3 ms·
There is a huge difference. If expectation is 60 hours, you would need to push 80 hours to stand out the way you did. 60 hours would not get you a pat on the b
by gutnor 10y ago
There is a huge difference.
If expectation is 60 hours, you would need to push 80 hours to stand out the way you did. 60 hours would not get you a pat on the back.
People in finance do it. The difference is that if you push 80 hours for 5 years and you are not culled, the pay becomes massive with senior developer level base salary with contractual guarantee of 150% salary as bonus. You can retire in your early 30's or continue working 80 hours. Except that now 80 hours becomes "management 80 hours" - i.e. just having your phone with you counts as working.
- rusk 10y agoWell I guess it's all about context isn't it? If you're working in a place where everybody is working 60 hours and competing to be the richest man in the graveyard then yeah it's not much. But when you're working an extra 2 hours a day on your own then yeah - then that's something. It's all relative.
- cmdrfred 10y agoAlso factor in while there is a chance you may be rewarded for a 60 hour week, you are also driving wages overall downwards as two people working 60 hour weeks work the same number of hours as 3 people working 40 hours a week. Thus increasing the total labor pool and decreasing effective demand. In my opinion you are often doing yourself and your fellow workers a disservice by working that much for free. If you own the company this is a different matter of course.
- rusk 10y agoAlso arguably, you probably aren't as productive pro rata working 60 hours as you are 40. So following that to conclusion the 3 people working 40 would be more productive than 2 people working 60. There are mitigating factors to this i.e. each additional member of your headcount incurs their own cost overhead; also that certain roles and responsibilities can't be serialised so easily.