Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by luispedrocoelho » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #125

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you may have misunderstood the article - if anything this is an argument for death marches.

I wonder if the author being a student pushing for a European PhD[1] warps his thinking about this. With a PhD all the reward is at the end. You either make or break. None of the work you do has any tangible results outside of the end goal. Most work isn't like that. The rewards are continuous and ongoing. Meaning every task has captured value. If a loan officer closes 19 loans this month instead of 20, productivity…

I have a PhD already (from an US institution), but there are elements that are pretty specific to academic research: it's fairly competitive (and wins are not that constant) and it's very individualized. It's also one where we have almost complete control of our time. It's more like being a freelancer, albeit with a fixed salary in an often bureaucratic environment.

I agree with you 100% that most work is not like that at all.

(Btw, most PhDs in Europe do not have required classes or, if they do, they tend to be pretty easy; it's the research component that's hard)

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

#132

Post by luispedrocoelho » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 9:54 PM UTC

awinter-py wrote: post #31

Article is focused on the academic world so doesn't talk about interruptions, meetings, and quiet time. If you work in an open-plan office the 10 hours you do at night, at home, and on the wkend can be the most productive. I've had months where I put out more real fires on a kayak, on vacation, than at my desk; people bother you when you're at a desk but they can't get to you on the water.

All these things happen in academia. Nowadays, many people regularly work from home for the quiet (I do 1 day a week from home).

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

#133

Post by Rusky » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 9:57 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #93

ryandrake wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between. What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in…

> Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? Hardly. The history of capitalism shows that absent government intervention to prop up companies, they rise and fall. When I started out, everyone was a-feared that IBM would inevitably take over the world. Then Microsoft dethroned them, and Microsoft was going to take over the world. Then Apple dethroned Microsoft. And on it goes. There was Sears that dominated re…

All of those companies exist in a world with the threat of anti-trust regulation, and some were directly affected by it.

There are plenty of counterexamples from before that regulation, and there are still some today (e.g. ISPs).

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

#134

Post by luispedrocoelho » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 9:59 PM UTC

WisNorCan wrote: post #42

"If you are managing as a group, go for the average" This is a point I strongly disagree with. Just the way some people need fewer hours of sleep than others OR some people can run further than others. I have found that people have vastly different ability to focus and personal drive. Orienting around averages is a terrible way to develop a team and people. It also demotivates people that want to work harder and they…

OP here.

I agree and my phrasing may not have been exact. I meant that if you need to pick a number for a whole group of people, then you look at the average.

This can be in the context of industrial production where you have thousands of workers and are forced to have fixed shifts (because you cannot run the assembly line without all the stations filled).

Or, in more modern example, a public sector bureaucracy where you cannot be very flexible as these things are negotiated with a union as whole.

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

#135

Post by kbutler » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:00 PM UTC

This essay and most of the comments saying, "of course more work time yields more work completed" ignore the fact that there is no magic reset to full productivity Monday morning.

If you work every hour of week 1, your output of week 2 will be drastically reduced. There is therefore some optimal balance between work time and recovery time. It may be 40 hours, or 20, or 80. It probably varies between tasks and individuals and situations.

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that spending more time working is necessarily going to be more effective.

Sometimes the best thing you can do to get the job done is to stop working on it for a while.

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

#136

Post by kbutler » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:03 PM UTC

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…

> even if you only pick one apple per hour after that, you will still pick more apples working 50 hours than 40.

How about your 2 week total? Or 52-week total?

If weeks 2-52 are one apple per hour, 50 hours per week, you've done less work in more time.

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

#137

Post by conanbatt » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:05 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #52

conanbatt wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that the bugs provoked by tiredness have an aggregate of negative productivity. And even if so, it can be mitigated. As a webdeveloper, when Im tired i do the most menial tasks which means that bugs introduced there are rare and not important.

What is a menial task in software development? I mean, our entire field exist for pushing menial tasks into computers. If you have as many of them to fill 50% of your work load, there's probably something wrong. Besides, are you sure bugs in menial tasks are not important? When did you judge those tasks to decide this?

tasks.sort { |a,b| b.difficulty a.difficulty }

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

#138

Post by dheera » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:07 PM UTC

alangpierce wrote: post #72

dheera wrote: post #23

I wonder how they got this curve. A lot of things can be sustained for 1 week cannot be sustained in the long term. I'd say in the long term: * 140-168 hours/week --> almost certain death. * 100-140 hours/week --> at risk of cardiovascular disease and many other serious medical conditions. Possible early death. * 80-100 hours/week --> still super-bad for your body. Forget raising children, dating, getting married, or…

I'm curious what you consider "work" when thinking about these numbers. Do you also consider chores, exercise, side projects/hobbies, etc to be work, or are you strictly referring to work for an employer? Do your numbers only apply to situations where people don't enjoy their jobs? If it's the weekend and I want to explore a cool work-related idea I had, does that count as work according to your numbers?

I'm considering "work" to be related to things you have contractual or financial obligations to, i.e. your primary employment or company that you own. Work that you enjoy doing still counts as "work" if you have obligations to customers, bosses, employees, investors, or anyone.

I consider "recreation" to be things that you are doing because you want to, and do not have obligations to do (of any kind, including but not limited to contractual, health, etc.).

I consider side projects (real side projects, not 20% projects) to be recreation. You're allowed to rest when you're tired, you're allowed to procastinate, you're allowed to take breaks whenever and however long you want, you're allowed to take your laptop to the beach, you're allowed to abandon them, change them, and do as you please with them. This kind of mental freedom is very, very important to qualitatively count as recreation.

If side projects evolve into a contractual obligation, then it becomes work by my book.

Exercise counts as recreation if you're doing it because you want to. It doesn't count as recreation if your work makes you do it (i.e. move boxes in a warehouse). It doesn't count if you're working 100 hours a week and spend 5 of those hours exercising in the office gym out of necessity for your health because you couldn't find time to exercise in a way that you find fun.

I hike for exercise. I hike because I want to, and nobody makes me do it. That counts as recreation.

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

#139

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:16 PM UTC

Rusky wrote: post #133

WalterBright wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? Hardly. The history of capitalism shows that absent government intervention to prop up companies, they rise and fall. When I started out, everyone was a-feared that IBM would inevitably take over the world. Then Microsoft dethroned them, and Microsoft was going to take over the world. Then Apple dethroned Microsoft. And on it goes. There was Sears that dominated re…

All of those companies exist in a world with the threat of anti-trust regulation, and some were directly affected by it. There are plenty of counterexamples from before that regulation, and there are still some today (e.g. ISPs).

> There are plenty of counterexamples from before that regulation

Name one :-)

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

#140

Post by WalterBright » Sat, Jul 08, 2017, 10:19 PM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #113

18nleung wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good example. Elections are definitely winner-take-all, i.e. we get red cars or green cars. But under capitalism, I can choose which I want. Elections are not about individual choices.