4 ms·

So basically: * if you have a job that requires X work be done. The more productive, happier employees still get X work done. If I'm happier and suddenly don't

by bisby 10y ago

So basically: * if you have a job that requires X work be done. The more productive, happier employees still get X work done. If I'm happier and suddenly don't spend 2-3 hours of work time on reddit or hn, I can actually get MORE work done in less time. I imagine a lot of HN style jobs fit into this category. I know I can write more code when I'm well rested and thinking clearly. * if you have a job that requires Y hours be worked. You have to hire more staff to cover the extra hours. For example, hospital care (like the lady described in the article). If you need a hospital staffed 24/7, you now need 4 people to staff a single day instead of 3.

gambiting 10y ago
Well, yes, people here sometimes forget that not everyone sits behind a desk for 8 hours a day(in which case, sure, you are only productive 3-4 hours a day). There are jobs which require 8 hours of being present, doing something or not, and by reducing that time you simply have to hire more people.
alkonaut 10y ago
> if you have a job that requires Y hours be worked. You have to hire more staff to cover the extra hours. For example, hospital care (like the lady described in the article). If you need a hospital staffed 24/7, you now need 4 people to staff a single day instead of 3. That's the equation in its simplest first-order form. There are lots of factors you can put in the equation, of which you mentioned a few: - reduced employer cost for recruiting if people are happier in their jobs - reduced employer cost for sick leave/temps if employees are healthier - increased efficiency because employees are more efficient/make fewer mistakes - reduced healthcare costs for society if everyone is healthier - increased employer cost of training and education if more people need to do the same task - ... the list goes on and on. In a society with publicly funded healthcare, the cost of sick workers is triple: first the employee is replaced by a temporary, often more expensive nurse to fill in. Second, society pays the insurance/sick leave for the person home sick. Third, the sick person now causes more work for the same public organizations (healthcare). The costs of people in working age being ill is one of Swedens largest econommic problems at the moment. In a small scale experiment the large scale effect of a healther population can't be seen in the direct economic outcome but it can be estimated.
VLM 10y ago
I've worked in or near operations for my entire career and if it were not for $30K/yr cost of medical insurance it would be much cheaper to hire 4 people than 3. With 4, when someone is sick or it takes months to replace someone who quit, obviously experience shows 3 can handle the load of 4 much easier than 2 can handle the load of 3.

by bisby 10y ago

gambiting 10y ago

Well, yes, people here sometimes forget that not everyone sits behind a desk for 8 hours a day(in which case, sure, you are only productive 3-4 hours a day). There are jobs which require 8 hours of being present, doing something or not, and by reducing that time you simply have to hire more people.

alkonaut 10y ago

> if you have a job that requires Y hours be worked. You have to hire more staff to cover the extra hours. For example, hospital care (like the lady described in the article). If you need a hospital staffed 24/7, you now need 4 people to staff a single day instead of 3. That's the equation in its simplest first-order form. There are lots of factors you can put in the equation, of which you mentioned a few: - reduced employer cost for recruiting if people are happier in their jobs - reduced employer cost for sick leave/temps if employees are healthier - increased efficiency because employees are more efficient/make fewer mistakes - reduced healthcare costs for society if everyone is healthier - increased employer cost of training and education if more people need to do the same task - ... the list goes on and on. In a society with publicly funded healthcare, the cost of sick workers is triple: first the employee is replaced by a temporary, often more expensive nurse to fill in. Second, society pays the insurance/sick leave for the person home sick. Third, the sick person now causes more work for the same public organizations (healthcare). The costs of people in working age being ill is one of Swedens largest econommic problems at the moment. In a small scale experiment the large scale effect of a healther population can't be seen in the direct economic outcome but it can be estimated.

VLM 10y ago

I've worked in or near operations for my entire career and if it were not for $30K/yr cost of medical insurance it would be much cheaper to hire 4 people than 3. With 4, when someone is sick or it takes months to replace someone who quit, obviously experience shows 3 can handle the load of 4 much easier than 2 can handle the load of 3.