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

51–60 of 198 posts

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

#51

Post by grigjd3 »

dheera wrote: post #36
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/…

It's actually flawed because there are other things that need to be done in a week besides work, recreation, and rest. For example: - eating: 12-15 hours/week - making food (or travelling to get food): 7-10 hours/week - showering, shaving, grooming: 4-7 hours/week - laundry, cleaning, house chores: 2-4 hours/week - commuting: 5-10 hours/week - waiting in line (checkout lines, customer service reps, Comcast/DMV/insura…

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

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

#52

Post by marcosdumay »

conanbatt wrote: post #45
veidr wrote: post #9

TL;DR: you can get more done if you work 60 hours instead of 40 hours in a week, but the work done in that extra 20 hours might be a small fraction of what gets done in 20 hours during a 40 hour week. This is self-evidently true for many jobs. E.g., if you pick apples for 40 hours, then even if you only pick one apple per hour after that, you will still pick more apples working 50 hours than 40. We software developer…

I doubt that the bugs provoked by tiredness have an aggregate of negative productivity. And even if so, it can be mitigated. As a webdeveloper, when Im tired i do the most menial tasks which means that bugs introduced there are rare and not important.

What is a menial task in software development?

I mean, our entire field exist for pushing menial tasks into computers. If you have as many of them to fill 50% of your work load, there's probably something wrong.

Besides, are you sure bugs in menial tasks are not important? When did you judge those tasks to decide this?

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

#55

Post by johnmyers2 »

We work a 9/80 flex schedule. 44 hours one week, ,then 36 hours the next with Friday off. So every other weekend we have a 3 day weekend, or 4 if there is a holiday on Monday. Works great, moral increases, productivity increases. Its a win, win.

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

#56

Post by dheera »

kilroy123 wrote: post #47
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…

What about these? * 30-40 hours * 20-30 hours

I think it depends on the nature of the job and whether or not I "own" my work.

If I "own" my work in some capacity, e.g. a freelancer, a co-founder, getting public recognition for my work, getting to publish papers in my name, getting to talk about my work in public, get the chance to open-source my work, then I'm happy working more.

If I work for somebody else, or some big boss always takes the recognition for my work, as is often the case in some large companies, then I'd probably be much happier on the I think 20-40 might be a sweet spot for certain fields where creativity drives money. In those cases, rest and recreation time are paramount to work productivity.

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

#57

Post by rhizome »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50
jonas21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the author's last point which is that in a competitive field, even a small increase in output can lead to a large increase in payoff. In his example of getting research funding, it's a step function: either you get funded (y=1) or you don't (y=0), and because you're competing with others, even a small output increase can take you from the 0 side to the 1 side.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much

A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrots-on-sticks as donkeys, and that carrots are cheap.

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

#58

Post by the_cat_kittles »

rhizome wrote: post #57
the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrot…

i dont get what you are trying to say. something about how its easy to mislead people into working long hours?

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

#59

Post by AndrewKemendo »

the_cat_kittles wrote: post #50
jonas21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you might be missing the author's last point which is that in a competitive field, even a small increase in output can lead to a large increase in payoff. In his example of getting research funding, it's a step function: either you get funded (y=1) or you don't (y=0), and because you're competing with others, even a small output increase can take you from the 0 side to the 1 side.

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement t…

One of the greatest examples for this is the Astronaut program requirements [1]:

1. A bachelor's degree in engineering, biological science, physical science, computer science or mathematics.

2. At least three years of related professional experience obtained after degree completion OR at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time on jet aircraft.

3. The ability to pass the NASA long-duration astronaut physical. Distant and near visual acuity must be correctable to 20/20 for each eye. The use of glasses is acceptable.

4. Astronaut candidates must also have skills in leadership, teamwork and communications.

Checking all the boxes on that list isn't particularly hard to do. However you aren't competing with the list.

You are competing with a 29 year old Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in Chemistry, who runs Ultramarathons, ran a 40 person volunteer organization in Kenya during her gap year, and manages a 200 person 50 Million dollar research lab on pluripotent stem cells at Oxford.

Now just change out anything there with whatever would be relevant for your line of work, and thats who you are competing with - give or take.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...

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

#60

Post by itsdrewmiller »

adekok wrote: post #18

Which says to me that the game development culture of "work 80 hours per week for months on end" is largely about incompetent management, and/or deliberate abuse. It's not about getting things done.

I think you may have misunderstood the article - if anything this is an argument for death marches.
Post reply on HN