Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 267 posts

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#181

Post by notduncansmith »

mgmeyers wrote: post #24

I've worked 25 hours a week for the past ~6 years as a web developer, and I can't imagine a better work schedule. I've noticed that I'm just as productive on average, if not more so, than my 40-hour-per-week coworkers. I do find it difficult to progress in my career, however. I've been trying desperately to transition into a full-stack, part-time position, but I feel pretty stuck as a senior level front-end dev. In m…

Apologies as this is a bit off-topic, but where does one have to fall on the skill scale to be considered a senior-level front-end dev? I find myself doing a lot of front-end architecture work at my day job, educating my coworkers, and overall the "go-to" guy for front-end work; however, I'm at a junior developer's salary. I don't just do front-end either - I'm actually a full-stack developer, just the most instructive when it comes to front-end work or design.

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#182

Post by tren »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #75

I am in my early 60s and I am retired now except for a little consulting and writing a book or two a year. That said, starting in the early 1970s working at a large defense contractor, I got in the habit of only working 32 hours a week (took Mondays off). I continued this process with several other companies until about 15 years ago when I converted to having a lifestyle 1-man consulting business. The deal is however…

This is great to hear from someone who did this for a considerable amount of time. I started working 4 days per week 2 years ago (I'm 33) and so far it's proving to be an excellent decision. I'd also say I'm more effective than I used to be at my job, partly because I'm more refreshed from the time off. With the extra day it has allowed me to complete 2 contract projects, help a couple of non-profits with their tech issues and it has proved extremely useful because it's allowed me to complete chores that are usually so onerous because they involve visiting people during business hours.

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#183

Post by e12e »

untog wrote: post #115
aidenn0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no one is able to work productively for 8 hours, that's a fact. I disagree with your fact. I know many, many people who can do it. The simple fact that you talk about working on "side-projects" makes me think you have productive, creative hours outside the time you spend on work items. I do agree that in the current market for software developers, you'd be crazy to not try to get some of your creative time to work…

Perhaps a more accurate statement is that no-one is able to work productively for 8 hours straight , which is what the 9-5 job tries to make you do.

I've yet to really try it, but I always thought that (being single, without family) it would be more reasonable to work for 5 hours, have (at least) an hour break out of the office, and then work for another 5, for 4 days, is a more sensible approach to a 40 hour work week, than 58 with a (relatively) short break for lunch... I doubt that that would amount to 40 "productive" hours, but then again, I don't think the 85 leads to that either.

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#184

Post by mathattack »

I have never seen this. I've seen actual productivity in those amounts. (4 hour push in the morning, less productive afternoon, nothing gets done on Friday) If you can find it and pull it off, all the more power to you, because it is hard to stay productive after 4 hours of mentally draining creative intense thinking.

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#185

Post by DrewAllyn »

alistairSH wrote: post #175
dennisgorelik wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't push yourself, then you don't grow fast enough. Burnout is also bad, so the ideal is to stay exactly one step below burnout.

And there is research to back this up? One step below burn-out sounds miserable to me.

If its miserable, than it is burnout.

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#186

Post by e12e »

localhost3000 wrote: post #169
gedrap wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree. 9-5 (or 9-6) engineering jobs are a bit crazy - no one is able to work productively for 8 hours, that's a fact. Many managers understand that and are cool with people just not doing work while at work... However, I would still prefer to go home than sitting and waiting for 5 or 6pm so I could do something more meaningful, because e.g. side-projects is a gray area while at work and that's fair. Even so,…

"no one is able to work productively for 8 hours, that's a fact" tell that to a medical resident...or just about any in-hospital physician, for that matter. many, many people work long shifts and are entirely productive.

I've not worked at a hospital, but I've seen people in somewhat similar circumstances: military exercises, working as leaders at a youth camp -- and while they all get the job done, it's always been clear that they'd do a better job if they had more free time/more sleep -- in short they can work productively (under high strain/stress) for more than 8 hours -- but they'd do better work if they could work fewer hours.

I'd be surprised if the rate of errors didn't go down with work hours (to a certain point) at hospitals as well. And/or patient satisfaction went up.

To put this into (made up) numbers, if we assume that a software architect works either 12, 8 or 4 hours a day, and that at 12 hours a day produces on average 200 "valuedollars" per hour, that's 2400 vd/day. Is it really a stretch to claim that you could, on average, do 3 times better if you only had 4 hours, rather than 12? Paying 3 people 600/hour to work 4 hours a day, you'd get 3 times the value/day (note: note value/pay -- but we all know deadlines are important in projects).

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#187

Post by gbog »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #170
gbog wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"all you can do without burning out." If I may, this sounds to me like if you assumed that everyone should be working just one step below burn out limit. And this seems to be shared by so many people. I wonder what is the rationale behind it? Is it a way to maximise income? or to make sure the 1billionth chance to be a new Bill Gates or Steve Jobs is not lost? For me, as a French, it seems obvious that we should be v…

If you don't push yourself, then you don't grow fast enough. Burnout is also bad, so the ideal is to stay exactly one step below burnout.

> you don't grow fast enough.

But what if I do not want to "grow fast enough"?

Or, more precisely, what if I question the direction of this growth? For instance, I certainly should learn more and more, discover more interesting topics, become a better father, cultivate friendships, etc. This is what I would agree to grow, and it means spending more time with kids or friends, or reading books about whatever subject I am interested in at the moment (which happens to be anthropology and history).

This is a "growth" that do not require one dangerous "one step below burn out" mantra.

Moreover, I do not believe that the very few very successful people are more happy than other. I can give two examples: I do not think Steve Jobs was happier than a "normal guy". A closer and easier example is Mojang, creator of Minecraft, which I certainly respect and admire (much more than Jobs): is he happyer now that he got the jackpot? He worked hard, was very lucky, but not that he "arrived there", maybe, just maybe, he has a lot of negative pressure from his success, maybe he has a fear to fail and would rather go back to the happy times when he was coding alone a very raw sim game for So, once the soup is assured for long enough, and despite all the essays by PG, why not just say "it is not for me"?

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#188

Post by glesica »

prawn wrote: post #171
glesica wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you get the part-time gig in the first place?

One of my past employees worked with me for about 6 years, doing four days a week. He asked if it was an option and, while there were days when it was inconvenient given that I run a small business, I didn't mind. He's since moved elsewhere, but I would've kept him on doing three days or fewer hours spread over the week. I wouldn't feel comfortable paying full rate for part time hours under the guise of it being "jus…

I agree that the pay shouldn't be the same in terms of annual compensation, but I see no reason why hourly compensation shouldn't be the same, once fixed costs are accounted for (such as health insurance).

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#189

Post by rtpg »

alistairSH wrote: post #175
dennisgorelik wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't push yourself, then you don't grow fast enough. Burnout is also bad, so the ideal is to stay exactly one step below burnout.

And there is research to back this up? One step below burn-out sounds miserable to me.

I think if you're miserable, then you're actually at your burn-out.

The notion of one-step below burn-out is that you're still getting enough stuff done (with the assumption that you _like_ your work, I guess).

Re: Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?

#190

Post by e12e »

twelvechairs wrote: post #160
nitrogen wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a completely different argument. This is "most people aren't efficient, therefore because I am I should be able to work less" where OP's was "creative people can't (and don't) work above 4 hours" (yet can somehow do so on their own side project). Not quite; it's more like "most people aren't effective for more than four single-task focused hours per day, myself included, so everybody should be able to 'work'…

I agree that not every hour is super productive, but not that 4 hours is 'normal' as said above. Nor that you could be 100% productive in a 4 hour job timeslot. There's also productivity losses if you have 2 people working on a project half the time rather than 1. I agree people should probably work less and have more time for their own projects but there is nothing normal about this in other professions apart from t…

When we're talking about programming/system engineering etc, there's the part where you might spend 4 hours doing "measurable" work -- ie: producing artefacts. Be that designs, code, documentation -- and in your "free time" your brain is still working on the problems in the background. I think part of the idea is that (to paraphrase Greenspun[1]) there's no point in keeping people from having fun while they're thinking.

Like the new head of our CS department said: he doesn't really care if his professors spend most of their time in the office or at a cafe -- as long as they're comming up with new ideas and do research (the institute has a very high rate of publication for its size).

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/opensource.html

Post reply on HN