Productivity and the Workweek (2000) • Hacker News Board

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#131

Post by theflyinghorse » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

wes-k wrote: post #105

UglyToad wrote: post #21

I'd be interested to know if other software developers feel their current working hours are good/positive? From feedback I've had I'm generally regarded as pretty good at my job and highly productive but my current working hours leave me completely drained, to the point I go home and collapse on the sofa, make dinner and go to bed. And that's off an 8.5 hour day. It's at the point now where it's extremely likely I'll…

Before leaving software, give freelancing / contracting a chance! I’ve managed to get great clients for years+ working 20hrs/week. I’m briefly doing 40hrs/week right now and am definitely finding it draining! One neat benefit of freelancing is that if you don’t feel like working, don’t! It’s a win win. You don’t work when you feel drained and the company doesn’t pay you for your least productive hours. Best of luck!

> if you don’t feel like working, don’t! Man, I got bills to pay, gotta save up for retirement, save up for a house, my car is on it's last wheel. I can't just not work

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#132

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

sravi2421 wrote: post #12

Sure, productivity is rising. But how much are healthcare and education costs rising? And how does that compare to this rise in productivity? Until those two pieces get solved, productivity gains don't matter since everyone needs to produce/earn more to just get those basic needs fulfilled.

Are healthcare and education demponstrably multiple times better than in the 1950s?

Are lifespans multiples of what they were in the 1950s? Are college graduates multiple times more intelligent than they were in the 1950s? Is housing multiple times better than what it was in the 1950s?

Or are all these gatekeeping functions capturing rents?

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#133

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

Razengan wrote: post #16

sravi2421 wrote: post #12

Sure, productivity is rising. But how much are healthcare and education costs rising? And how does that compare to this rise in productivity? Until those two pieces get solved, productivity gains don't matter since everyone needs to produce/earn more to just get those basic needs fulfilled.

What is productivity?

GDP per labour hour.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#134

Post by SketchySeaBeast » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:51 PM UTC

barefoot wrote: post #90

UglyToad wrote: post #21

I'd be interested to know if other software developers feel their current working hours are good/positive? From feedback I've had I'm generally regarded as pretty good at my job and highly productive but my current working hours leave me completely drained, to the point I go home and collapse on the sofa, make dinner and go to bed. And that's off an 8.5 hour day. It's at the point now where it's extremely likely I'll…

After you collapse on the sofa for a few minutes you then get back to work keeping yourself current, right? A reasonable measure of what it takes to stay current and relevant in this industry is twenty hours of dedicated reinvestment per week. Often times this reinvestment time is not afforded at work and as much as employers want to provide this as a benefit to developers, few offer the resources or time to allow de…

> A reasonable measure of what it takes to stay current and relevant in this industry is twenty hours of dedicated reinvestment per week.

That's insane - do we have statistics on people who do that?

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#135

Post by majewsky » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

Whygul wrote: post #66

Expez wrote: post #60

I work 60% now. Instead of having two days off each week I've opted to work 4.5h each day. I can only focus intensely for about 4h each day on coding, so this works out well. It's always been this way for me and to get to 8 hours I'd go through the logs each day (important, but not taxing at all and something better left to an intern most of the time) and attend much more meetings (low intensity but 90% of them were…

Where do you work that gives you this option if you don't mind sharing a little more?

I work 70% (5.6 hr/day) at SAP in Germany. I made it a condition when they hired me. In the meantime, many team members have switched from full-time to 80% to have Fridays off to spend time with their family.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#136

Post by twodave » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

My work/life balance has changed a lot in the last 5 or so years. I've done all of the above (in chronological order):

FTE 100% in the office FTE 100% remote (same company, living in the same city) FT Contract on-site plus consulting FT Contract on-site minus consulting FTE 100% remote (HQ 4-5 hour drive away, quarterly-ish visits) FTE 100% on-site FTE* "wherever" plus 10-15 hours/wk consulting

Right now I'm a FTE at one place where I probably _actually_ spend about 35 hours/week working and then I am on monthly retainer for my old employer (through my consulting corp).

I wake up before 6 most mornings and either put in a few consulting hours or go do crossfit. Then 9-noonish I try and be productive at my full-time job. I usually a long lunch/run errands after that, and then a couple more hours for the full-time job in the afternoon. I'm usually done working by 4:30 or 5pm and then it's time to either cook or go to the in-laws or order food depending on how I feel (I'm the cook and we're a family of 6).

I have found the variety of doing multiple jobs keeps me much more productive in general, because I can basically work on what I want whenever I'm motivated to. The end of the month/sprint can be rough sometimes if I have procrastinated (or just not felt motivated at one job or the other), but every month when I get a check in the mail I feel freshly motivated haha.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#137

Post by scottlocklin » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

zackmorris wrote: post #128

scottlocklin wrote: post #112

Let's reduce economics to its barest rudiments: I'm pretty sure a worker could buy a house and support a family in 1950 on a single, average 40 hour a week salary; this was probably also true even as late as 1970. How many workers in the modern economy can buy a house and support a family on 1/4 of a 40 hour a week salary? Those "productivity" numbers are obviously cooking the books bullshit. Either that or they're n…

It's not a technological problem, it's a political problem. We could have automated things like solar energy production in the early 80s but the powers that be said no. We could have done similar things with mass transit, or organic farming, or wireless telecommunications, but that top 10% with all the money kept saying no. So here we are decades later still paying for the long term costs of technical debt in our eco…

I don't disagree with you there are political problems, but this is a measurement problem.

>The fallacy is looking at the sticker price of homes without considering the externalities.

If productivity had truly quadrupled since 1950, it doesn't matter what the externalities of homes are; not even the fact that they're still made by hand. If it takes X worth of labor and materials to build a house at t0 and t1 and societal productivity has gone from y to 4y between t0 and t1, there should be some large fraction of the population at t1 who can afford a house on 1/4 of t0 hours. There isn't. You can't even say that modern houses are better in any sense than 1950s houses; they mostly are not (energy efficiency maybe; even that is dubious).

I think the thing we have to come to accept as a society is that productivity and efficiency increases are a mirage.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#138

Post by Qwertystop » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 4:08 PM UTC

scottlocklin wrote: post #112

Let's reduce economics to its barest rudiments: I'm pretty sure a worker could buy a house and support a family in 1950 on a single, average 40 hour a week salary; this was probably also true even as late as 1970. How many workers in the modern economy can buy a house and support a family on 1/4 of a 40 hour a week salary? Those "productivity" numbers are obviously cooking the books bullshit. Either that or they're n…

If productivity goes up but wages are flat, the productivity doesn't help the person who's being more productive.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#139

Post by boopk » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

random_kris wrote: post #28

UglyToad wrote: post #21

I'd be interested to know if other software developers feel their current working hours are good/positive? From feedback I've had I'm generally regarded as pretty good at my job and highly productive but my current working hours leave me completely drained, to the point I go home and collapse on the sofa, make dinner and go to bed. And that's off an 8.5 hour day. It's at the point now where it's extremely likely I'll…

I don't know that either. I can be REALLY productive for 2-3 hours a day but rest is socializing with other devs, answering emails etc... I try to structure my day so that I learn some stuff in those 8 hours, do some personal stuff (pay bills, call doctor, arrange stuff after work). I am regarded as quite productive but sometimes I feel really bad for not putting 100% in all those 8 hours but I find it impossible. I…

I agree. Usually from 9 - 12:30 is my most productive time. Once lunch hits and I start socializing I am just not nearly as productive. I may get an hour or two or productivity in between 1 and 6pm but it's not nearly enough as in the morning. The worst is the last hour or two of the day. I've checked out and there's usually not much work so I end up just sitting idly browsing the internet.

Re: Productivity and the Workweek (2000)

#140

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Aug 22, 2019, 4:15 PM UTC

simplemts wrote: post #100

malvosenior wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a senior engineering manager and individual contributor, your comment bugs me. You don't realize the value of "slack" and whitespace to allow people to perform at their best and most creative. If someone finishes their tasks early, let them breath and you'll have an amazingly happy, healthy and productive team member! Maybe they won't even quit 1 1/2 years into the job. Building a team and helping individuals grow…

Just want to second your wonderful comment. Down-time is critical for productivity... it is not a paradox as one might seem. Just like exercising gives you MORE energy.

Down-time isn't down-time. Anyone who does any kind of mental work will continue thinking about the work even when they're away from their desk.

They will think about it on the way to work. They will think about it during breaks. They will think about it while appearing to wander aimlessly around the building.

They will think about it on the way home. They will think about it while they're at home, they will think about it in the shower, they will think about while eating or doing something else, and they will think about while they're asleep.

It will take them at least two weeks of actual undistracted full-time down-time to stop thinking about it.

But you can also make them stop thinking about it by piling on distractions - hiring sessions, meetings of all kinds, absolutely critical company events that aren't, and so on.

And you can also make them stop thinking about it by giving them too much to do. Most people have enough mental space for one, maybe two, problem tracks. Giving them more - especially with limited context switching time - and you'll make it impossible for them to solve any of them.

You're not running a physical production line. The typing and the code changes are the output of a complex and surprisingly fragile mental process. If you don't understand how the process works, you're wasting a lot of its potential value.

Not only will people be unhappy, but the quality of their work will suck too.