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

The compelling case for working less

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 242 posts

Re: The compelling case for working less

#51

Post by Ultimatt »

Chinjut wrote: post #50

There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that this already concedes too much. This allows for just as much stressful dominance of work over the rest of life, and shame over any deviation from this script, as maximizes producti…

Work can still be for your self. I work harder, longer and more frequently working for mysel than an employer.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#52

Post by CM30 »

spyckie2 wrote: post #7

I'm convinced that our decision for how much effort to exert on work is not governed by the rational part of our brain. It's part primal - fear of insecurity and belonging to a social structure - part ego - accomplishment as confirmation of existence and your salary as a concrete number to compare favorably to others - and part culture and habit. I also think overwork is a byproduct of a globally connected society. H…

> I also think overwork is a byproduct of a globally connected society. Humans are happy if they are relatively well off compared to what they know. With smaller societies, we know less and thus expect less from ourselves and our situations. But it becomes more difficult to remain this way as small societies get replaced with large social networks.

This sort of logic is also part of why social media can be so damaging in general. Sites like Twitter, YouTube and Instagram heavily spotlight outliers who've become incredibly successful at their field, which will by definition make many people feel like failures in comparison.

And well, with most people being very image focused and only showing their successes on these sites, it can give the impression everyone else in the world is wildly successful while you're the only one struggling at all.

Still, that's something the internet reinforces in general really. That regardless of what you're interested in or seemingly good at, that there will always be hundreds or thousands better than you at it.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#53

Post by creep »

pfooti wrote: post #25
creep wrote: post #2

Doing nothing does not literally mean to do nothing. Strolling through the streets is meditative. Apart from mental rest, staring out the window gives processing time for the subconscious. I'm a student, and I feel uncomfortable with the expectation I am under to perform constantly, to "use my potential" "constructively". And often I have this expectation of myself. But I get my best ideas from just lying awake in be…

I am not sure what field you are in, and I wish you the best of luck, but that kind if tenure track, teacher-centric position is exceedingly rare. I had a tenure track job - in addition to teaching classes I loved teaching to amazing students, I had to chase grant money to pay for research that wasn't particularly interesting, but made a case for spending money, so the uni could get their overhead. The research I enj…

I'm in mathematics. This is my only career aspiration so I'm going to shoot for it, because there is nothing else I would possibly want to do besides research and teach. There is nothing else for me out in the Real World. I'm doing all the right things at this point in my studies-- grades are good, relationships with professors, extracurricular projects with students and profs. I have the dedication, the motivation, and a very strong passion for this subject. If it fails, it fails. At least I will be shooting for something I really want, and not falling back on something I know will make me miserable just because I think I have a lower probability of failing.

But I thank you for the advice and the good wishes! Perhaps lecturing will be where I go! What happened with your tenure-track position? Was it too stressful?

Re: The compelling case for working less

#54

Post by Ultimatt »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #9
nfd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you've got the surplus cash for however many years of school, then.

It's not much, but they pay you a stipend while you're getting your PhD.

LOL! PhD you get time to think sure. About the same thing for 3+ years. Hit rate for going insane vs becoming a relaxed meditative thinker isn't as balanced as you'd hope.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#55

Post by Joeri »

Chinjut wrote: post #50

There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that this already concedes too much. This allows for just as much stressful dominance of work over the rest of life, and shame over any deviation from this script, as maximizes producti…

The libertarian argument would be that if government didn’t regulate working hours the number of hours worked vs the amount of pay would be negotiated by the labor market and you would be free to choose to work fewer hours in exchange for somewhat reduced pay.

The socialist counter-argument would be that under such a system people with few employment options or low skills would be forced to work more hours for the same pay and that it’s the government’s job to regulate a reduction in work hours to improve quality of life.

Neither argument is wrong, in practice you need both systems for different people, but the nature of politics, especially in the U.S., requires a binary choice the net result of which is that everyone works more hours.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#56

Post by gerhardi »

j7ake wrote: post #47
gerhardi wrote: post #43

When you’re actually good at something you do, dont give 100% in all the time. Get a feeling of what your clients/boss/etc. need to be happy and try to exceed it marginally. - Be capable of 100 in normal working hours - Be expected to deliver 70 - Deliver 80 This provides also a good buffer for errors and other unexpected stuff. And reduces stress.

Is this how any great scientist, athlete, artist produce their works ? I highly doubt they took your advice. If it's just about making money however, then sure that seems like a sound strategy.

I think that trained athletes actually know better of their limits and when to not push for the maximum intensity than “regular office worker” in their corresponding field. The fatigue and risks of near future subpar performance are more concrete than with office work.

Also in any field, it ofcourse requires time, work and experience to become actually good enough to give yourself some slack.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#57

Post by eivarv »

taneq wrote: post #19
kough wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are happy if they are relatively well off compared to what they know. This is super true. I've been congratulating myself all month on my new job, paying me BIG BUCKS, compared to my friends. Well, just found out an old friend of mine also found a new job, getting payed literally twice as much as me. Now I'm in a funk and it's irrational and stupid but I can't help but look at the same number in a totally di…

It's not irrational or stupid. It's human. We've evolved to be not merely effective but also competitive.

The one doesn't preclude the other, though. It's also highly contextual, i.e. behaviors we've evolved (for some reason or another) aren't necessarily useful in another context. Humans are irrational and stupid.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#59

Post by konschubert »

Joeri wrote: post #55
Chinjut wrote: post #50

There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that this already concedes too much. This allows for just as much stressful dominance of work over the rest of life, and shame over any deviation from this script, as maximizes producti…

The libertarian argument would be that if government didn’t regulate working hours the number of hours worked vs the amount of pay would be negotiated by the labor market and you would be free to choose to work fewer hours in exchange for somewhat reduced pay. The socialist counter-argument would be that under such a system people with few employment options or low skills would be forced to work more hours for the sa…

I don't think it's illegal, in any western country, to work part time.

So we HAVE the option to negotiate fewer hours, no?

Re: The compelling case for working less

#60

Post by j7ake »

gerhardi wrote: post #56
j7ake wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this how any great scientist, athlete, artist produce their works ? I highly doubt they took your advice. If it's just about making money however, then sure that seems like a sound strategy.

I think that trained athletes actually know better of their limits and when to not push for the maximum intensity than “regular office worker” in their corresponding field. The fatigue and risks of near future subpar performance are more concrete than with office work. Also in any field, it ofcourse requires time, work and experience to become actually good enough to give yourself some slack.

I agree athletes train to maximise their performance on the games that matter.

I'm not sure what the equivalent is for the office worker.

Post reply on HN