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

Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

metarabbit.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#111

Post by luispedrocoelho »

watwut wrote: post #92

The study I have seen claimed that 40-50 hours long term have same output and then it goes down. The studies on game development teams found that crunch raise productivity of short (don't recall if 3 or 6 weeks) and productivity goes down only after. This article does not seem to adress concrete studies nor their results - it just generally theorise about what might be wrong about them without knowing what is on them…

OP here.

Do you have a citation? The post is mostly to address this constant claims that 40 hours is proven by science and no convincing citations are provided.

I am also writing in the context of self-managing knowledge workers who can manage their own time. I explicitly write that the flexibility we have may mitigate many of the downsides observed in mandated long hours. For example, I do work >40 hours, but I rarely have to wake up with an alarm clock. I can follow the occasional 16 hour day with a 10 hour sleep cycle and stroll into work at lunch time the next day feeling pretty relaxed.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#112

Post by qwerty2020 »

dheera wrote: post #36
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

I love how things like the 40 hour work week with two days off get enshrined as some kind of natural phenomenon that has always been with us. 40 hours is an arbitrary number that came from trade unionists demanding fair hours and Robert Owen's slogan: “Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.” I mean those two things: 8 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep have been considered to be the biological/…

It's actually flawed because there are other things that need to be done in a week besides work, recreation, and rest. For example: - eating: 12-15 hours/week - making food (or travelling to get food): 7-10 hours/week - showering, shaving, grooming: 4-7 hours/week - laundry, cleaning, house chores: 2-4 hours/week - commuting: 5-10 hours/week - waiting in line (checkout lines, customer service reps, Comcast/DMV/insura…

100% agree -- made a small free time calculator along these lines awhile back [1]

[1] - http://www.datadriventhoughts.com/2016/09/27/how-much-free-t...

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#113

Post by dantheman »

18nleung wrote: post #104
WalterBright wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To demonstrate something about capitalism, one should use an example from capitalism, not try to contort something from government into capitalism.

Isn't this essentially a winner-take-all situation, though? Capitalism tends towards winner-take-all systems, but not all winner-take-all systems are capitalistic. I find the example fitting.

Capitalism actual doesn't veer toward winner take all. Government does, elections do, etc. Capitalism leads to people voting with dollars so instead of a red or green car being given a vote, the red car may be cheaper if lots of people want it.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#114

Post by crdoconnor »

adekok wrote: post #18

Which says to me that the game development culture of "work 80 hours per week for months on end" is largely about incompetent management, and/or deliberate abuse. It's not about getting things done.

I think it's largely a loyalty and fealty signaling mechanism. Even though you are not achieving anything more, you are signaling your dedication to them by sacrificing leisure time.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#115

Post by pcrh »

rhizome wrote: post #57
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrot…

>A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder

That's the myth of the "American Dream", not Capitalism per se.

Capitalism is more simple, if you have capital, you have control, and with control you can profit.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#116

Post by justbaker »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #20
justbaker wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semi-true; it depends how the extra 20 hours are spent for myself. I've had weeks where I program 60 hours or more and it's all spent well, and then the next week I might be a little more burnt out.. take it a little easier and then sprint again.

Which goes towards 60 hour weeks are not sustainable...

I agree. This leads to burnout and it is not a pattern for a lengthy or successful career. I had to recently take time off in order to recharge from burnout... avoid getting to that point at all costs!

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#117

Post by justbaker »

jcranberry wrote: post #88
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which goes towards 60 hour weeks are not sustainable...

A have a couple friends who work dawn until dusk for their startup. After several months they struggled with depression and managing their work life. After a little over a year they've adjusted and it's just routine.

I can sympathize, as this recently provoked myself to take a vacation for my mental health to recover. I went to an island with horrible internet and phone service and disconnected.. this helped me restore the fragile work/life balance I require. ^

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#118

Post by skybrian »

veidr wrote: post #9

TL;DR: you can get more done if you work 60 hours instead of 40 hours in a week, but the work done in that extra 20 hours might be a small fraction of what gets done in 20 hours during a 40 hour week. This is self-evidently true for many jobs. E.g., if you pick apples for 40 hours, then even if you only pick one apple per hour after that, you will still pick more apples working 50 hours than 40. We software developer…

It seems plausible that programming while tired doesn't do a whole lot of damage in itself (more than the usual amount of bugs), provided that you also write unit tests and do code review. This could include self-review: that is, don't check in while tired, and read it over the next morning.

On the other hand, the shortcuts people take while under deadline pressure seem more damaging, and people are more likely to work longer hours when under time pressure. And the cumulative effects of working while tired might result in worse results the next day, even if a single day doesn't do it.

But I'm just speculating. It would be interesting to see a study that tries to distinguish between these different effects.

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#119

Post by belorn »

tbrake wrote: post #69
dheera wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually flawed because there are other things that need to be done in a week besides work, recreation, and rest. For example: - eating: 12-15 hours/week - making food (or travelling to get food): 7-10 hours/week - showering, shaving, grooming: 4-7 hours/week - laundry, cleaning, house chores: 2-4 hours/week - commuting: 5-10 hours/week - waiting in line (checkout lines, customer service reps, Comcast/DMV/insura…

I believe those were accounted for in those times with the notion of a stay-at-home spouse (in reality, read: wife) who did most if not all of that non-job work; food purchase/prep, laundry, chores, children, etc.

Correct, which kind of begs the question, why have the work hours not gone down when society started employing both men and women?

Re: Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week

#120

Post by agumonkey »

rlkf wrote: post #84
veidr wrote: post #9

TL;DR: you can get more done if you work 60 hours instead of 40 hours in a week, but the work done in that extra 20 hours might be a small fraction of what gets done in 20 hours during a 40 hour week. This is self-evidently true for many jobs. E.g., if you pick apples for 40 hours, then even if you only pick one apple per hour after that, you will still pick more apples working 50 hours than 40. We software developer…

At my previous work, we attempted to find the correlation between faulty code and the time of commit in the version control. Most bugs were written after 14:00. (And no: we didn't check-in all code at the end of the day).

Is there something peculiar around 14:00 beside lunch ?
Post reply on HN