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

What Long Hours Really Mean

wearemammoth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 224 posts

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#21

Post by vonseel »

In my first development job, I worked very long hours — perhaps because I didn't have great mentors, often worked remotely, and found myself doing tons of learning/education just to get by. This was OK for a while; I had to pay my dues and learn how to do the job, but I do not think it is sustainable, after the first year I burned out and was ready to move on.

Now, I prefer long, uninterrupted workdays, but I do not like to work much more than 40 hours per week. The traditional 5 day per week model is not perfect, though. I prefer 4 longer days (10-12 hours), and 3 days off.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#22

Post by dwaltrip »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #3

Working even half an hour extra each day adds up to ~3 weeks a year of extra work that you're not getting paid for. That's several thousand dollars in wages. It's easy to dismiss a half-hour here or there but if you sit down and run the numbers, it's quite an unpleasant conclusion.

I think the cost is much higher in terms of well being. As free time shrinks, each additional hour lost is increasingly burdensome.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#23

Post by jmvoodoo »

This entire piece is written from the perspective of someone who sees their job as only a way to make money. That person might look at me and say something along the lines of "look at him, wasting his life away spending time at work." To me, though, he is the one wasting his life spending even a few hours a day to do something he would not do for free. If you don't absolutely love your job, quit. And if you absolutely love your job, why the hell wouldn't you want to stay a few more minutes?

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#24

Post by jonny_eh »

ojbyrne wrote: post #16
christianmann wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to discount this, but where does commute fall into this breakdown?

Good point, because in the US at least, people will willingly sacrifice their leisure time for more money (longer commutes allowing for cheaper housing being just one example).

And yet studies show that next to being below the poverty line, nothing correlates higher with unhappiness than commute times.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/03/30/commuting/

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#25

Post by cgag »

jmvoodoo wrote: post #23

This entire piece is written from the perspective of someone who sees their job as only a way to make money. That person might look at me and say something along the lines of "look at him, wasting his life away spending time at work." To me, though, he is the one wasting his life spending even a few hours a day to do something he would not do for free. If you don't absolutely love your job, quit. And if you absolutel…

The thing about that is I need money to live. The intersection of things I'd do for free and tasks given to me by other people is very small.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#26

Post by gruseom »

PilateDeGuerre wrote: post #8
gruseom wrote: post #2

This is an emotional topic, the discussion of which is nearly always evidence-free. How could one study it objectively?

>How could one study it objectively? Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist. I see this fallacy all the time from hackers. We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures. Embrace it.

I'm in favor of what comes from within, but it's important not just to repeat what one already believes.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#27

Post by gruseom »

Wingman4l7 wrote: post #12
gruseom wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay is only one reason for work. If pay is one's only reason, long hours for no extra pay are certainly objectionable. But that's a circular argument. I like working long hours when it's work that I want to be doing. If people are working at something they don't want to do, maybe that is the real problem. For menial jobs that no one enjoys, there may be no easy way to fix the situation, but in an industry like tech t…

Well, sure -- I acknowledged more intangible benefits in passing -- but the poster wanted an objective way to measure it, so I gave them one. shrug

You gave a way of measuring something else.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#28

Post by john61 »

jmvoodoo wrote: post #23

This entire piece is written from the perspective of someone who sees their job as only a way to make money. That person might look at me and say something along the lines of "look at him, wasting his life away spending time at work." To me, though, he is the one wasting his life spending even a few hours a day to do something he would not do for free. If you don't absolutely love your job, quit. And if you absolutel…

Even if you love to run marathons, running marathons all day will destroy you .

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#29

Post by quinnchr »

philwelch wrote: post #11
PilateDeGuerre wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How could one study it objectively? Here's a fix, and it comes from within: Give up the ideal of objectivity. Objectivity doesn't exist. I see this fallacy all the time from hackers. We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures. Embrace it.

I feel that you're wrong about that.

If you think their is such a thing as objective truth in this world you must be some sort of postmodern miracle.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#30

Post by dalek_cannes »

qq66 wrote: post #13
dalek_cannes wrote: post #9

Every human being deserves an average of 8 hours of work, 8 hours of family/leisure, 8 hours of sleep and 2 days a week free. Even a doctor on whom many lives are depending . Lives of critical employees are just as valuable as the lives of those who are affected if they don't work harder. The whole "if I don't do this, the project will sink / things will be destroyed" is a self-imposed ransom situation that managers…

Where do these numbers come from that you proclaim them to be universal human standards? Why not 7 hours of work? Why not 9?

Don't take the numbers literally, and read it as "I believe every man deserves...". Merely an unscientific three-way split of a 24-hour day, with a liberal sleep quota and a traditional weekend. It's also the most defensible scheme against the old guard.

Commuting is a different problem.

Post reply on HN