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

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#51

Post by realitygrill »

DaniFong wrote: post #43

This reminds me of a conversation I recently had with some Berkeley graduates, who were mystified at how much I had accomplished, and how quickly, and by the fact that I might stay up into the wee hours of the morning working or blasting out an essay or coding or designing. These same people put in 50 hour sessions in Final Fantasy. People want to work. Some people want to work hard. Most especially, people want to a…

This is exactly why I quit playing video games. However I haven't been able to shunt that effort into something productive so easily..

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#52

Post by Silhouette »

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'm not entirely convinced by the presentation here, but I certainly agree with the general view that we spend too much time working (often unproductively, because of the paid-seat-warmer effect) and not enough time on the genuinely valuable things in life.

This has been brought home to me over the past few months, since I switched to contracting and mostly working from home. I had originally hoped to gain more independence and perhaps increase my income a bit, but not particularly aimed to reduce my working time. In practice, I worked a much lower number of hours for several months, due to some third party problems reducing the pace of the project below what my clients and I had wanted. Of course, this hit my income pretty hard on an hourly rate. However, it also gave me a lot of spare time to relax and offload the past few years of work stress, learn about new things, get back into some hobbies I'd been missing, spend more time with family and friends, and so on. Last year was probably the most enjoyable time I've had since I started full-time work, and many friends and family have commented on how much happier I seem these days.

I'm happy to be pushing he hours and income back up again now, so I can consider things like buying a nice house and supporting a family, because those things matter to me too. But we did just fine on a lower financial income but with more free time for a while, and I'd happily do it again from time to time rather than be the live-to-work guy for my whole life.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#53

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #49
yummyfajitas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well. The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we…

I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why?

What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week.

In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#54

Post by rjurney »

gaius wrote: post #50
houseabsolute wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some types of European firms. You don't see as much innovative software coming out of that part of the world as the U.S.

Dotcom startups, no. But in general high tech, just one example, Airbus gives Boeing a run for its money. And those Boeings BTW are designed with CATIA, French CAD software. And Boeing runs its business on SAP, German ERP software.

Airbus had massive state support - hardly an even playing field. They're an example of what a good state-private collaboration can do, not of productivity of the private sector in general.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#55

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #53
jbooth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well. The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we…

I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why? What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than t…

Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have families.

What I consider "ridiculous" about the statistics is that they aren't indicators of anything -- they're just ways of slicing things so that they appeal to the mindset I described above. In reality, many of these people keep trying harder and harder but good jobs are fewer and farther between -- not everybody is in technology or the service economy.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#56

Post by AFerenci »

I Would have to agree with Ryan on the "fixed pie" thinking. This isn't an allocation issue, its based on productivity.

In the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," Stephen Covey explains a great theory called the P/PC ratio (production to production capacity). In other words, take care of your physical and mental self, and you will produce far better results in your work related endeavors.

People don't realize that not exercising and not eating healthy will severely limit your ability to work productive 40-100 hour work weeks.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#57

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #55
yummyfajitas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why? What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than t…

Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have famil…

Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below).

Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf

I'm also curious why you are bringing this up again: I already pointed out your mistaken beliefs about the working habits of the poor 9 days ago.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102216

As for the statistics given in my previous source, they are indicators of the fact that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of recent history. All of which proves my original point: "You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time."

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#58

Post by jbooth »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #57
jbooth wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have famil…

Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below). Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf I'm also curious why you are bringing this up again: I already pointed out your m…

Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment?

I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Honest question, or if you'd prefer, how else am I missing your point?

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#59

Post by gaius »

rjurney wrote: post #54
gaius wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dotcom startups, no. But in general high tech, just one example, Airbus gives Boeing a run for its money. And those Boeings BTW are designed with CATIA, French CAD software. And Boeing runs its business on SAP, German ERP software.

Airbus had massive state support - hardly an even playing field. They're an example of what a good state-private collaboration can do, not of productivity of the private sector in general.

As does Boeing, except it's funneled via the DoD. Anyway, that's not the point. Can European engineers bring equivalent products to market as quickly as American engineers, despite taking vacations and being in the office fewer hours? Absolutely yes, it happens all the time.

Re: Report suggests 21 hours is the ideal work week

#60

Post by yummyfajitas »

jbooth wrote: post #58
yummyfajitas wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below). Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf I'm also curious why you are bringing this up again: I already pointed out your m…

Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment? I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Hone…

I have no idea if they are content and happy. I never claimed that using productivity gains for leisure would make anyone happy, I just claimed it's possible to do without serious material suffering.

But the fact that 80% of the poor are not even looking for a job suggests they are not that unhappy about lacking productive employment.

Post reply on HN