What Long Hours Really Mean • Hacker News Board

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#111

Post by telephonetemp » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:08 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #61

telephonetemp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good deal of middle ground between the self-evident >We are not merely rational creatures we are also feeling creatures and a thought-terminating cliche like >Objectivity doesn't exist. The latter doesn't seem like a helpful response to someone who is apparently asking for scientific evidence for long working hours and/or overtime doing harm to you. If anything, knowing what science says on the matter is em…

You pissed off those who are highly invested in either side without provoking any support from the middle; your rewording is no less offensive, especially with the pointer to the pre-edit version, and your usage of parentheses necessitates an above average working memory or rereading.

Thanks for your insight. I'm genuinely surprised if I did come off as being against both sides. I thought my comment was obviously pro-rationalist (my reasoning being that a deliberately rational person would recognize the importance of one's emotional state and use rational thought to improve it). I may have inadvertently stumbled upon a trolling strategy: in what appears to be a binary choice don't be recognizably for either.

I was also apparently too sleepy to call parentheses by their name.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#112

Post by shubb » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:10 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #69

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…

By what natural law is this true? By what will of nature or physics are you deriving your statements? Deserves? Why does anyone deserve anything? Nature itself does not act that way. People around the world deserve not to live in fear of their government killing them. Women deserve not to live in fear of being raped. Children should not live in fear of abuse. Yet untold millions starve, are beaten, tortured, abused,…

I think you just argued that first world tech workers should not act like they are entitled to downtime because of warcrimes.

I'm not saying they should feel entitled, but that isn't very rational.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#113

Post by BillyMaize » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:12 PM UTC

com2kid wrote: post #69

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…

By what natural law is this true? By what will of nature or physics are you deriving your statements? Deserves? Why does anyone deserve anything? Nature itself does not act that way. People around the world deserve not to live in fear of their government killing them. Women deserve not to live in fear of being raped. Children should not live in fear of abuse. Yet untold millions starve, are beaten, tortured, abused,…

As I have said in other threads, just because someone else in another part of the world has a worse life than you does not mean yours is OK. If person A gets beaten 3 times a day and person B only gets beaten 1 times a day, does person B not have the right to say they deserve better? Person A might be in a worse position, but perhaps both people deserve a better life.

>Deserves? Why does anyone deserve anything? Nature itself does not act that way.

Living as we would in nature would be a HORRIBLE way to live human life. The way things "naturally" would occur is irrelevant, we build societies and develop science to improve our lives to where we all want them to be.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#114

Post by nostrademons » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:20 PM UTC

joelrunyon wrote: post #49

curyous wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Henry Ford tested his workforce, he discovered that reducing hours to a 5-day 40-hour workweek increased total output.

Source? If true - that's really interesting. I wonder what the other outcomes / configurations were.

Kellogg experimented with a 30-hour work week starting in 1930. The experiment lasted until 1985, though the company started phasing it out in 1946.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Company

Thye found (in the 1930s) that the reduced work week paid for itself in reduced workplace accidents. However, after WW2 companies moved to employer-paid accident insurance instead of paying out-of-pocket workman's comp, and as a result, the cost savings would be socialized anyway. This tilted the equation back toward an 8-hour day, at least from management's perspective, though employees remained staunchly opposed to the longer day for a generation.

What ultimately killed it was a status thing: by the 70s and 80s, employees on the 30-hour work week felt like they were "slackers", and didn't have the same social status as those who worked harder.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#115

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:28 PM UTC

thenomad wrote: post #101

jacques_chester wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd add PeopleWare to that reading list, if only for introducing the concept that overtime is offset by "undertime".

And let's just add Slack in there for demonstrating all the benefits that not overworking people has.

I've always meant to get read Slack. I read The Deadline and Adrenaline Junkies and Template Zombies, both were excellent.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#116

Post by dmd149 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:32 PM UTC

I always feel super lazy when I read these articles criticizing excessively long work weeks. Honestly, I think 40 hours is way too long, especially when the bulk of it is boring.

That being said, when you're working on something you enjoy and you get into that "flow" state, time becomes irrelevant. If something is fun and energizes you, you can do it without watching the clock, which the author does with his side projects.

If you work at a regular job and say you get into that flow state for 2 hour or so, when you're done, you realize, "shit, i have to be here for another 6 hours." Then you spend a lot of time dicking around on the internet/answering e-mails/doing non mentally taxing stuff. However, those 6 hours are actually pretty draining/depressing because you have to maintain the illusion that you're working + deal with the guilt that you're not being productive.

I dunno, maybe I'm just especially lazy and would like to spend as little time as possible working on things I don't enjoy.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#117

Post by rwallace » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 12:55 PM UTC

mattlutze wrote: post #78

joelrunyon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "deserves" This word always makes me coil. Everytime I hear it - I assume someone is trying to sell me something.

> 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. "[...]deserves an average of 8 hours of work[...]" "[...]2 days a week free[...]" I think that's the snake oil you're smelling. How does society ensure this can happen? With laws, of course! Why, we can just make overtime and >5 in every 7 days with worked hours illegal, it's so simple...

It worked fine in France, ended up raising the overall productivity of their economy. France now has a higher standard of living than the US, so it might be worth looking at what they're doing right.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#118

Post by LaGrange » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 1:03 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #102

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…

Who decided on the 5:2 ratio, where does he live and who wants to join me on an expedition to find him and physically punish him? We deserve at least 5:4. Personally I think 4:5 would be nice. I'd get a lot done.

Labor unions, to replace the alternative, which was no weekend at all. Just like the 8h day.

The numbers didn’t come from nothing, but certainly didn’t come from any great calculation. It came from how much we (the workers) could wrestle away from industrialists. Google scholar searches (not very extensive, feel free to repeat) weakly suggests that cutting work hours may have a net positive effect on economy, so as long as I’m operating from the worker perspective, it actually makes sense to not settle on the current ratio. It’s like settling on your wage because you once got a raise 105 years ago.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#119

Post by LaGrange » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 1:05 PM UTC

rjurney wrote: post #56

sdoering wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing. I commute not that much (1hr) per workday. I use this time, to listen to relaxing music and reading fiction (and sometimes popular science). After the commute I have to walk 10 minutes, to arrive at my front door. I have to walk through a little park. Really. For me commuting and then walking is my way of coming down. Of letting go of the work, so that I arrive at home free of all the stuff, that happens…

A driving commute makes you unhappy because it is exhausting, and you lose that time. It sounds like your commute is on transit, which isn't so bad... you can read, so that time is still yours. I'd love an hour transit commute. I like to read!

I’m actually considering moving a bit further from Amsterdam, because the amount of time I spend on the train is just a tiny bit too short for reading. Added bonus: I’d live next to the sea!

(but I also willingly increase the commute time by picking a „wrong” train station, to have a longer cycling leg of the commute)

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#120

Post by shubb » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 1:07 PM UTC

DigitalSea wrote: post #34

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…

Quite clearly you love your job more than you love your friends and family if you're happy staying back because you love your job as opposed to going home to your husband or wife, or catching up with your best friend who you haven't seen in 3 months because you've been too busy working. Overtime is expected in the design and development industry. It's when companies factor in overtime into their estimates in order to…

You mention family a bunch, and I think that's important.

If you are 20 and single, and staying late in the office means pizza and a bit of XBox with your team later on, it is genuinely much nicer than going back to your empty little apartment and microwaving an instant meal.

If you have a family, then regardless of how much you like XBox, if you are a decent person you will run out the door at 5.

I'm young and irresponsible. When I glance round the office at 8pm, and see a guys I know have baby children working free over time like every other night, I want to shake them.