.

No one is forbidden to work more. You seem to miss that those laws apply to wage labor. You keep bringing up all kinds of work that have nothing to do with this.

> You're describing a world

I am describing the status quo in Germany and many other developed countries. The US are the outlier.

> someone can't become a viruouso cellist

No one is telling you how much or little you are allowed to practice an instrument. You can practice 24/7 in as far as the German state is allowed. Not to mention musicians that are self-employed anyway.

Same with the other points. You can dedicate all you waking time into practicing to solve leet code questions. You can focus everything on your research.

You can work on any hobby you have as much as little as you want. You do do as much research as you want. You can work on your own business as much as you want.

The ONLY, the ONLY thing you can't do is employ someone to work more than 48 hours per week. And reverse be employed on a job that requires you to work for more than 48 hours.

I think that is pretty reasonable.

> it's not the state’s job to "equalize" life paths by punishing those who don’t have children or want to pursue different goals.

Children used to have the freedom to work themselves to early death in mines and factories. It got so bad that it threatened the very foundation of society. So after that yeah people figured the state absolutely should protect children and families.

And again, this has nothing to do with wanting to equalize everyone. There are many areas where exceptional people can go.

I think that you're missing the broader point that I'm trying to make here which is this: Why should the state mandate a cap on voluntary employment, rather than focus on ensuring that no one needs to work that much to survive? A system that protects workers from coercion is great. But a system that also prohibits voluntary overcommitment, even when it's for personal growth, artistic mastery, or short-term goals, feels overly paternalistic and your example regarding child labour laws exemplifies that paternalism.

I feel like you're defending the system in Germany not because it's a better system as measured by some objective criteria but because it's the system that you identify with. Is there any sort of data to back up the assertion that a system where people are not allowed to pay other people for more than 48 hours of their time in a week a better system that leads to better outcomes than one where people are free to exchange their time in exchange for a wage with mandatory overtime?

This thread started by parent telling you how it is in Germany. Meanwhile, you have provided zero data or objective criteria yourself...

Again, overtime is perfectly legal, we were just talking about the average working time per week.

> Why should the state mandate a cap on voluntary employment, rather than focus on ensuring that no one needs to work that much to survive?

Because the first one is the easiest way to ensure the later one. You are missing the power dynamic between employer and employee. That is they main point. It is just not possible for the extra work to be truly voluntarily.

It is the same principle why a boss having sex with their assistant is deeply unethical. Because the power dynamic. Even if we assistant is attracted to them. They know refusing could have consequences for their career.

Plus, that unicorn worker that wants to work more than 48 hours to make someone else rich and is otherwise a healthy, non workaholic individual, does not even exist. If someone is that driven they can just go freelancing and earn even more money.

You idea is solid in a vacuum but just doesn't work with the real power dynamics under capitalism.

> Is there any sort of data to back up the assertion that a system where people are not allowed to pay other people for more than 48 hours of their time in a week a better system that leads to better outcomes than one where people are free to exchange their time in exchange for a wage with mandatory overtime?

I mean the US has one of the worst work-life balances of any developed country, so yeah. Meanwhile Germany is pretty good in that regard. Again, most developed countries limit work time somehow.

Having the right and your employer agreeing to it isn't the same. Do you want people to go to the court if the employer denies it with the risk of losing the job?