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

The compelling case for working less

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: The compelling case for working less

#61

Post by Joe-Z »

konschubert wrote: post #59
Joeri wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The libertarian argument would be that if government didn’t regulate working hours the number of hours worked vs the amount of pay would be negotiated by the labor market and you would be free to choose to work fewer hours in exchange for somewhat reduced pay. The socialist counter-argument would be that under such a system people with few employment options or low skills would be forced to work more hours for the sa…

I don't think it's illegal, in any western country, to work part time. So we HAVE the option to negotiate fewer hours, no?

My experience is that the vast majority of software engineering jobs I see posted require full-time work.

What I think would be helpful is getting away from the notion that working 40 hours a week is somehow 'real work' and anything less is for students and housewives or single mothers who can't work more hours. That's a fact that's also reflected in less-than-proportionate pay which you get with may part-time jobs.

So yes, while it may not be illegal to work part time, it's just not a realistic option for many people.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#62

Post by camillomiller »

donpdonp wrote: post #37
kough wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans are happy if they are relatively well off compared to what they know. This is super true. I've been congratulating myself all month on my new job, paying me BIG BUCKS, compared to my friends. Well, just found out an old friend of mine also found a new job, getting payed literally twice as much as me. Now I'm in a funk and it's irrational and stupid but I can't help but look at the same number in a totally di…

The most effective way to be unhappy - comparing yourself to others. Its far more satisfying to 'impress yourself', ie do better than you did before. I also like to remember that such comparisons are usually between your every day existance and their 'highlight reel'.

This. That’s why browsing Facebook and Instagram are basically the worst thing you can do when you have self-esteem problems.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#63

Post by brian-armstrong »

Joe-Z wrote: post #45
donpdonp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most effective way to be unhappy - comparing yourself to others. Its far more satisfying to 'impress yourself', ie do better than you did before. I also like to remember that such comparisons are usually between your every day existance and their 'highlight reel'.

>Its far more satisfying to 'impress yourself' I find that this is something that sometimes sort of just happens to me, when I get aware of something I'm doing better now than, say, a year before. But, I never really consciously decide to do that, because then I find it just doesn't work. Like the cliché of standing in front of a mirror and saying to yourself "today is gonna be a good day" (Has that ever worked for a…

Stuart Smalley, maybe?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smalley#Catchphrases

Re: The compelling case for working less

#64

Post by Cthulhu_ »

wsc981 wrote: post #33
dlp211 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I agree with your premise. I know for a fact that I am better off than my parents, my parents were better off than their parents, and my grandparents were better off than their parents, and in general, this is true for families. Yet, IMO, we are less satisfied and it is because there is a real and growing chasm of people in different income groups in regards to quality o…

... I know for a fact that I am better off than my parents ... I believe for me this is only true because of my job. Because I am a freelance software developer. If I'd have the same occupation as my father or mother, I am sure I would be much worse of today than they were. In The Netherlands taxation has definitely increased over the last decennia and wages haven't kept up with taxation and inflation for most jobs.

That's because over here once you reach retirement age (which has gone up from 65 to 67 or 68), you get a free pension from the government which is enough to last you the rest of your life - nowadays 20-30 years if you're lucky.

I mean think about it. If you're anything like me, you've spent the first 24 or so years of your life in school (paid for in a large part by the government), and the last 30 years in retirement. That gives you about 54 years of not working and 44 years of working - and that's about 5 days a week, with an extra 21-24 holidays + national holidays.

What I'm saying is, you work relatively little yet with the taxes you pay for that you live a very comfortable life. And the work isn't too bad either most of the time.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#65

Post by freddie_mercury »

amval wrote: post #41
Swizec wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet professional athletes can train for several hours every day. Sometimes twice. Doing a couple pushups every day won’t kill ya. Being stressed every day however might.

Professional athletes sleep A LOT, way more than a normal person. The need for rest doesn't exclude them, not at all. Another difference between professional athletes and normal people is the likelihood of being on drugs that improve performance. You can do push ups every day, but it's useless.

> Professional athletes sleep A LOT, way more than a normal person.

To elaborate on this...

Lebron James and Roger Federer have both said they sleep 12 hours a day.

Usain Bolt, Venus Williams, Maria Sharapova and Steve Nash sleep up to 10 hours per day.

Most NBA players take naps every game day, sometimes for as long as 3 hours.

That said, not all pro athletes sleep a ton. Tiger Woods said he only sleeps 5 hours a night, for instance. But it seems pretty clear that most of them are sleeping way more than the average office drone.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#66

Post by brian-armstrong »

creep wrote: post #2

Doing nothing does not literally mean to do nothing. Strolling through the streets is meditative. Apart from mental rest, staring out the window gives processing time for the subconscious. I'm a student, and I feel uncomfortable with the expectation I am under to perform constantly, to "use my potential" "constructively". And often I have this expectation of myself. But I get my best ideas from just lying awake in be…

You should try doing work before you write it off entirely. The world scarcely needs anothered sheltered permanent academian anyway :)

Re: The compelling case for working less

#67

Post by gonehome »

kough wrote: post #12
spyckie2 wrote: post #7

I'm convinced that our decision for how much effort to exert on work is not governed by the rational part of our brain. It's part primal - fear of insecurity and belonging to a social structure - part ego - accomplishment as confirmation of existence and your salary as a concrete number to compare favorably to others - and part culture and habit. I also think overwork is a byproduct of a globally connected society. H…

> Humans are happy if they are relatively well off compared to what they know. This is super true. I've been congratulating myself all month on my new job, paying me BIG BUCKS, compared to my friends. Well, just found out an old friend of mine also found a new job, getting payed literally twice as much as me. Now I'm in a funk and it's irrational and stupid but I can't help but look at the same number in a totally di…

This is not unique to humans.

Check out: https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg

It takes a lot of effort to learn not to resent accomplishments of people you’re “competing” with even if they’re friends and you’re not directly competing with them. It’s a learned behavior to feel good for them instead.

There’s probably a selected reason for this, but it’s possible to overcome it (or at least be aware of its affect).

It’s better to frame life success on something else - like what you want to learn or the type of person you want to be.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#68

Post by spicymaki »

camillomiller wrote: post #62
donpdonp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most effective way to be unhappy - comparing yourself to others. Its far more satisfying to 'impress yourself', ie do better than you did before. I also like to remember that such comparisons are usually between your every day existance and their 'highlight reel'.

This. That’s why browsing Facebook and Instagram are basically the worst thing you can do when you have self-esteem problems.

Correction: Browsing Facebook and Instagram are basically the worst things you can do.

Re: The compelling case for working less

#69

Post by dmarlow »

manmal wrote: post #30
mimo84 wrote: post #3

How many of us are reading this article while "at work"? Just me? I don't think so. I open HackerNews four or five times a day and I read some of the articles. Right now I am in a company where I have to work at least 43 hours a week. Needless to say that I don't feel rested as I used to and my productivity is way lower compared to the past and I get distracted longer and more often than before.

I don’t think that there are many people who can code in a concentrated manner for more than, say, 6 hours per day. There are days when I manage 8 hours of actual coding, but those are not my favorite ones - I only do those under immense deadline pressure, and with all the interruptions it means sitting at a screen for 10-12 hours. Such days leave me exhausted for 2-3 days after. Not sure why, but the brain is a musc…

The brain is an organ. If I could flex my brain, I would!

Re: The compelling case for working less

#70

Post by coldtea »

kungito wrote: post #31
taneq wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not irrational or stupid. It's human. We've evolved to be not merely effective but also competitive.

Isn't competitiveness at the core of biological evolution and not something we have "evolved to"?

>Isn't competitiveness at the core of biological evolution and not something we have "evolved to"?

In short? No. Fitness is.

Post reply on HN