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

181–190 of 198 posts

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

#181

Post by divenorth »

autokad wrote: post #5
divenorth wrote: post #3

I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit employers and employees.

i think the author did a pretty good job at looking at the tradeoffs. in a lot of ways, some businesses are already trying to take advantage of both options by using a mix of contractors/consultants and full time employees.

I guess my opinion is that we should all be working less and earning a living wage. I feel that's the trend that must happen with all the automation taking place. And welcome UBI.

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

#182

Post by divenorth »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #63
divenorth wrote: post #3

I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit employers and employees.

The author addresses that and suggests that 40 hours is generally the right number there - productivity on a units per hour basis is maximized. For salaried employees though employers rationally care more about units per week, which continues to increase as hours per week go to 50 and beyond. Of course this is all research of factory work, so its application to software development is questionable.

Obviously the more you work the you produce. From his graph the best productivity is less than 40 hours but he thinks 40 is a good trade off between production and productivity. I disagree. In my ideal world we would be working less and still earning a good wage. I hope to see that in my lifetime but probably unlikely.

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

#183

Post by divenorth »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #6
divenorth wrote: post #3

I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit employers and employees.

that would be great, but many employers would just use that as a reason to pay employees less, or not give them benefits.

Yeah that's the problem. Potential solution is universal basic income.

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

#184

Post by divenorth »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #16
divenorth wrote: post #3

I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit employers and employees.

yes, and i would like to see people thinking of efficiency in terms where hours not worked are considered a good. putting it in overly simplistic terms, if someone has a better time not working than the sum of (them working + people consuming their product) then they shouldn't work.

My goal in life is to automate myself so I can spend more time at the beach.

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

#185

Post by JBlue42 »

combatentropy wrote: post #73
endorphone wrote: post #15

We need to delineate manual, low-effort work from mental exercise. I can perform manual work virtually unendingly, but have a very finite ability to do mental exercises before mental exhaustion or simple boredom/distraction undermines the work. Individuals will differ, but data for manual work has no application to research, software development, etc. Having said that, there is shockingly little research or proof for…

Yes, I've thought the same thing. Wasn't 40 hours mainly about factories and coal mines --- though 40 hours in a mine would also be exhausting. But I think you meant something like a barista. To my bosses and other non-programmers, I try to describe programming as doing math problems all day. I wonder what the history of hours is for clerks, architects, and other jobs more like ours. I feel like I would be less tired…

Being a barista can be exhausting at fast-paced place. Not as hard or deadly as coal mining, of course.

I work with architects. They work as much as they want to but are paid salary. The minority walk out of the office after their 8 hours is up but many work late into the night and on weekends. They say it's their "industry standard" but, from my observations, it's a) lack of boundaries and b) poor project/time management.

Not to mention the amount of time studying to take their many exams to become licensed.

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

#186

Post by xapata »

WalterBright wrote: post #166
somecontext wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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% m…

Are you aware that federal law uses a different definition of "monopoly"?

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

#187

Post by xapata »

scottLobster wrote: post #126
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?

Sounds like you already have your conclusion in mind, so why ask the question?

Is this irony?

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

#188

Post by mcv »

When I read the title, I thought: if there's no evidence that people produce more when working 40 hours, why would we work 40 hours? Let's work less!

I didn't expect anyone to argue for working more than 40 hours. But then again, I don't live in the US.

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

#189

Post by majewsky »

conanbatt wrote: post #177
majewsky wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tasks.sort_by(&:difficulty).reverse Readable code FTW.

O(n logn + n)??? do you think computing power grows on trees?

Then use Perl. Perl has this weird feature where "reverse(sort(...))" gets optimized into a single op.

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

#190

Post by reificator »

divenorth wrote: post #182
itsdrewmiller wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author addresses that and suggests that 40 hours is generally the right number there - productivity on a units per hour basis is maximized. For salaried employees though employers rationally care more about units per week, which continues to increase as hours per week go to 50 and beyond. Of course this is all research of factory work, so its application to software development is questionable.

Obviously the more you work the you produce. From his graph the best productivity is less than 40 hours but he thinks 40 is a good trade off between production and productivity. I disagree. In my ideal world we would be working less and still earning a good wage. I hope to see that in my lifetime but probably unlikely.

> Obviously the more you work the you produce.

That's not so obvious in software development, where mistakes from yesterday or 5 years ago can mire you in unproductive work for hours or days.

But then I look at lines of code not as value produced but as a resource spent.

Post reply on HN