4 ms·
While I agree that an arbitrary eight-hour work day may not suit every task the best, I don't see why switching it to six hours is any less arbitrary. As a sel
by err4nt 11y ago
While I agree that an arbitrary eight-hour work day may not suit every task the best, I don't see why switching it to six hours is any less arbitrary.
As a self-employed person my pay _directly_ correlates to the amount of hours I grind away. I actively try to make my working time more efficient, but cutting down on hours wouldn't get me anywhere.
Why not advocate that shifts be of a length required by the task alone and not a preset amount of time each day?
- PascLeRasc 11y agoBecause it's mentally taxing to work for eight hours straight for many if not most people. Knowledge work (http://calnewport.com/blog/2012/11/21/knowledge-workers-are-bad-at-working-and-heres-what-to-do-about-it/ http://calnewport.com/blog/2012/11/21/knowledge-workers-are-...) does not scale linearly with time, even over the course of a workday.
- err4nt 11y agoI find I work best in two sprints less than 6 hours, I totally get that long sprints reach a point of diminishing returns. My question is Why is six hours so much better than abandoning shift-based timing for something like task-based timing instead and cutting out all that extra time, not just reduce it.