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

161–170 of 198 posts

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

#161

Post by toasterlovin »

majewsky wrote: post #148
grigjd3 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your estimate on time to take care of children is ridiculously low.

I was thinking the same. I don't have children, either, but observing my friends and siblings who do would make me estimate this at 40+ hours/week. (Estimate applies to children below age 6-8. Of course, it's progressively less the older and more independent the child grows.)

It's an exponential back-off kind of a thing. Our 6 month old probably requires 30 hours/week by himself (and that's already much reduced from what it was). Our 3 year old probably requires 10 hours/week. And our 4 year old maybe requires 3 hours per week.

The bigger issue is that this time is spread out pretty evenly throughout the day, so in practical terms it takes up every single hour that the kids are awake. What changes is that, as they get older, you have an increased ability to do other things in the in-between moments.

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

#162

Post by somecontext »

WalterBright wrote: post #153
Rusky wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the entire reason antitrust laws were written? Standard Oil? General Motors? AT&T? A little disingenuous to pretend that never happened.

Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. SO's market share slid steadily throughout the years of the anti-trust trial, and Rockefeller was unable to stem the slide. (The competition figured out how to beat him.) See "Titan" by Ron Chernow > pretend I know what the popular wisdom is. But dig a little deeper and you'll find it is not correct. > General Motors was f…

> Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share.

Out of curiosity in calibrating your definition of "monopoly", can you give an example of a monopoly (past or present) together with an estimate of their market share? Thanks.

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

#163

Post by Nursie »

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/…

You must have no life, and no outside interests.

And yes, I've succeeded just fine on less than 40 hour weeks throughout my career. The obsession with stupidly long hours doesn't extend much into Europe, or Australia.

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

#164

Post by Nursie »

Nursie wrote: post #163
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/…

You must have no life, and no outside interests. And yes, I've succeeded just fine on less than 40 hour weeks throughout my career. The obsession with stupidly long hours doesn't extend much into Europe, or Australia.

I mean seriously, by the time you add in a half hour for lunch and a half hour each way for travel, 80 hours translates to over 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, working.

That's not a life.

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

#165

Post by radicalOH »

hello_newman wrote: post #155
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…

If this is your perception of an hourly break down, that's fine. But just because you think working 100 hours a week results in "Possible early death" doesn't mean it's like that for other people. For example, in your chart, I'm currently in the 60-80 hour a week range, split between a full time job and a side hustle. Personally, I've never been happier, I have a life outside of work, a beautiful girlfriend, time to…

Yes, but they are attempting to describe what happens to a population (i.e. in general terms). You claim to be an ubermensch, yet don't seem to grasps how distributions work.

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

#166

Post by WalterBright »

somecontext wrote: post #162
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. SO's market share slid steadily throughout the years of the anti-trust trial, and Rockefeller was unable to stem the slide. (The competition figured out how to beat him.) See "Titan" by Ron Chernow > pretend I know what the popular wisdom is. But dig a little deeper and you'll find it is not correct. > General Motors was f…

> Let's take Standard Oil. They never had a monopoly - at their peak they had a 90% market share. Out of curiosity in calibrating your definition of "monopoly", can you give an example of a monopoly (past or present) together with an estimate of their market share? Thanks.

Sure. The USPS has a monopoly on first class mail. Market share = 100%. The government prosecutes anyone else who tries to do it.

Up until a couple years ago, in Washington State, hard liquor could only be sold through state stores. 100% market share.

The plumber's union is a monopoly. It is illegal to hire a non-union plumber. 100% market share.

Anyone holding a patent, trademark, or copyright has a monopoly. 100% market share by law.

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

#167

Post by WalterBright »

Rusky wrote: post #159
WalterBright wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every company wants to be a monopoly, sure. But free market forces prevent that from happening. It takes government to prop one up. A prospect and an actual problem are two different things. SO was never convicted of being a monopoly, either. A subtle but crucial point, and usually overlooked.

Free market forces don't prevent it from getting close enough to cause a problem (if that's even possible under capitalism- the problem we're talking about is due to the attempt to gain a monopoly, not having one). I couldn't care less what Standard Oil's maximum market share was, you're arguing an irrelevant technicality. My point is, again, that in this case the prospect is what causes the problem.

> cause a problem

The "problem" was that kerosene prices dropped 70% under SO.

The real problem was that Rockefeller was rich, and then (like today) a lot of people just can't stand the idea that others are rich.

If you're really interested in going beyond soundbites and understand what was happening, I really recommend Chernow's "Titan". Chernow actually agrees with you, so you can't argue his book is unfair. Chernow's opinions, however, are not congruent with his presented facts in the book. He's just so convinced of Rockefeller's evil nature that he is blinded by his own narrative :-)

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

#168

Post by grigjd3 »

toasterlovin wrote: post #161
majewsky wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking the same. I don't have children, either, but observing my friends and siblings who do would make me estimate this at 40+ hours/week. (Estimate applies to children below age 6-8. Of course, it's progressively less the older and more independent the child grows.)

It's an exponential back-off kind of a thing. Our 6 month old probably requires 30 hours/week by himself (and that's already much reduced from what it was). Our 3 year old probably requires 10 hours/week. And our 4 year old maybe requires 3 hours per week. The bigger issue is that this time is spread out pretty evenly throughout the day, so in practical terms it takes up every single hour that the kids are awake. Wha…

I easily put 30 hours a week in getting my 3 yr old dressed, to daycare, entertained while my wife makes dinner, and on weekends. My wife puts in similar time.

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

#169

Post by WalterBright »

valuearb wrote: post #127
bitwize wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't Christensen one of those thought leaders who are paid by megacorps to spread Gramscian false consciousness and make the masses think capitalism really isn't so bad?

Yes, facts don't matter, only the political pedigree of the person relating them.

I prefer to read books where the author tries to prove me wrong. Books that agree with me are boring :-)

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

#170

Post by WalterBright »

majewsky wrote: post #151
WalterBright wrote: post #89

During WW2, the government wanted to increase production, so did some studies. They found that a 60 hr week boosted production for a couple weeks, but then it fell below what was produced by a 40 hr week. The solution to a sustained increase in output was to do 60 hr weeks in bursts, not continuously.

"In bursts" as in "40 hours with the occasional 60-hour week" or "60-hour weeks with weeks off in between"?

the former
Post reply on HN