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

Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 246 posts

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#131

Post by marvin »

throwaway1979 wrote: post #103
marvin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get risk-free 4% return after inflation, but you can (probably) expect a 4% annual return on average if you put your money in the stock market. At least this is the assumption that the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest stock market fund, operates with. Although it has been discussed to reduce this number to 3%.

Thx for the pointer. I have to look into them. The issue I have is that history prior to 2000 is not valid going forward. You can say that I'm a disciple of Nasib Taleb's Fooled by Randomness.

Why isn't any history prior to 2000 still valid? We've had 10+ year secular bear markets before. I'm not arguing by authority here, but by Taleb's own arguments, it's just as likely that the pre-2000 history is still valid - there is just no way of knowing yet.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#132

Post by tatsuke95 »

jwatte wrote: post #101
throwaway1979 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I knew where to get a risk free, consistent 4% return these days ...

Half high yield bond funds, half blue chip stock funds, bank all earnings, re-balance once a year, and take out 4% a year from total. On average you will do just fine! (Check against history if you want to verify)

>"On average you will do just fine! (Check against history if you want to verify)"

Famous last words...

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#133

Post by beambot »

marvin wrote: post #96
throwaway1979 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I knew where to get a risk free, consistent 4% return these days ...

You won't get risk-free 4% return after inflation, but you can (probably) expect a 4% annual return on average if you put your money in the stock market. At least this is the assumption that the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest stock market fund, operates with. Although it has been discussed to reduce this number to 3%.

Wow... I didn't know anything about the Norwegian Pension Fund. That's really cool. At a 2012 net worth of $654 Billion, it's greater than the country's debt ($548 Billion) and represents >$130k for each of Norway's 4.9 million people...

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#134

Post by minikomi »

drewblaisdell wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is a good thread to pose this question. I am a front-end engineer in my early twenties. Right now, 40+ hours a week is doable and I am paid well, but I don't need all of the money I'm earning. I would gladly take a 50% salary cut and work ~20 hours a week. The only problem with this is that I feel like this is a risky thing to bring up with an employer. Has anyone ever had any success getting a good part…

I currently work 4 days a week on a barebones salary in Tokyo of all places .. If your priorities are aligned with the lifestyle I recommended it! Good luck.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#135

Post by [deleted] »

beambot wrote: post #133
marvin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get risk-free 4% return after inflation, but you can (probably) expect a 4% annual return on average if you put your money in the stock market. At least this is the assumption that the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest stock market fund, operates with. Although it has been discussed to reduce this number to 3%.

Wow... I didn't know anything about the Norwegian Pension Fund. That's really cool. At a 2012 net worth of $654 Billion, it's greater than the country's debt ($548 Billion) and represents >$130k for each of Norway's 4.9 million people...

[deleted]

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#136

Post by yummyfajitas »

The claim that working past 40 hours is unproductive is pretty weak empirically.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/12/work-hour-skepticism.h...

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/12/construction-peak-60hr...

The most current data suggests the optimum is actually 60 hours (in construction), and there is little info on knowledge work.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#137

Post by spin »

philsnow wrote: post #28
theabraham wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a good time to build a hefty savings and begin investing. I think if you were to go part-time, you'd lose some of your benefits. And if your employer is used to you working 40-hours, you might end up working more than 20-hours due to a higher workload. Depends on your situation, and it can't hurt to bring it up. Maybe try winding down your hours progressively.

I think he _does_ want to invest, but in experiences during his early 20s, rather than by building his finances.

I have to agree with this. There's time and there's money. After graduating from college, I've taken a lot of time to re-learn math slowly. I've also studied a lot of neuroscience and machine learning on my own time. I also quit computers and taught English for two years and moved to a foreign country and spent some time working on my people skills. (Sadly, I'm back to computers now, with a "normal" job...)

For me, I'm happy that I invested my time into myself, rather than investing money into some mutual funds or something. Very happy.

YMMV.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#138

Post by kephra »

drewblaisdell wrote: post #9

Perhaps this is a good thread to pose this question. I am a front-end engineer in my early twenties. Right now, 40+ hours a week is doable and I am paid well, but I don't need all of the money I'm earning. I would gladly take a 50% salary cut and work ~20 hours a week. The only problem with this is that I feel like this is a risky thing to bring up with an employer. Has anyone ever had any success getting a good part…

I was working 20 hours, 16 hours at home + 4 in office in the last two jobs.

Imho a coder is more productive if he focus 4 hours a day, then if he procrastinates 10 hours.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#139

Post by kamaal »

lostnet wrote: post #100
bokonist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is generally a winner-take-all market. Software has zero marginal cost, so the company with the most revenue can invest the most upfront into making a better product, giving it even more revenue. Furthermore, in most cases there is little incentive for customers to ever use the second best product in a segment. So when building software, you not only have to meet the customers needs, you have to meet the cus…

This is exactly what a lot of companies and managers will try to tell you.. But it is a bunch of nonsense. An actual 40 hour a week programmer is an awful asset, if we do more than ~20 hours of work a week the rest is bad code and the shit we are to tired of thinking about to fix/automate. The ones who work 50+ hours have forgotten that things can be automated or even pondered before diving in, or that are powerless…

Its true that if you make it rain by working 20 hours, you get to be the superstar of the team. But that's not possible, at least not in 90% of the scenarios.

Office as we know it, is more than a workplace for an individual. Its a place where people meet together to collaborate with each other. Its also a social network where people eat lunch, drink coffee and talk about life, and such stuff together. If you are not there 50% of the time, unfortunately I don't see how you will fit in with everybody else. Nobody likes calling and discussing things over phone/chat/email what could easily be discussed by meeting at ones cubicle and talking over it for 5 minutes.

Coding might be your 20 hour job, but the other 20 hours is many other things apart from coding. And trust me that is equally important for your career progression.

Re: Bring Back the 40-hour work week (March 2012)

#140

Post by marvin »

beambot wrote: post #133
marvin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get risk-free 4% return after inflation, but you can (probably) expect a 4% annual return on average if you put your money in the stock market. At least this is the assumption that the Norwegian Pension Fund, the world's largest stock market fund, operates with. Although it has been discussed to reduce this number to 3%.

Wow... I didn't know anything about the Norwegian Pension Fund. That's really cool. At a 2012 net worth of $654 Billion, it's greater than the country's debt ($548 Billion) and represents >$130k for each of Norway's 4.9 million people...

The "external debt" number quoted on Wikipedia is the total debt of all Norwegian companies to external debtors. And note that this is the gross number; I have no idea what the net number is but it is a lot smaller and might be negative.

The national debt is only 100 billion dollars, and is there primarily to ensure smooth trading with our trading partners. (It was roughly doubled due to liquidity measures in 2008, but supposedly some smart bond trading ensures that this won't have any dramatic effect with regards to making or losing money).

Post reply on HN