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

Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

news.bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#31

Post by yummyfajitas »

_delirium wrote: post #11
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #2

This caught my eye, but it turns out it's the same old "fixed pie" thinking: the current workers are taking up all the available "working hours", so they should cut back to give the unemployed an opportunity to get some. Ridiculous. Why not be more productive and actually just create more jobs. Just like wealth, the number of jobs available is not fixed.

That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is not a good reason to work less, but that there are others: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new c…

You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do.

For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week).

This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts.

You can read about this group of people, their lifestyle and their choices here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#32

Post by camccann »

I recall seeing at some point, but alas cannot recall where, a study that looked at average productivity per hour vs. hours worked each day/week. If memory serves me, they found that productivity/hr reliably dropped at the beginning and end of the work day, mostly independent of how many hours were worked, and also dropped steadily with increasing hours per week beyond some threshold, up to a (surprisingly low) point where the marginal productivity of an additional hour was actually negative.

The end result basically said that 4-hr workdays are less than half as productive as 8-hr workdays, and that diminishing returns make long work weeks quickly useless. Interestingly, per hour productivity peaked fairly low--something like 30hrs/week, I think. So, all else equal, if you're paying people hourly, you get best value for money having more people, working fewer hours in fewer days.

On the other hand, if you're paying people a salary, you technically always get more value up to the point of burnout (i.e., negative marginal productivity), but for whatever work week length, you get best value for money having people work a few very long days. That is, 12hr days M-R would be more productive than 8hr days M-S.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#33

Post by nfnaaron »

camccann wrote: post #32

I recall seeing at some point, but alas cannot recall where, a study that looked at average productivity per hour vs. hours worked each day/week. If memory serves me, they found that productivity/hr reliably dropped at the beginning and end of the work day, mostly independent of how many hours were worked, and also dropped steadily with increasing hours per week beyond some threshold, up to a (surprisingly low) point…

"Unfortunately, I've been unable to find the study in question again; so take the above with a grain of salt, as my memory is certainly fallible."

That's OK, it's late in the week.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#34

Post by camccann »

patio11 wrote: post #12
hartror wrote: post #10

"The foundation admitted people would earn less, but said they would have more time to carry out worthy tasks." Like starving?

That is, perhaps, a little harsh. I'm about as far from them on the political scale as is possible without being Atilla the Hun, but they do have one insight shining like a gem among so much donkey offal: There is nothing natural or inevitable about what’s considered ‘normal’ today. Time, like work, has become commodified – a recent legacy of industrial capitalism. Yet the logic of industrial time is out of step with…

Oh, more bad news: robots can already do that, and it will only be a few more years before the cleaning company we outsource to figures out how to exploit that differential profitably.

This is really a key point, I think. Automation is the means by which high-skill workers apply their productivity multipliers to what would otherwise be low-skill work.

The technology already exists to automate large swathes of low-skill work; the only reason it's not already done is that, for the most part, low-skill workers are still cheaper, mostly due to the implicit coercion of things like "needing money to buy food".

What happens when technology progresses to the point where robots are cheaper than paying someone minimum wage is a tricky question--and it's going to happen, probably in Japan first (thanks to both a high level of technological sophistication and an aversion to cheap immigrant labor).

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#35

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #31
_delirium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is not a good reason to work less, but that there are others: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new c…

You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do. For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week). This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts. You…

There are not 37 million people collecting welfare. Go look at some budget graphics, welfare and human services are a tiny, tiny slice of our budget. It's a small dividend that they're getting.

(FYI: For things regarding welfare, do not read heritage unless you're applying a skeptical eye. Everyone has an agenda, but their entire purpose of being is an agenda.)

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#36

Post by zackattack »

patio11 wrote: post #3

I would be much, much more interested in hearing of how any one of you hacked life such that you work a non-traditional schedule than reading how a group thinks the workweek should be established by fiat. (Most especially for a group which does not demonstrate that it has any experience with, ahem, working for a living.) Horse's mouth, incidentally: http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-...

I need $1300/month for rent, and $700/month for expenses like groceries and incidentals. That means I need to be making $445/week. I freelance whenever I feel like working. I'm currently working a charity gig at $42/hr, which means I need to work 11h/week.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#37

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #35
yummyfajitas wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time. About 37 million Americans do. For this group of people, the average family is supported by only 800 hours of work/year (about 16 hours/week). This group of people has all the food they need (in fact, they typically eat vastly more than they need), a house to live in (about half own the home), most own an AC, a car, a TV, all the basic comforts. You…

There are not 37 million people collecting welfare. Go look at some budget graphics, welfare and human services are a tiny, tiny slice of our budget. It's a small dividend that they're getting. (FYI: For things regarding welfare, do not read heritage unless you're applying a skeptical eye. Everyone has an agenda, but their entire purpose of being is an agenda.)

Neither I, nor the article, made the claim that there are 37 million people collecting welfare. Perhaps you should read sources before declaring them incorrect?

Incidentally, this article is simply an aggregations of statistics available from various government sources (e.g., census, BLS). Regardless of their agenda, their facts seem well supported.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#38

Post by breck »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #13
_delirium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only reason to cut work weeks, though I agree it's a bad one. This old article by Bertrand Russell starts out by pointing out that the "fixed pie" view is not a good reason to work less, but that there are others: http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html The gist of it is that you can take the dividends of increasing productivity in a lot of ways. As computers get faster, you can keep paying $2k for a new c…

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there could be a great case for cutting work weeks. The article caught my eye because I was hoping that they had done an actual study that indicated that working fewer hours would lead to higher overall productivity (though I think that cutting them by 50 - 70% is probably wishful thinking).

I think it was focused more on productivity, and not focused on the unemployment rate. I think the BBC added that twist.

From the author of the report:

"So many of us live to work, work to earn, and earn to consume, and our consumption habits are squandering the earth's natural resources.

"Spending less time in paid work could help us to break this pattern. We'd have more time to be better parents, better citizens, better carers and better neighbours.

"We could even become better employees - less stressed, more in control, happier in our jobs and more productive.

"It is time to break the power of the old industrial clock, take back our lives and work for a sustainable future."

Basically, it seems the argument is that the more hours we work, the externalities of work increase sharply (you don't have time to spend raising your kids, taking care of your health, and you do have more money to spend on things you don't need).

Basically, at 21 hours, the marginal return from working another hour at your job equals the marginal return from spending an hour doing your own stuff. Beyond 21 hours the marginal return from working (minus externalities), is less than the return from focusing on your own activities.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#39

Post by breck »

zackattack wrote: post #36
patio11 wrote: post #3

I would be much, much more interested in hearing of how any one of you hacked life such that you work a non-traditional schedule than reading how a group thinks the workweek should be established by fiat. (Most especially for a group which does not demonstrate that it has any experience with, ahem, working for a living.) Horse's mouth, incidentally: http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-...

I need $1300/month for rent, and $700/month for expenses like groceries and incidentals. That means I need to be making $445/week. I freelance whenever I feel like working. I'm currently working a charity gig at $42/hr, which means I need to work 11h/week.

Nice, another data point:

$850/rent, $550/food,utilities, etc.

$1400/month total to live. (in San Francisco, no less)

Consult at $100/hr. Need to work ~ 4hrs/week.

However, I work more than that to raise money for our startup, and the time I'm not "working" I'm often spending reading, learning, practicing.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#40

Post by larrykubin »

zackattack wrote: post #36
patio11 wrote: post #3

I would be much, much more interested in hearing of how any one of you hacked life such that you work a non-traditional schedule than reading how a group thinks the workweek should be established by fiat. (Most especially for a group which does not demonstrate that it has any experience with, ahem, working for a living.) Horse's mouth, incidentally: http://neweconomics.org/press-releases/shorter-working-week-...

I need $1300/month for rent, and $700/month for expenses like groceries and incidentals. That means I need to be making $445/week. I freelance whenever I feel like working. I'm currently working a charity gig at $42/hr, which means I need to work 11h/week.

Here are my stats for Austin, TX for the past three years. Just sharing that life can be really good here in Austin, and that there's no magic involved in working less. There's no "hack", you just have to have a valuable skill that you are able to charge a high hourly rate for (programming, accounting, lawyer, therapist). My wife is a speech therapist and I am a programmer. So my suggestions: live in a city that costs less money, see if you can live without a fancy car or smart phone, and find a good partner.

rent - wife pays $450, I pay $450

For this amount in Texas, you get a duplex with backyard in a nice neighborhood, a coffee shop and bus stop around the corner, 2 bedrooms, a garage, and 1200 square feet.

utilities - 150

student loan - 100

monthly unlimited bus pass - $25 (used to be $10 until recently)

shared office in downtown austin - $150 (optional, but has already paid for itself many times over due to bringing in extra work)

t-mobile prepaid phone - $100 per 1000 minutes, refill this every 4 months or so.

food costs - never calculated

insurance - on my wife's

Post reply on HN