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

Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

metarabbit.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 198 posts

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#61

Post by rhizome »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #58
rhizome wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrot…

i dont get what you are trying to say. something about how its easy to mislead people into working long hours?

In this context, that "the nature of capitalism" is not evenly distributed, though the rhetoric says it is.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#63

Post by itsdrewmiller »

divenorth wrote: post #3

I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit employers and employees.

The author addresses that and suggests that 40 hours is generally the right number there - productivity on a units per hour basis is maximized. For salaried employees though employers rationally care more about units per week, which continues to increase as hours per week go to 50 and beyond. Of course this is all research of factory work, so its application to software development is questionable.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#64

Post by ryandrake »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50
jonas21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the author's last point which is that in a competitive field, even a small increase in output can lead to a large increase in payoff. In his example of getting research funding, it's a step function: either you get funded (y=1) or you don't (y=0), and because you're competing with others, even a small output increase can take you from the 0 side to the 1 side.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between.

What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in some areas of the economy but not others? In many industries, multiple competitors can exist with stability and split market share, and in others, having multiple competitors leads to a blood bath where only one can survive, winning it all.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#65

Post by the_cat_kittles »

ryandrake wrote: post #64
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between. What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in…

yes i wonder about that too. i never thought of myself as someone interested in economics, but i guess thats where you'd look for answers to why some markets are weighted towards winner take all and some aren't. my guess off the top is that it has to do with how easy it is to switch between two competing products, and how economies of scale work in the industry. if there is a big economy of scale, and its easy to switch between competitors, i think that makes for the biggest winner take all scenario.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#67

Post by minikites »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #30
beager wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that a normalized office environment will demand or imply that all workers work the same number of hours. The suggestion that you can consistently work 80 hours a week might be viable for you, but what about those who only get 20 hours before their productivity craters? What should you, or that person, do in the normalized 40-hour environment? And what if the 20 hour worker produces more than you in 80 h…

If you shake loose the norms of a 40 hour work week, you have an awful lot of reconciliation to deal with...." Yes agreed. The point is that people should be given roles and responsibilities commensurate with their personality type and then given the flexibility to execute their job as they see fit.

"Why doesn't every sports team just get good players and have those players play consistently well?"

As usual, the difficult part is among the details.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#68

Post by apatters »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

I love how things like the 40 hour work week with two days off get enshrined as some kind of natural phenomenon that has always been with us. 40 hours is an arbitrary number that came from trade unionists demanding fair hours and Robert Owen's slogan: “Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.” I mean those two things: 8 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep have been considered to be the biological/…

Can you elaborate on what you believe to be the reasons you're able to work productively for 12 hours a day? I'd love to have that superpower.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#69

Post by tbrake »

dheera wrote: post #36
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

I love how things like the 40 hour work week with two days off get enshrined as some kind of natural phenomenon that has always been with us. 40 hours is an arbitrary number that came from trade unionists demanding fair hours and Robert Owen's slogan: “Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.” I mean those two things: 8 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep have been considered to be the biological/…

It's actually flawed because there are other things that need to be done in a week besides work, recreation, and rest. For example: - eating: 12-15 hours/week - making food (or travelling to get food): 7-10 hours/week - showering, shaving, grooming: 4-7 hours/week - laundry, cleaning, house chores: 2-4 hours/week - commuting: 5-10 hours/week - waiting in line (checkout lines, customer service reps, Comcast/DMV/insura…

I believe those were accounted for in those times with the notion of a stay-at-home spouse (in reality, read: wife) who did most if not all of that non-job work; food purchase/prep, laundry, chores, children, etc.
Post reply on HN