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

Working fewer hours would make us more productive

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 253 posts

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#191

Post by jxm262 »

yason wrote: post #101

I worked at 50% capacity for some years. It was just great until I chose to want more money for the time being and returned to 70% capacity. That was just great, too, until I realized that I was as productive as a full-time guy without the full-time pay so I eventually went back full-time but trying to keep my output roughly on the same level as I had been getting good reviews all the time. However, last year I got t…

This is exactly my goal as well. I'm currently working a full time job, moonlighting contract jobs on evenings/weekends, with the goal to save enough money to cover my expenses for 6 months. After that I plan to go into full time consulting and specifically target shorter term contracts and take off blocks of time in between. I've always seemed to work best in spurts and software development (new projects anyway) are a good industry for this type of environment.

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#192

Post by barnabee »

JohnCarmack wrote: post #172
xiaoma wrote: post #143

I just finished reading The Masters of Doom and really got the impression that working more hours made Carmack more productive than nearly everyone else in the field.

I find these “shorter work weeks are just as effective” articles to be nonsense, at least for knowledge workers with some tactical discretion. I can imagine productivity at an assembly line job having a peak such that overworking grinds someone down to the point that they become a liability, but people that claim working nine hours in a day instead of eight gives no (or negative) additional benefit are either being d…

Not everyone is fully utilised at work, nor does every job's output scale linearly with incremental effort. So while the above is true in some cases (particularly for 'assembly line' type jobs, including programming, where there is a constant supply of discrete and valuable tasks) it is also the case that many people are productive for far less than the full time they spend at work and that a shorter working week would result in significant & near immediate productivity increases in a good number of cases. Examples would be bureaucratic work, a lot of generic 'project' roles, and situations where procrastination is common.

Perhaps it's not that people are particularly much more productive over short hours as that presenteeism and the need to be seen to be working long hours masks the true amount of productive time and many people will do less than they could if they think they can get away with it (particularly if they work long hours at a job they dislike), nonetheless it would be better for unproductive time at work to be spent elsewhere and reducing the length of the work week could achieve this.

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#193

Post by mindtrigger »

taranasus wrote: post #189
JohnCarmack wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find these “shorter work weeks are just as effective” articles to be nonsense, at least for knowledge workers with some tactical discretion. I can imagine productivity at an assembly line job having a peak such that overworking grinds someone down to the point that they become a liability, but people that claim working nine hours in a day instead of eight gives no (or negative) additional benefit are either being d…

Hi John, As with everything on the internet, this article and action that's making waves around the internet is an oversimplification on what is a really complex problem with a lot of factors and variables. Your example with a factory worker is great example for that specific type of work, an assembly line, but much like the mentality of "lets work 6 hours instead of 8" craze that's going on it would only apply and b…

I agree with this, with all due respect to John. The part I like most about your post is where people can choose what to do with that extra time, which may include actually being able to enjoy their family, or doing what I am doing which is learning new skills in my free time, or hey (go crazy) and do both!

The fact is, most of the jobs people don't like doing are going to be automated in the not-so-distant future, which brings up the question of what we humans will be doing when there are less work hours needed to move our society forward. Many people who are working today will NOT be willing or able to train up to meet the higher skills needed for our new world. So what will they be doing as their jobs go away? Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in keeping old jobs around just to keep people employed, but I still don't see this question being answered. I have a lot of friends who are in their 30's and 40's who have 20-25 years of employment ahead of them, but probably cannot rely on their jobs existing that long.

Another question is why are we working so hard on technology to automate and make our lives easier if all we are going to do with that supposedly easier life is work as much or more? Or rather, how long will people have to work jobs they hate, just to keep from living in a box under a bridge?

I'm running my own IT consulting business, which pays the bills, and also frees up more time for me to tend to my son, and to work on learning new skills to break into VR development. I can work basically part time and charge a high enough hourly rate to afford this lifestyle, but I am the exception, not the rule. I actually feel sorry for my family and friends when I see how unhappy they are working 40+ hours, barely seeing their kids before bedtime all week long, and just not being able to chase something that will really make them happy. When will humanity start coming before corporate productivity?

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#194

Post by mindtrigger »

barnabee wrote: post #192
JohnCarmack wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find these “shorter work weeks are just as effective” articles to be nonsense, at least for knowledge workers with some tactical discretion. I can imagine productivity at an assembly line job having a peak such that overworking grinds someone down to the point that they become a liability, but people that claim working nine hours in a day instead of eight gives no (or negative) additional benefit are either being d…

Not everyone is fully utilised at work, nor does every job's output scale linearly with incremental effort. So while the above is true in some cases (particularly for 'assembly line' type jobs, including programming, where there is a constant supply of discrete and valuable tasks) it is also the case that many people are productive for far less than the full time they spend at work and that a shorter working week wou…

This is so absolutely true. Your typical corporate office these days is full of wasted time and red tape that acts as a sponge for people's time left on this earth. Just the time a 30 minute commute takes away from one's day is a massive amount of time over one year. Hell if more people could work fewer hours from home, they would probably get the same or more work done and still have more time for themselves.

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#195

Post by dennisgorelik »

justncase80 wrote: post #159
sokoloff wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would there be any prohibition against working two (or three or four) 4-hour per week jobs?

No prohibition certainly, but you would receive the same pay. In the book the author supposed that this would lead more people to spend their time participating in artistic activities.

Would you still receive the same pay if you work 0 jobs?

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#196

Post by taranasus »

mindtrigger wrote: post #193
taranasus wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi John, As with everything on the internet, this article and action that's making waves around the internet is an oversimplification on what is a really complex problem with a lot of factors and variables. Your example with a factory worker is great example for that specific type of work, an assembly line, but much like the mentality of "lets work 6 hours instead of 8" craze that's going on it would only apply and b…

I agree with this, with all due respect to John. The part I like most about your post is where people can choose what to do with that extra time, which may include actually being able to enjoy their family, or doing what I am doing which is learning new skills in my free time, or hey (go crazy) and do both! The fact is, most of the jobs people don't like doing are going to be automated in the not-so-distant future, w…

You, I like you, you ask the correct questions!

Unfortunately not soon enough. As you said, we are the exception. I'm currently trying to get a VR games studio of the ground, it's not easy but it's a hell of a lot of fun. You do your consultancy business which I'm sure you enjoy enormously and as you've said, 9 to 5 is just a bad dream for you.

But to move the whole of humanity into that direction, the whole of humanity have to be willing to put themselves in our position and actually self-educate and take control of their lives. As you can probably imagine that's not going to happen any time soon.

Mr Carmack over here is a great example of the humanity I would like to live in, but he is the polar opposite of the humanity we actually live in. Sadly most people do not have ambitious dreams of creating new things! They learn enough to get by and that's it. I am of course talking majorities here, I realise exceptions exist but the very sad truth is that people like being comfortable and stationary with very small aspirations in a world that's actually progressing without them. In London we have this funny problem with the Underground: Most of it can be automated, but because of the mass firing that would result, it's not being done due to humanitary reasons. The same humans that are being protected from this mass-atomisation are at the same time demanding absurdly high wages (£50k+) to do tasks that can be conducted by a £3000-£10000 robot and if these demands are not met, strikes!

Same thing with McDonald's in the US. Although somewhat more reasonable there as their wages were quite low, these people are replaceable with some very basic machines. In the UK there are McDonald's with automated ordering and paying stations. I just tap on a large touch screen what I want and stick a payment method in. That £3000 device just replaced a £15000 employee and is a lot more efficient at their job.

It pains me to say this but going forward this is going to be a self-regulating problem. There will at some point be massive unemployment which may cause quite a financial crisis and then it will regulate itself over time. In the new world that will come out of this crisis there won't be any room for non-intelectual people as most automated jobs will be gone. It's funny to think about it this way, but all those young adults getting university degrees, they might need them sooner than they think. The 20-25 y.o. that don't have higher education right now will probably suffer the most in 10 years time.

TL;DR: While what is happening seems very heartless and cruel, with all the automation, it actually seems like a necessary step to evolve as a sentient species.

Damn it, I text-walled again... sorry :(

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#197

Post by pc2g4d »

justncase80 wrote: post #126

I recently read an interesting book called Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It was written in 1887 but could have been written yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward It was basically about a guy who accidentally travels forward in time (sort of like idiocracy) except he finds himself in an American Socialist Utopia. It was a really good book in general but there was one idea in particular that…

In theory this is possible now, right? Why don't employers compete in this way? Is there some insurance/tax/other reason that employers so strongly prefer full-time employees?

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#198

Post by aceboogy94 »

Not even going to read the article. Doesn't this seem like a "no shit" type of thing. Lest time in the day to get things done so you work faster/harder. Of course you're more productive. I did get a good laugh though since I started this job 4 months ago and literally do 30 min a work a day and fuck off for the rest of the day. I'm now spending my day getting paid to think of others ways to make money online. Haven't came up with anything good yet.

Re: Working fewer hours would make us more productive

#200

Post by mjklin »

justncase80 wrote: post #126

I recently read an interesting book called Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy. It was written in 1887 but could have been written yesterday. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward It was basically about a guy who accidentally travels forward in time (sort of like idiocracy) except he finds himself in an American Socialist Utopia. It was a really good book in general but there was one idea in particular that…

In Canada there was even a Social Credit Party:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Social_Credit_Party

Post reply on HN