11–20 of 69 posts
“All else being equal, why would I hire someone that works 40 hour weeks when there are a ton of other people willing to work 60? “
So, which one is it?
I think that people making the argument of 40 hours a week is not that is it impossible or not beneficial to work 60+ hours a week at a particular time. But that it's not sustainable. It's not the same living on ramen for two years than defending that living on ramen is actually great. Again, assuming that an exceptional situation (young startup founder with no commitments) is the norm is a mistake.
Also, it is easy to think that working those extra 20 hours are a big deal, hey 50% por output! But the fact is that that's not necessarily true. Ideas need time to develop, and spending time in different activities is good for your mind. I had a shop for a couple of years, and I worked A LOT during that time (I was the only one taking care of it), and I know how founding a company sucks up absolutely all your energy and mind. But being obsessed with it is not sane on the long term. I also work right now a lot less hours and more relaxed than when I was younger and I am waaaaay more productive.
So at 23 this person feels he has enough anecdotal experience to trump 100+ years of research. Let's see...he states he has no life outside of work, that he forced himself to pull those hours even when there wasn't work enough to demand it, that he was working those hours without remuneration of any kind, and while conflating 'working' with 'learning', leading me to question if he was really being productive, rather…
For example: http://www.danzpage.com/Construction-Management-Resources/Ca...
(Hourly productivity is lower during the 60 hour weeks, but weekly product is higher.)
I have never seen a result that says no one can work 60+ hours regularly. I've never seen a result that even applied to knowledge workers - the entire literature is about construction and manufacturing.
So if you want to make a strong claim that "100+ years of research" proves something, please cite the research. If it's so voluminous, it shouldn't be hard.
(Incidentally, just remembered Claudia Goldin's paper on gender gaps. She cites a bunch of literature showing that in some occupations, productivity is actually superlinear in the number of hours worked, not sublinear like construction. http://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2014conference/program/retrieve.ph... )
You Learn and Accomplish More This is what everyone else is arguing against and what the research is invalidating. You may feel you're getting more done, but are you really? Few high quality hours are much more productive than many low quality hours, especially if its work that requires your brain to actually work efficiently (anything creative, programming etc). I refuse to believe that this tipping point is exactly…
Ok, give or take 5 hours (35-45). That's different than 50% more :-P
There are definitely benefits to having one person work 60 hours rather than two work 40, beyond cost savings to the company. Often if you're tackling a hard and involved problem, it often isn't something that can be easily split up. There is a lot of context, and one person working on it steadily will certainly be more efficient than trying to have two people work on it and communicate.
I don't work like this now, but I can say that when I did I was remarkably productive. It does come with an associated cost on family life and out-of-work activities, and unless you're going to actually get compensated for it; it is likely not worth it.
Working on an interesting problem, though, can be very difficult to put down.
I have not problem with someone working 60+ hours per week. It is your life. Do with it whatever you like. I think the previous discussion was not about turning down people working long hours. It was about turning down the idea that working 60+ hours is something heroic, something which is worthwhile to do for everyone.
Is he sure he will say the same thing when he will be 40 yo ?
By all means do as many hours of work per week as you want but if you want to justify it, prove (as in scientific proof) us that you are more productive than standard a 40 hours / week .
I don't blame them because my boss was, all things considered, kind of a reckless asshole We didn't take breaks on 100 degree days, had 10 minute lunch breaks, and by the end of the summer all of us had fallen off a roof at least once because my boss believed that setting up the safety scaffolding was a waste of time. But goddamn we got a lot of roofs done that summer, and that actually felt great.
But I was 18 then, was in good shape from high school athletics, found the whole situation hilarious, and more importantly, I knew that in a few months, I'd be at college.
In the decade since, I've averaged at least 50 hours a week and would not be surprised if the average was closer to 60. However, the long hours I work now are not in the office. I go home and read and program on side projects/experiments/other people's Github projects, because that's the only way I can eventually figure out solutions to technical problems that not only interest me personally, but that I eventually will apply in my work. If I were to spend 20 hours a day in the office, I wouldn't get done what I do by spending a couple hours in the evening or early in the morning, studying and practicing out of my own volition.
Before my current tech work, I was a newspaper reporter. I was often at the office for 10 to 12 hours a day...some of it was because I cared about the stories and projects I was working on. But honestly, most of it was because of inefficiencies inherent to the work, i.e. waiting until close to midnight because I'm waiting for a source to call me back right before deadline. The 12-hour day then was not because of best practices...I don't think I need to convince anyone here how horribly inefficient traditional media companies are in general.
So I will never work for anyone who would raise an eyebrow if I felt that 8 hours a day in the office were enough. I work extra hours constantly because I get satisfaction out of building things well, and sometimes building things well means taking 4 hours of quiet time, spread over the weekend, to rig up a solution that saves me 50 hours of work in the next couple of weeks. If an employer can't trust me to spend my time right, then that's not an employer that would use me to our maximal mutual benefit.
So at 23 this person feels he has enough anecdotal experience to trump 100+ years of research. Let's see...he states he has no life outside of work, that he forced himself to pull those hours even when there wasn't work enough to demand it, that he was working those hours without remuneration of any kind, and while conflating 'working' with 'learning', leading me to question if he was really being productive, rather…
At what age would this person's comments hold water? 25? 28? 30?
> (yes, I am passionate about lawn care)
> As long as your net contribution3 per hour is positive, what is the harm in working more?
Look, if people who have done this exact thing before tell you it doesn't work, maybe listen a bit? But I guess there is nothing quite like a lesson you learn for yourself.