In Defense of the 60+ Hour Work Week

I've read the research. It doesn't back up the claims made by the OP.

Last time you you were trying to claim 40-60 hours was an 'optimal' working time for manual labour and linked research yourself which showed that it wasn't.

The research linked to shows that weekly product (which is not the same as hourly productivity) can be maximized by anything from 40-60 hours, depending on the nature of the work and the duration of the project.

For example, look at Figure 16 which has numbers:

    100% productivity x 40 hours = 40
    90% productivity x 50 hours = 45
    83% productivity x 60 hours = 49.8
    69% productivity x 70 hours = 48.3

Output is maximized by 60 hour weeks.

Figure 6 shows similar results, based on eyeballing the 5 and 6 day weeks (10 hours/day each) as being about 83% productivity. (Data is in a bar chart, numbers not listed.)

http://www.danzpage.com/Construction-Management-Resources/Ca...

In any case, any paper discussing averages (i.e., every source I've ever found) simply does not address the question of whether the author of the piece can productively work 60 hour weeks. That's like saying "the mean American wage is $50k/year or so, therefore it's impossible for a software engineer to earn $100k".

We need a good "in defence of the partial work week".

In the UK, there is an ongoing political issue about declaring people with disabilities or chronic illnesses "fit to work". Everyone from cancer and dialysis patients to those with chronic fatigue, pain, depression or back injuries. An essentially binary prospect is presented: you have to take a job you are deemed fit to do, or the money you were relying on to eat is cut off.

The thing is, quite a lot of these people can do some things for some period of time. But if you force them to 40 hours it will run down their health and achieve zero productivity. With reasonable accomodation they could be part time workers. But nobody is interested in making this happen. The person who figures out the "hack" of making one 40 hour week out of four people's 10 hour weeks will be doing the world a great service.

Less extremely, this applies to parents of small children and the elderly; scope for doing more than zero hours, but not the full 40.

I'm always surprised at the passion this subject always generates, particularly in how many people express an opinion on how many hours a week I should work.

I can understand being upset by having to work >40hr/wk when you don't want to, or those 70hr/wk coworkers being declared best. employees. ever., but the reaction when someone expresses an opinion on their personal experience is just ridiculous. It's either the patronizing "when you're my age, sonny, you'll understand" or the similarly unhelpful "you're doing it wrong", with no admission that someone's experience might be different.

Not only do I completely agree with this article, but I see it every day. Everything you want has a cost and a sacrifice. I look at the executive team at my firm and they have be working 60+ hrs a week for over 15 years. And you know what? They are VPs. Win. Sure it probably cost them a lot of social and family time, but they accomplished their goals. If your goal is to have a wife, kids, and a white picket fence, with a low stress job, then go for it. No one is telling you not to. But if you want to be a senior vice president, or a founder of a company - news flash you should probably work more than 40 hours a week. Do you think every executive is smarter than the people he was promoted over? No, of course not. So most likely they worked harder and longer to get there.

I've found that working long hours is practical with regimented conditioning, much like training for any strenuous activity. If you jump headlong into a 60-hour work week, you'll suffer and burn out rather quickly. A slow ramp eases you into the commitment and tests your limits, gradually pushing them upward. It's also crucial to take down weeks every so often.