What Long Hours Really Mean • Hacker News Board

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#191

Post by quinnchr » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 8:45 PM UTC

telephonetemp wrote: post #188

quinnchr wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes all of those things exist and can make predictions about "reality," but that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomenology_(philosophy)

>that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. I am aware of phenomenology and I've read some Merleau-Ponty. To my taste, however, the situation where an objective/"objective" scientific truth makes consistent predictions about my sensory experiences that suggest a physical outside world and another where that truth makes consistent predictions about the outside world itself, which in turn causes the…

I mean yeah if you don't care about understanding the nature of existence, the distinction doesn't matter. If all you're concerned with is making useful predictions, there is no point in quibbling about the subjectivity of experience.

My point is simply that just because the scientific method leads to useful predictions that doesn't make it objective truth nor does it invalidate the importance of subjective experience.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#192

Post by avenger123 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 8:49 PM UTC

SubuSS wrote: post #183

avenger123 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't point 1 be the inverse? If you are working with a group of people that are considered "super smart", and you are in that group, well, regardless of what you say, the inclusion in the group makes you also "super smart". So, in fact you should be working even less than 40 hours and get much much more done than the "average" group. It almost seems like Amazon culture foster's this attitude of "we hire really s…

Amazon doesn't foist a 'keep up' requirement on people. You can just do your job, make a bunch of money and have fun working here for a long time. There might be a little bit more work compared to other companies that build packaged software, but nothing the web companies don't have. And no - I was not saying the team does long hours either. We have all mixes of people, some do long hours and some wrap it at 40 or 45…

Thanks for the update. It helps remove some assumptions.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#193

Post by SubuSS » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 9:22 PM UTC

gordaco wrote: post #185

kulkarnic wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is bunk. You're paid to do work which can be done in 40 hours/wk or you're being exploited (and so are a lot of other people). When you're 60 would you rather have memories with your kids, or have the satisfaction of writing lots of code in the 2010s that is not being used anymore because it got obsolete/automated? (don't believe that can happen? Talk to rule-based AI researchers from the 80s) The only reasons t…

I would add that a lot of employers (and I suppose that also VCs, but I haven't had the experience first hand) love to try to make you think you're Batman, in order to trick you into long hours.

How often does that work? Doesn't it become obvious that you aren't one after the first deathmarch?

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#194

Post by dev_jim » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 9:40 PM UTC

chrisgd wrote: post #152

dev_jim wrote: post #125

"Working for free" after 40 hours never resonated with me. It comes out of hard fought labor battles, but an assembly line is difficult to relate to when I'm eating free snacks in my comfy Aeron chair and working on things that generally interest me. I think the biggest issue here is misaligned expectations between boss and worker. Personally, I've always gone into a job understanding what it was going to take to be…

But as well as your comp expectations, your comp is also adjusted accordingly through a bonus program. I am not sure the advice provided applies to those with a bonus and equity incentive.

Bonus is part of an overall compensation package. Its not payment for 'overtime'. Its just a different risk/reward calculation then only salary. The key point in all of this is to have a mutual understanding of expectations with your manager.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#195

Post by telephonetemp » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 10:14 PM UTC

quinnchr wrote: post #191

telephonetemp wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that doesn't mean reality exists outside of my own experience. I am aware of phenomenology and I've read some Merleau-Ponty. To my taste, however, the situation where an objective/"objective" scientific truth makes consistent predictions about my sensory experiences that suggest a physical outside world and another where that truth makes consistent predictions about the outside world itself, which in turn causes the…

I mean yeah if you don't care about understanding the nature of existence, the distinction doesn't matter. If all you're concerned with is making useful predictions, there is no point in quibbling about the subjectivity of experience. My point is simply that just because the scientific method leads to useful predictions that doesn't make it objective truth nor does it invalidate the importance of subjective experienc…

>if you don't care about understanding the nature of existence, the distinction doesn't matter

Okay, I think I understand your position now. (Though I'm not sure if the lack of belief in objective truth is as common as you claim.) Sorry be so persistent but I have to ask: suppose you do care about the nature of existence; how do you tell if it's one or the other or which one is more likely?

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#196

Post by sergiosgc » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 10:18 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,…

Deserves may be the wrong term. Worker output is maximized at 8h*5 days/week. This is a lesson learned in the late XIX century that is so counter intuitive that it must be relearned by every management generation. So, yes, current knowledge points to workers "deserving" 8h work leaving the rest for life balance, where "deserve" means "needs" or "performs better at" or "maximizes output at".

In the factory floor, this has been quantitatively measured and is solid. In creative jobs, quantification is a lot harder, so proof isn't as solid. I can argue for longer hours in creative jobs. I can as easily argue for shorter than 40h weeks. In the absence of further solid proof, the best option is probably to stick with 40h weeks.

So, leaving aside the rant about evils in the world and other straw men, Nature does act that way.

There's a good summary of arguments and references here: http://legacy.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-less...

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#197

Post by Iftheshoefits » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 10:30 PM UTC

throwaway092834 wrote: post #190

Iftheshoefits wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the "Principal/Architect's" equity grant affords him a definitive say in the direction of the company, then he's an owner, not a worker. If it doesn't, then the grant is indistinguishable from an ESPP with a larger discount, in terms of raw compensation, and any hours he works over 40 is unpaid (i.e. 'free' work). With respect to #2: A raise is not, in fact, compensation. It's a promise of future compensation base…

Any equity stake is improved by work in the company. Your argument seems to be that the work isn't sufficient, but you're not being clear about where you draw the line. WRT #2, the impact on income when viewing a career over a long period of time is clear. It appears you're being dishonest by refusing to acknowledge this rather obvious fact. You can say "it's not compensation" until you're blue in the face but at the…

I think the line is somewhat blurred, but I object to the notion that I'm not being clear: if the equity stake doesn't give a person the same, or comparable, authority and take of the profit as "major" shareholders, the person is an employee, not an owner. To take one specific case as an example, if a person can be fired by the "real" owner/equity holders, he's not an owner. So the "Product Manager" in your example, if he doesn't get paid for every hour he works, is working for free for some hours, regardless of the particulars of the ESPP program he's participating in.

You're conflating "compensation in year N+1" with "being paid for hours worked in year N." The compensation you're talking about is dependent on work done in year N+1, and is not some sort of "back pay" or "built in, amortized pay" for the work done previously.

A simple example may help illuminate what "working for free" means in the context of this discussion.

1) You earn $1000 per week in salary compensation. 2) You work 45 hours during a given week. 3) You are paid $1000 for work done that week.

It doesn't matter whether you get a raise the next week, or what the amount of the raise is. For the week you already worked you contributed 5 hours of unpaid, free labor to your employer.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#198

Post by SubuSS » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 10:32 PM UTC

memracom wrote: post #187

SubuSS wrote: post #159

Most of these articles that deride long work hours don't account for the following: 1. When you are the smartest in the room, you can get away with 40 hours because what you produce in 40 hours will be orders of magnitude ahead of what a normal guy produces in 80 hours. Trouble comes when you start being part of super smart teams (mine has about 9 engineers sharing around 150 years of systems/db building expertise am…

The OP does mention that long hours are not sustainable which recognizes that occasional bursts of extra effort will get results. As for point number 5, nobody said that people should go home and sleep at the end of their 8 hour day. If you have a hobby that is completely different from your day job, then it will energize you, as you have discovered. Your day job is management and your hobby is coding.

Most of my hobbies are related to my product - so no issues there. But even in the main project, there are some issues that require the personal attention of senior engineers. These will require time aside from the regular co-ordination / mentoring.

Also I don't manage people. Just projects - a Technical lead so to say.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#199

Post by shadowfiend » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 10:38 PM UTC

dustingetz wrote: post #184

shadowfiend wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Mythical Man Month points out that adding manpower doesn't accelerate a project. In no way does that mean that adding hours does. They are completely unrelated ideas. Adding manpower doesn't accelerate a project because more people doesn't immediately mean more productivity. Adding hours can only accelerate a project if more hours means more productivity. There are multiple studies that show this is false after a…

"From a business point of view, long hours by programmers are a key to profitability. ..." wrote Phil Greenspun[1], here's the rest of the quote: "... Suppose that a programmer needs to spend 25 hours per week keeping current with new technology, getting coordinated with other programmers, contributing to documentation and thought leadership pieces, and comprehending the structures of the systems being extended. Unde…

This is a mathematical analysis built on unstated assumptions of how long the brain can focus on something in the long term. By this line of reasoning, 4 people working 168-hour weeks would be maximally productive, but they wouldn't be sleeping, so obviously the purely mathematical argument falls down on its face.

My point is, knowing that turning dial A up doesn't help doesn't mean that turning dial B up does. It just means turning dial A up doesn't. Sometimes the reality is that turning neither dial up is the only option, and you have to plan around that fact.

In reality, there's decent evidence out there to support the statement that turning dial B up can be just as counterproductive as turning dial A up unless it's done very judiciously.

Re: What Long Hours Really Mean

#200

Post by um304 » Wed, Nov 06, 2013, 11:37 PM UTC

I work long hours and I know it adds 0$/hour into my account. My motivation is to build a product that I can proudly add in my portfolio and it may help me tap bigger opportunities in future. I consider it as investment, and I am fully aware that, like other investments, it may turn out to be zero. But then every effort worth-doing in life is a gamble and nothing comes with assurities.