If it turned out that teachers (and everyone else) also have an ~80% burnout rate, then that only shows a more fundamental problem. Not that anyone is being spoiled.
And it's okay if that starts by finding out that developers have a ~80% burnout rate. To be fair, you are at least correct that we should run the same study against teachers. (And really as many other people as we can find the time/money for.)
The thing is that these bare numbers say nothing without "in compare with". There should be comparison with other job types or historical at least to make certain assumptions. Also for such burnouts developers often have some type of compensation, while other jobs rather not. Compare for example developers problems with Amazon devilery service drivers problems with toilets. A lot of jobs just luck minimal comfort and compesations and hardly can complain.
This myth of "spoiled developers" definitely feeds into the problem. People feel like they cannot complain about their work conditions because they have nice toys and benefits at the work place.
As a long time developer, I think we are pretty good at complaining about our work conditions, and are spoiled in many ways. We also have some very valid complaints about the bullshit we have to deal with, interfering micromanagers making us less productive and less happy, etc. All these things can be true at once. You don’t need to dismiss any of them as myths.
I think we learned this past year that at least a few teachers are quite exceptionally spoiled (disappointing, and for me a bit surprising). Maybe I'm biased by the witnessing the antics of the California teachers union, but their ranks have been an embarrassment to the profession. Their continued push-back against returning to regular classes has grown tiresome (California has decided, with union pressure, to defy CDC guidelines and require masking and distancing despite vaccines and low risk -- "follow the science" is no longer spoken by them).
I wouldn’t go that far. I do think that, particularly for primary education, some people tend to overinflate the importance of teachers as academic experts and discount their social importance.
The value that school provides kids, parents, and the community is multifaceted.
If anything, primary educations are very important, but not because kids learn basic arithmetic, but because they learn the foundational social concepts that will permanently shape their ideas about justice, respect, cooperation, etc.
I would go as far as to say school is industrial daycare. Asserting that schools provide value to society because people learn things within their boundaries is, in my opinion, like saying that caffeine pills provide value to tired people by helping them stay awake. It's not wrong per se, but it's a hackneyed solution that doesn't address the root cause of the problem. "Our citizens are illiterate and don't understand mathematics? I know; let's kidnap their children and store those children in warehouses for 18 years while they learn morals and social values from each other instead of from productive adults."
The "foundational social concepts" children learn in school are taught to them by full-time teachers, who are only capable of repeating various myths about society that they themselves believe. The effective method to learn foundational social concepts is to live in and contribute to society, not to sit in a sterile, age-segregated social environment and listen to quarter-truths spoken by apathetic non-experts, and then be tested on arbitrary collections of unrelated fact.
I am not arguing against the concept of education in general, but the notion that it can be taught in school is, I think, one of the most damaging problems in society. You simply cannot learn quickly and efficiently as a numbered head in a sea of competitors; good, proper learning takes time, personal attention, discipline, and does not pace itself to a standardized schedule. I offer this essay, not as the foundation of my anti-school beliefs (which are supported by dozens of studies, hundreds of essays, and thousands of personal experiences), but as the same literary aperitif that allowed me to ask myself "what if school isn't good for society?"
> The "foundational social concepts" children learn in school are taught to them by full-time teachers
I disagree. Many (most) of the social concepts that children learn in school are not taught by teachers, they're taught through interactions with other students, with the teachers providing guard rails. They're completely orthogonal to the curriculum.
There are certainly plenty of myths repeated in classrooms by teachers, but I don't think the ratio is worse than the number of myths you hear in any other place. In fact, I would bet professional educators probably do a better job of not repeating myths than the general population, since they study formal pedagogical methods. Go read a public comment section on any news story -- you'll find plenty of examples of egregious myths repeated by average "productive adults".
I in turn disagree with you. Children learn social norms and practices through interaction with other children, sure. Social concepts, like "what is a country", "what is the most ethical legal system", "what is the history of our nation", "what is the right way to interact with other people", "should I go to school", "should I respect authority" are taught by teachers and administrators, who provide the explanation of the concepts and the punishment for when the kids disagree with the concepts, which they do often because the "concepts" pushed by school systems are ridiculous to the point of being inhumane.
The public comments section on any news story is inundated with people who spent a large portion of their lives in school. When they were in school, they were taught to respect authority, keep their heads down, specialize in a certain field, and accept wage labor conditions for the rest of their lives. They were also taught that proper education starts with an authority and is handed down via lectures and tests, and other kinds of knowledge are not valuable unless certified by another authority endorsed by the school system. This is true whether they went to a public school or to a private religious one- the "authority" the children are supposed to listen to just changes. Kids don't teach each other these lessons, the school system does.
I've been a teacher (and a manager, all levels of software engineer up to principal, a construction worker, an inner-city and high gang-presence high school math teacher, a graphic designer, and worked under a yard maintenance guy from Mexico, and several other small jobs. The software stuff has been among the easiest jobs (even with mission critical systems failing in the middle of the night affecting millions of dollars in revenue) I've experienced.
Software developers at many, many companies are absolutely spoiled. I know there have to be negative stories, but on the whole, pay, benefits, perks, and even hours are better than a great many industries. Even game shop crunch hours seem about on par for doctors in residency, some (most?) finance shops, and I'm sure other less notable roles like my friend who works in water distribution who puts in 90 hour weeks regularly and just got off a 39 hour shift.
On the same logic, you can find tons of other 'easier' jobs that still experience burnout or boreout. What you're unconsciously doing is a form of the `fallacy of relative privation`. Sure, software engineering is an easier job than resident doctors or inner city math teachers or whatever. That doesn't mean it doesn't come with it's own baggage/challenges/frustrations/mental health issues and that engineers don't get to complain about them just because they're the least fucked in your view of what an 'easy' job is.
Software engineers are classified by the CDC wrt to suicide incidence higher than a lot of the jobs you're mentioning there (8th place out of 22). I guess being spoiled comes with the price of offing yourself more often than doctors, lawyers or teachers.
Your life isn't just your job. And your other qualities influence your career choice. Software attracts different people than law and medicine and teaching. If I had to bet, for example, I would guess that loneliness is more common among software engineers than lawyers, doctors, and teachers.
I've had many trades as well, before ending up as a software engineer. My hardest, most exhausting job was in the food industry. Entering office live was easy, work a picnic. Plenty of energy coming home after work. With my previous attained 'work mentality' I could way more done! ... and last year I had an extreme burn-out event (hospitalised). In my experience burn-out is a combination of steadily (for a longer period of time) putting in more energy then available, not taking enough rest and most importantly: emotional disturbance (going against your nature/ will)
For example: Work hard, have a bad relationship at home or at work can easily lead to burn-out.
Furthermore, software engineering seem to have some unique combined traits which sets it apart:
1. Creative proces which is hard to manage and easily leads to misunderstandings and conflict with customer or employer.
2. Screen-working enables stretching concentration well beyond human limits.
3. Modern western society tends to personally identify oneself with work too much (which is an easy trigger for emotional disturbance)
4. Programming is fun! Devs are being treated so well! So why not endure those problems a bit longer ...
Sure, but that has little or nothing to do with life satisfaction. Which is related to suicide rate.
In fact, being spoiled can lead to dissatisfaction. It's part of the problem I imagine.
Somebody doing something really hard for a tangible benefit to people they know, have really healthy life satisfaction. Like the plow truck driver in winter, folks like that. For the obvious reasons.
We're all social animals. Suicide has to do with that. Not how easy your job is!
