There are companies in the SW industry that require 40h/week and actually monitor that (e.g. collecting metrics in 10-minute intervals and rejecting intervals with low intensity levels).
In the US? That sounds bananas to me.
BTW, most FAANG companies monitor and record everything you are doing, you just don't hear about it because they are smart about it. But when SHTF, you learn very quickly. Also ask Meta devs about their typical workload if they want to keep their jobs (they actually have to work).
Got a list? Just so I know which companies to avoid like the plague. Sometimes I'll wander round the house and read docs or make notes on my tablet while doing housework, still contributing to future work/planning but definitely would show as 'inactive'.
I am sure those companies won't pop on your radar but they will for Indians and other foreigners that want to earn average US salary in their own countries. And yes, you should completely avoid them, they have typically terrible reviews and treat devs as machines. I know one UK dev who took a job in one of those, moved there from some hotel booking company, earned $200k, lasted almost 2 years and then got unceremonio…
There is one that advertises heavily and comes up on job searches. I don't recall the name, but you can tell because of the weird range of salaries, like $50k for a developer while paying $300k for the manager. When I dug in I saw they use this kind of tracking software.
Relative wages have not risen, but standard of life really has. For a week of work at minimum wage, I can buy a lot more cool stuff than anyone from 100 years ago. Things have gotten so good, that almost everyone has riches beyond the wildest dreams of someone from 1850, it's just that we all have it, so it doesn't feel like we've gotten much more from our productivity.
Well, for the most part you can't compare the minimum wage of 100 years ago since it didn't exist, and subsequently excluded most workers until much later. In 1966 the federal minimum wage was amended to include most workers, so a comparison at that point can be made. In 1967 the minimum wage was $1.40, or $10.92 adjusted for inflation. The current minimum wage is $7.25, so in dollar terms the cost of goods, especial…
What I'm saying is comparing wages is meaningless. If you compare what a month of work gets you in USA, it's astounding compared to what it go you 150 years ago. Imagine buying a beat up car, internet connected computer, cell phone, refrigerator, etc. That's where the productivity growth went: Into better stuff, not into bigger piles of shells.
There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that this already concedes too much. This allows for just as much stressful dominance of work over the rest of life, and shame over any deviation from this script, as maximizes producti…
> There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about
Usually in the form of conflating diminishing returns with less absolute productivity.
Many companies think their employees are being productive for 40 hours a week, while it's actually somewhere between 10 and 20, with the rest being a big void. If you are actually doing 40 hours a week you are productive as hell.
While the "I'm sitting down and writing things that are going to be productive" is likely in the 10-20h/week range, there is still a lot of * Meetings * Mentoring * Answering random questions * Continuing education (Hey, Spring 6.0 was just released, what's in that?) * Support (and being available for support) Those can easily fill in a lot of the 'void'. I can point to 5h/week that are standing 'meetings' where it i…
This is my experience. I spend 10-20 hours a week doing work that fits my job description. The rest is learning, mentoring, and organizing with other parts of the business to better enable me in those 10-20 hours of "real" work.
That said, I feel you could cut my time on the clock from 40 hours a week to 32 with minimal-to-no impact on my total productivity.
8-to-5 is 45 hours a week. I'm still in the office, even for lunch. Considering travel, it bumps up to 50 hrs/week. I hate how this 10-hour "work tax" is always dismissed as part of 40 hour work week.
I'm at the stage now where if a company required me in the office, the surcharge I'd be asking on top of my wage (30% would do it) would be so hilarious that it would be insulting, but in my mind, that's kinda the point.
Interesting to see such articles, when I heard from some people on HN that it's ok and healthy to have two contracts at the same time. Which one is it then?
Many companies think their employees are being productive for 40 hours a week, while it's actually somewhere between 10 and 20, with the rest being a big void. If you are actually doing 40 hours a week you are productive as hell.
While the "I'm sitting down and writing things that are going to be productive" is likely in the 10-20h/week range, there is still a lot of * Meetings * Mentoring * Answering random questions * Continuing education (Hey, Spring 6.0 was just released, what's in that?) * Support (and being available for support) Those can easily fill in a lot of the 'void'. I can point to 5h/week that are standing 'meetings' where it i…
What is the definition of Productive here?
Is it lines of code or reasoning about lines which lines of code to write/adjust and everything else is not?
My definition would encompass all of the stuff you mentioned as ancillary. In some cases, it's even more Productive than the actual code writing.