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

111–120 of 279 posts

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

#111

Post by javert »

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…

The best that the law/government can do is to break up the collusions (e.g. among VCs)

No, the best that the government can do for startups and the economy is just get out of the way.

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

#112

Post by danilocampos »

samstave wrote: post #108
ctdonath wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is what constitutes "maintaining a living", both in your own choices and governmental influence. I can show you how to live well on $10/day, but then you'd complain about not having X Y and Z (starting with two cars and a mortgage in a narrow geographic range). If you can't do without what amounts to luxuries to 75% of the world population, discussing how many hours a week you "should" work is a non-start…

OK - I am your student I live in the bay area, Married, have 2 kids and work in SF. Show me how to live on $10/day. Consider me your student. Unless your comment of "showing me how to live on $10/day" is really titled "show a homeless 15 year-old with no job, family or financial obligations how to subsist on $10/day" If you really can show me how to live on less than the cost it is for me to get to work ($7.10, BTW)…

> If not, then fuck you you smug ass - it costs to live.

Wow. Now why was that necessary?

Poster makes a valid point – $10 daily will buy you an existence that looks positively palatial to some, and near a pauper to others. You will be living well, relative to any number of other humans, but lacking the things you want.

For example, you probably stop living in the Bay Area.

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

#113

Post by learc83 »

jseliger wrote: post #107
jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

>In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. I'm not convinced this is true: there are also intense coordination costs and learning costs. Two programmers working 20 hours a week, for example, are way less productive tha…

>Two programmers working 20 hours a week, for example, are way less productive than one programmer working 40 hours a week.

That makes assumptions efficiency as it relates to number of hours worked that I'm not sure you can make.

How many of those 40 hours are really spent working?

40 hour work weeks are the result of labor regulations, and the binding of health insurance to full-time employment, not a free market equilibrium.

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

#114

Post by mark_l_watson »

jseliger wrote: post #107
jdietrich wrote: post #92

In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. The cost of living hasn't meaningfully increased, we've just continually redefined luxuries as necessities. My grandparents are perfectly typical working-class people. They gre…

>In the 1950s, there was the great promise of "the leisure society" - a future of such material abundance that most people would hardly need to work. That society became possible, but we systematically rejected it in favour of more consumption. I'm not convinced this is true: there are also intense coordination costs and learning costs. Two programmers working 20 hours a week, for example, are way less productive tha…

Sorry, I must disagree. Two people working 20 hours a week are refreshed, not burned out, have time for educationally side projects, etc.

I am in my early 60s and for my whole life I limited my work hours to 32 hours per week, even working for large companies. I had lots of time for educational side projects, exercise, extra time with family and friends, and mediation.

My only regret was not perhaps cutting this to less than 30 hours. I did not work Mondays, and every Tuesday morning I was refreshed and enjoyed my work. Leaving about 20% of my salary on the table was a good trade. Some of my bosses did not like this, but when I worked I gave them 100% effort.

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

#115

Post by tossacct »

eriksank wrote: post #104
tossacct wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>You could start your own company, be your own employer and work as much as you feel like. Most people in the United States do not have this option because they do not have enough money to do so.

In any modern economy, you can redefine a business plan that requires capital into one that does not. The problem is rather what will you live off while the business is still taking off? That is where you may need savings. But then again, it is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today. (1) Move to a cheaper area (2) get rid of everything you can do without. And…

>>>It is possible for approximately anybody to cut their expenses to less than 25% of what they are today.

I will strongly agree for consumer purchases by people at or above the median household income in America. Strongly disagree for medical purchases, since if you try to save money you may die.

I'd love to see some numbers or studies to prove your claim as it applies to Americans in poverty. Even some anecdotal math would be fine, using craigslist apartments and bus ticket costs and food costs and medical costs and etc. Poverty line is 23,050 for a family of 4.

November 2012: 20% of American children live in poverty

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/

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

#117

Post by codewright »

Claudus wrote: post #69

I left my job a year ago, and started doing remote work for a small company. Since then, I've worked between 15 to 25 hours a week. As a result: - I'm more rested and stress free - I get a lot more exercise and I eat healthier - I'm much more efficient and motivated in my work - My creativity and exploration into new fields has bloomed I used to put almost all of my effort into my work, with not enough time devoted t…

I'm considering getting back into remote work and/or contracting but it's been some time since I last did so. For exactly the same reasons you're enjoying it now.

Do you have any pointers on finding permanent or contracted remote work? Most of the connections I had fron before have since died out.

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

#118

Post by ktgrey »

learc83 wrote: post #84
necro wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 li…

For what it's worth, top chess players decline in skill with age, so it matters for at least one mental activity.

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

#120

Post by saryant »

samstave wrote: post #110
burntsushi wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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."

Jesus, you and ctdonath sound like 20-something morons. Get a fucking life with several mortgages and children. Or, better yet - go live the idolized life of the genius software development hermit you both appear to think yourself to be. What a wonderful life that will be. I am so sick of these douchebag HNers that all think of themselves to be the next rails revolution and have no fucking clue as to what it actually…

People might be more receptive to your argument if you weren't rude to them.
Post reply on HN