Well, look at Germany. 4 weeks of holidays required by law, additionally 10-15 days of public holidays, and 35-40h work weeks. Productive as hell
The compelling case for working less
191–200 of 242 posts
Re: The compelling case for working less
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is difficult to work part time and get benefits such as health insurance. Since this is a necessity for most people there is no practical option to work part time.
To emphasize the contrast to the parent comment on libertarianism and free market. Government does not dictate that a company can not pay for benefits such as health insurance for part time workers.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. I'm more on the socialist spectrum myself, but even I see what you and the higher comment is saying.
Re: The compelling case for working less
#193I like this article. I hate cherry picked statistics.
For instance, average GDP per worker is much higher in Norway than the U.S. This proves that large numbers over large numbers may in fact be smaller than small numbers over small numbers. Especially if the small numerator (Norway GDP) is relatively large because it's dominated by a single factor (oil wealth).
Re: The compelling case for working less
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood required hours. Because sometimes 20 hrs in a week is a lot. Other times 60 is no time at all. Those weeks where 20 are a lot I am extremely distracted and the next day I am not excited for work. The weeks where 60 is no time, most of that is productive and I want to go to work. Judging work by number of hours just seems like a poor metric.
>I've never understood required hours. They want you there to answer questions. Workplaces value availability because it's too difficult to design coherent systems and to document them. Instead of that boring old stuff, in the modern workplace, we go fast and break things (or never get them fully working in the first place). Then we expect workers to be always around so they can be reached on slack when there is a pr…
Yeah, but with modern technology everyone is almost always reachable.
Re: The compelling case for working less
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never understood required hours. Because sometimes 20 hrs in a week is a lot. Other times 60 is no time at all. Those weeks where 20 are a lot I am extremely distracted and the next day I am not excited for work. The weeks where 60 is no time, most of that is productive and I want to go to work. Judging work by number of hours just seems like a poor metric.
yes, a poor metric but a measurable, quantifiable metric common to all regardless of their individual capacities in a given time.
I don't believe this. Because your managers generally know who is a good worker and who isn't. The rest of the workers definitely know.
Re: The compelling case for working less
#196A few years ago, I decided I didn't want to work 40-hour weeks any more, and asked my employer to switch to 32 (four-day weeks), with a 20% pay cut. Satisfaction-wise, it's been fantastic, as four days isn't long enough that you'll get tired by the week, and three free days is amazing to recharge. Unfortunately, I've found that it's rather career-limiting, as people don't care as much if a lowly developer works four-…
I have successfully worked relatively senior positions (principal software engineer at a couple of startups) working less than full time. So I don't think that's necessarily the case, especially if you can build the skills to be very productive.
It's definitely harder, since less companies will hire you. But on the flip side, since you've already negotiated shorter workweek it's easier to get that at other companies, since you have proof you work well with less hours.
I talk about both the skills and the negotiating tactics involved in my book (https://codewithoutrules.com/saneworkweek/).
Re: The compelling case for working less
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I've never understood required hours. They want you there to answer questions. Workplaces value availability because it's too difficult to design coherent systems and to document them. Instead of that boring old stuff, in the modern workplace, we go fast and break things (or never get them fully working in the first place). Then we expect workers to be always around so they can be reached on slack when there is a pr…
Yeah, but with modern technology everyone is almost always reachable.
And that's an unwelcome intrusion into my time off.
But hey, I like surfing, and you can't 'reach' a person while they are surfing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: The compelling case for working less
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did the same. Asked my employer to work 4-day weeks to lower the pressure after the stressful period during which we released our first product. Life satisfaction I get from that extra day off if quite huge, as I almost get twice as much free time compared to the time I actually work (3/4 vs 2/5). That time allowed me to get better at playing music and rock climbing and I now have time to read and learn more. Produ…
> I agree with you that working part-time could seem career-limiting, but my opinion is that it's more like an inner feeling than something my supervisors think of me (it's a little bit awkward to work part-time when most of your colleges work full-time). That's exactly it. I don't think there are any misgivings as to my output, just what having a senior person working 4-day weeks would project. Maybe they're afraid…
In general I recommend bringing up shorter workweek after you have a job offer. At that point they've reached point of "oh this person is quite good" and they've committed in their head. Still will be lots of companies that will say no, of course, so it's a numbers game, best done while still employed (ideally at a company that already gave you a shorter workweek).
And, yes, some people translate commitment to "we want you to work 24/7". You probably don't want to work for those people even if you're looking for regular full time job.
Re: The compelling case for working less
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
Academic here. Those are the best possible reasons for going into academe.
It's true that tenure track positions in top universities are scarce. But there are many universities. One of the students in my department just took a lifestyle job in Australia at a university I never heard of. Another student took a faculty position at Harvard. They both appeared thrilled with their choices.
Look at the placement record of any phd program, then adjust for the number of students admitted annually, to estimate your probability to get an academic job. In many fields, a top-50 PhD program virtually guarantees academic employment. In other fields, a top-50 PhD program virtually guarantees unemployment. It is important to walk in with eyes wide open.
Re: The compelling case for working less
#200A few years ago, I decided I didn't want to work 40-hour weeks any more, and asked my employer to switch to 32 (four-day weeks), with a 20% pay cut. Satisfaction-wise, it's been fantastic, as four days isn't long enough that you'll get tired by the week, and three free days is amazing to recharge. Unfortunately, I've found that it's rather career-limiting, as people don't care as much if a lowly developer works four-…
I'm not sure how that worked out well for you, unless you also negotiated a 20% reduced workload. Currently, I have way more work than I can possibly do in 40 hours, meaning I'm already dropping things on the floor if I only work 40. Working even fewer hours would exacerbate this problem.
Might be management problem, as someone else said; some managers are just bad. Might be learning how to negotiate will help. But might also be a mindset and skills problem: often you can do same amount of work with less time if you approach it correctly.
For example, you can figure out which features are really necessary, and work on those first. Then when you inevitably run out of time you can say "I did A B and C, but did we really need X Y Z?" "Well... I guess not."
More here: https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/25/the-01x-programmer/