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

We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

sciencenordic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 279 posts

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#81

Post by jdotjdot »

bluedanieru wrote: post #61
ekianjo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you have robots you will still need a massive workforce to produce them, to get the resources to produce them, to check them, to maintain them, to repair them, to program them, to update them and so on. Or maybe you believe in a state of singularity in which all of this will happen at the same time? :) Automation has already been happening in many industries, in case you have not noticed, and that did not res…

So what, then, do you think the purpose of technological advancement is ? Quality of life and wages have more-or-less flat-lined while productivity is way, way up. We are producing heaps more wealth per person than at any point in history, and yet we don't have much to show for it. Nowhere near proportional to the productivity increases, that's for certain. Don't misunderstand, I'm not a Luddite by any stretch and I'…

I think this is an excellent point.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#82

Post by jdotjdot »

Strshps1MoreTim wrote: post #66
learc83 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the studies that showed rapid mental decline in old age have been debunked. A 70 year old with no actual problems (e.g., Alzheimer's) is very likely to function perfectly fine mentally. A 2002 study (published in the Alzheimer's and Dementia Journal) found that ~91% of people 70 and older were capable of normal mental function.

Seriously? How many 70 year old people do you know? Let say you need to urgently take your child to a doctor and can choose between a 30 yo and a 70 yo. What would you do?

That's a straw man right there. Why would it matter? In terms of the decision making, the one with more knowledge is better. In terms of driving, it depends on if the 70 year old still has the PHYSICAL ability and acuity to drive a car, which is exactly what we weren't talking about.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#83

Post by jdotjdot »

bertzzie wrote: post #3

This is interesting. I live in Indonesia, where except on our capital (Jakarta and most Java), working 60 hours a week is the norm. I have noticed (and I think this has been proved over and over again) that people who works 60 hours a week is actually less productive and less happy than those who have a free weekends and work only 8 hours a day. I wonder how much working time can we cut until the benefits disappear.

I agree with this from personal experience. And I have a US white collar job, 70/hr week average, and i'm way less productive than I used to be before that.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#84

Post by learc83 »

necro wrote: post #77
learc83 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the studies that showed rapid mental decline in old age have been debunked. A 70 year old with no actual problems (e.g., Alzheimer's) is very likely to function perfectly fine mentally. A 2002 study (published in the Alzheimer's and Dementia Journal) found that ~91% of people 70 and older were capable of normal mental function.

If you look at a site/product like Lumosity.com, you can compare your results to other age groups. If you accept that the tests on Lumosity do test particular brain functions/areas then its clear to see that from the millions of user that take part, the performance average does decline with age. It's actually quite dramatic to see that a 40 year old that scores in the 90% in a test category, fits in at 50% among the…

You can't really get any meaningful results from a self selected sample.

Since there is no other evidence that a 40 year old in the 90th percentile for mental performance is equal to a 20 year old in the 50th percentile, it seems more than likely that the data is skewed.

Perhaps Lumosity.com attracts above average young people and below average older people (given those results, some variation on that theme is the likely explanation).

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#85

Post by hmsimha »

_delirium wrote: post #20
ekianjo wrote: post #17

25 hours to earn less? What's the point of having more free time if you have no money to do anything with it ? There's a reason why we have a current optimal 40-60 hours kind of range for working hours in most countries. That's an equilibrium point between how much people are willing to work vs how much they are willing to earn. Everyone still wants to have free time, but not at the expense of their well-being or the…

Because of standardization on "normal" workweeks, it's pretty hard to have the choice even if you're willing to forego salary for fewer hours. Google won't let you work a 4-day week for 80% of the regular salary, for example (or even for 60% of it!), and more traditional companies are even less likely to. You take their 5-day, 40-hour offer or you don't. You typically only have an option to work a 25-hour week if you…

Google is actually known for encouraging their employees to work 80% of their work week on task, and the remaining 20% on creative pursuits of their own choosing, so in that sense I would argue that google is fostering creativity (which probably ends up benefiting the company overall) while being less demanding of their employees' time in a traditional sense.

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#86

Post by xijuan »

But ....what about college students???? People rarely talk about the fact that college students can be as stressful if not more stressful. In graduate school, students are expected to work/study almost all the time... Should we also have a reduce in our work/study load?

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#87

Post by tossacct »

bluedanieru wrote: post #61
ekianjo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you have robots you will still need a massive workforce to produce them, to get the resources to produce them, to check them, to maintain them, to repair them, to program them, to update them and so on. Or maybe you believe in a state of singularity in which all of this will happen at the same time? :) Automation has already been happening in many industries, in case you have not noticed, and that did not res…

So what, then, do you think the purpose of technological advancement is ? Quality of life and wages have more-or-less flat-lined while productivity is way, way up. We are producing heaps more wealth per person than at any point in history, and yet we don't have much to show for it. Nowhere near proportional to the productivity increases, that's for certain. Don't misunderstand, I'm not a Luddite by any stretch and I'…

>>>Nowhere near proportional to the productivity increases, that's for certain.

What is the proper proportion?

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#88

Post by burntsushi »

samstave wrote: post #74
michaelochurch wrote: post #42

25 hours is a good number for average people. I'd say 15-20, even. Ambitious or highly dedicated people will always work more than that, and that's a good thing. What they should have is a lot more freedom in how they spend that time-- working two jobs, one job and school, side projects. The problem is this bullshit conformist fiction in which everyone has to pretend to be ambitious (but only internally) and dedicate…

I think that the title should be: "It should only require 25 hours per week to make a comfortable living" We should all put in the most amount of time to our lives and passions, but to maintain a comfortable life should not consume 100% of our available productive hours. (assuming productive hours == 8/day, 5 days/week) If maintaining a living (comfortable or not) requires 100% of our productive work time (40 hours/w…

> (assuming productive hours == 8/day, 5 days/week)

Bad assumption.

> If maintaining a living (comfortable or not) requires 100% of our productive work time (40 hours/week) then how are you not a slave to that subsistence lifestyle?

What is "subsistence" about it? I understand subsistence living to mean "having just enough to survive."

Re: We should only work 25 hours a week, argues professor

#89

Post by clavalle »

readme wrote: post #22

This guy might be on to something, but I have an even better idea, and it required 0 scientific research to synthesize. We should all do whatever the fuck we want, until we die.

Your wish is granted.

The catch: you will die a lot sooner depending on how much you take other people's needs and wants into consideration when deciding what you want to do with your time.

You're welcome.

Post reply on HN