Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#21

Post by wollsmoth »

MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

I'm at least online 40 hours. Actively doing effort is harder but it's easier if I'm doing something interesting. I try to not beat myself up if I'm having trouble focusing some days. Some days it just ain't happening. Get a coffee read a magazine and try again a little later.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#22

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

socialismisok wrote: post #11
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #8

why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody? it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote: > “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.

Because the workers produce as much (or more) in that arrangement.

more is never enough in the capitalist system

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#23

Post by newbYhrly »

MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

Musk posted screens of his Elden Ring progress a couple weeks after launch. Given other players had to sink 60-80 hours in to get to the same point Musk was broadcasting, he was working 48 hours a day at his companies and on Elden Ring.

Bezos has given interviews about his habits. He works maybe 10-20 hours a week.

Billing 40 hours every week to run scripts that generate a Github repo structure in minutes has been profitable for me though. Not going to knock Musk and Bezos optimizing for themselves by gaming others agency.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#24

Post by robertlagrant »

pwinnski wrote: post #16
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #8

why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody? it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote: > “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.

Why do companies pay for people to work "only" five days each week? Or "only" 40 hours? Why not seven days, and 84 hours each week? Surely there are people willing to work those hours for even less than companies are paying now, eliminating the deadweight loss. Once you have the answer to that question, the answer to your question seems very straightforward.

The answer is that both parties have agreed that 40 hours of work a week is worth that much money. And if there are people already willing to work 84 hours for less money then they would be employed already for less at 40 hours.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#25

Post by 5350-uiop-1130 »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #15
5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #8

why would a company agree to pay the same salary for fewer hours of custody? it reminds me of the macchiavelli quote: > “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” productivity study is interesting but that's not how the real world incentives are aligned.

Quoted post unavailable.

> You're essentially saying "the company prefers social control over productivity, and lets just let that go"

yes, that is exactly what i'm saying :)

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#26

Post by Octoth0rpe »

5350-uiop-1130 wrote: post #22
socialismisok wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the workers produce as much (or more) in that arrangement.

more is never enough in the capitalist system

but more is still, well, more. So, it's still a better deal for the company. Maybe we haven't found the optimal point, but it definitely doesn't appear to be 40hours (or at least, not 8 * 5).

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#27

Post by tnel77 »

Tyrek wrote: post #18
MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

I’m all for a shorter workweek, but I definitely expect that the social aspect of a job is good for overall productivity. Maybe I’m weird, but I enjoy asking my coworkers how their weekend was prior to a meeting starting or (back when I was in the office) as we ran into each other in the hallway.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#28

Post by dustedcodes »

Tyrek wrote: post #18
MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

Reduce the hours in the day.

Most people structure their days based on what they want to accomplish (goal driven), rather than how to spread out work evenly across a fixed number of hours (time driven). So if someone knows that they are expected to deliver task A + B in one day then they will do it. If they have a 4 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then happily clock off. If they have to do it in an 8 hour work day they'll do it in 4 hours and then waste time for the remaining 4 hours.

Re: Companies ran an experiment: Pay workers their full salary to work fewer days

#29

Post by eurasiantiger »

Tyrek wrote: post #18
MEMORYC_RRUPTED wrote: post #7

This won't be valid for everyone, but I'm getting more and more convinced that most (a lot of?) people don't "work" work 40 hours anyway. I'm not even mentally capable of doing 40 intense hours of focussed work. Not saying I don't have other tasks besides coding/thinking in that time, but honestly not for the full slot of time. It just feels to me like some sort of secret we all share and pretend like it's fine, but…

If we "actually work" 32 hours out of 40 (80%), what is the likelihood that if we shift to a 32 hour max week, that the average person will only "actually work" ~26 hours (80% of 32) in this hypothetical future? What if at least part of the 20% is spent doing social activities, water cooler conversations, etc. that enable the remaining 80% to flow more efficiently?

I don’t think that would happen if there is actually a job to be done.
Post reply on HN