6 ms·

Why the 9 to 5 workday is tough on creative workers (2013)

70 points by cdvonstinkpot 9y ago

bishopknight 9y ago
I don't agree that cognition is best during the afternoon. I have my best concentration and work effort from 9-noon.
- pc86 9y ago
  I think at least part of this is age and habit. In college my best period of concentration and work was roughly 11-3 or so. I was also ~20 years old and had trouble going to bed before midnight or waking up before 9. A decade later and after military service the lion's share of my day job work is done between 7 and 10 in the morning, and it's rare that I'm not up, dressed and showered by 6:30am or asleep by 10pm.
  - marssaxman 9y ago
    Individual experiences vary widely; I am 41 now and still have just as much trouble going to bed before midnight or waking up before 9 as I did in my 20s. It still takes effort to restrain my impulse to stay up all night, in fact, whenever there's something remotely interesting or creative I could be working on instead of sleeping. It is not simply a matter of habits, either; I spent most of seven years getting up in time for a 7 AM conference call every work day, and it never got any easier. As soon as that was over, I went right back to my old schedule. Perhaps it's less of a struggle to fit my life into normal business hours now, after years of experience trying to do it, but that's really just a matter of coping skills; my body clock remains as stubbornly nocturnal as it has ever been.
- fhood 9y ago
  I know a lot of people who feel the same as you. That said, I can't really think until around 2 in the afternoon.
  - WalterSear 9y ago
    May I suggest you look into intermittent fasting? I stopped eating from 10pm until 2 pm, and it has changed my relationship to mornings entirely. It took a couple of days to for the hunger urgency to subside, and about a week before I started feeling more energetic and focused. Most mornings, my breakfast is a cup of black coffee now.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - slededit 9y ago
      Why must we make everyone fit the mold of a morning person. Working better in the afternoons/evenings is not a moral failing.
      - WalterSear 9y ago
        This doesn't. However, I'm now effective in the mornings, >and< afternoons. I do a great deal of programming in the late evenings too, these days.
- Clubber 9y ago
  I read somewhere that the best time to learn something is right when you wake up. I tested that theory when I was picking up ObjC a few years ago and it seems right (perhaps a placebo).
  - kwoff 9y ago
    "I read somewhere that" I can justify anything by that, especially anectodally.
- ForRealsies 9y ago
  Exactly. After I eat a real meal (lunch), my caveman brain declares 'Mission Success' and I'm done for the day.
- tbihl 9y ago
  Very much agreed. I'm iffy from 5-7 (some days great, some days too tired), fairly productive 7-1230, nearly worthless 1230-2, then pretty effective until 4 or 5.
bricss 9y ago
Indeed.
thriftwy 9y ago
Creative workers as a group would definitely do something about this if they were concerned so much. Software developers mostly work noon to 8PM where I live. Go figure.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  Interesting that you separate creative work from software development.
untilHellbanned 9y ago
Constraints like time are a forcing function. They aren't necessarily good or bad. You could argue many creations wouldn't have happened had someone not been stuck in a job they created something to liberate themselves from.
JSeymourATL 9y ago
It’s been about a century since the economist John Maynard Keynes first touted the six-hour workday, predicting that by 2030 only extreme workaholics would work more than 15 hours a week. Still waiting for flying cars too.
- antisthenes 9y ago
  Realistically, many workers do about 15 hours of actual solid work in a week. It's likely represented as a 10-20 range, but still much closer to ~15 than ~40. The rest of the time is filler spent on lunches/meetings/communication and 'butts-in-seats' dog and pony show for bad managers. So I wouldn't say the prediction is that far off-base. Plus we have another 12 years to go.
- snarf21 9y ago
  It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a week. It would be interesting to compare standard of living to today and estimate how many hours would be required to meet the old levels.
  - ecshafer 9y ago
    Except even if you are willing to have less, the jobs that will accept 15 hours a week and pay well are very few and far between. Most that pay in that range are minimum wage, and even then they usually want more like 30+
  - wgj 9y ago
    It's not just standard of living. There's a lot of safety net you forego. In the US, you won't qualify for employer health insurance, and in most states you won't qualify for unemployment. You won't be eligible for promotions, career advancement, or vacation benefits. It's remarkable how many policies are in place to ensure a 40 hour work week.
  - iza 9y ago
    Nothing to do with the standard of living, it's about exploiting as much surplus value from the workers as possible.
cygned 9y ago
The linked study about when to sleep is on ReasearchGate and can be found via your search engine of preference. (Not linking directly because I am not sure if that page is legal, Taylor & Francis Online charges for access).
- sammoorhouse 9y ago
  > (Not linking directly because I am not sure if that page is legal, Taylor & Francis Online charges for access). Obviously you don’t owe anyone an explanation, but do you mind discussing your objective here? Is it to make it harder for someone to find the study? Or you don’t want to promote the page by linking to it? Are you worried you’d be breaking the law by adding a direct link? What are your thoughts on the legal vs moral impact of the study being publicly available? I don’t have an agenda, it’s just clear you’ve put some thought into the whole thing. Cheers.
  - cygned 9y ago
    Thanks for asking! The thread's article links to NCBI which links to Taylor & Francis providing the paper. They charge for access to it, though. As I was interested in reading it, I searched for it on Google and found it on the aforementioned ReasearchGate site, accessible for free. As I was not sure if free access to it is legal but I also wanted to enable others to find it, I named the name of the page allowing everyone with the paper's name to find it, without getting into trouble because of linking to it directly.

70 points by cdvonstinkpot 9y ago

bishopknight 9y ago

I don't agree that cognition is best during the afternoon. I have my best concentration and work effort from 9-noon.

pc86 9y ago
I think at least part of this is age and habit. In college my best period of concentration and work was roughly 11-3 or so. I was also ~20 years old and had trouble going to bed before midnight or waking up before 9. A decade later and after military service the lion's share of my day job work is done between 7 and 10 in the morning, and it's rare that I'm not up, dressed and showered by 6:30am or asleep by 10pm.
- marssaxman 9y ago
  Individual experiences vary widely; I am 41 now and still have just as much trouble going to bed before midnight or waking up before 9 as I did in my 20s. It still takes effort to restrain my impulse to stay up all night, in fact, whenever there's something remotely interesting or creative I could be working on instead of sleeping. It is not simply a matter of habits, either; I spent most of seven years getting up in time for a 7 AM conference call every work day, and it never got any easier. As soon as that was over, I went right back to my old schedule. Perhaps it's less of a struggle to fit my life into normal business hours now, after years of experience trying to do it, but that's really just a matter of coping skills; my body clock remains as stubbornly nocturnal as it has ever been.
fhood 9y ago
I know a lot of people who feel the same as you. That said, I can't really think until around 2 in the afternoon.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  May I suggest you look into intermittent fasting? I stopped eating from 10pm until 2 pm, and it has changed my relationship to mornings entirely. It took a couple of days to for the hunger urgency to subside, and about a week before I started feeling more energetic and focused. Most mornings, my breakfast is a cup of black coffee now.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - slededit 9y ago
    Why must we make everyone fit the mold of a morning person. Working better in the afternoons/evenings is not a moral failing.
    - WalterSear 9y ago
      This doesn't. However, I'm now effective in the mornings, >and< afternoons. I do a great deal of programming in the late evenings too, these days.
Clubber 9y ago
I read somewhere that the best time to learn something is right when you wake up. I tested that theory when I was picking up ObjC a few years ago and it seems right (perhaps a placebo).
- kwoff 9y ago
  "I read somewhere that" I can justify anything by that, especially anectodally.
ForRealsies 9y ago
Exactly. After I eat a real meal (lunch), my caveman brain declares 'Mission Success' and I'm done for the day.
tbihl 9y ago
Very much agreed. I'm iffy from 5-7 (some days great, some days too tired), fairly productive 7-1230, nearly worthless 1230-2, then pretty effective until 4 or 5.

bricss 9y ago

Indeed.

thriftwy 9y ago

Creative workers as a group would definitely do something about this if they were concerned so much. Software developers mostly work noon to 8PM where I live. Go figure.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
Interesting that you separate creative work from software development.

untilHellbanned 9y ago

Constraints like time are a forcing function. They aren't necessarily good or bad. You could argue many creations wouldn't have happened had someone not been stuck in a job they created something to liberate themselves from.

JSeymourATL 9y ago

It’s been about a century since the economist John Maynard Keynes first touted the six-hour workday, predicting that by 2030 only extreme workaholics would work more than 15 hours a week. Still waiting for flying cars too.

antisthenes 9y ago
Realistically, many workers do about 15 hours of actual solid work in a week. It's likely represented as a 10-20 range, but still much closer to ~15 than ~40. The rest of the time is filler spent on lunches/meetings/communication and 'butts-in-seats' dog and pony show for bad managers. So I wouldn't say the prediction is that far off-base. Plus we have another 12 years to go.
snarf21 9y ago
It is generally held that this is because of a rapid change in standard of living. If we were willing to live with less, we could have a job of only 15 hours a week. It would be interesting to compare standard of living to today and estimate how many hours would be required to meet the old levels.
- ecshafer 9y ago
  Except even if you are willing to have less, the jobs that will accept 15 hours a week and pay well are very few and far between. Most that pay in that range are minimum wage, and even then they usually want more like 30+
- wgj 9y ago
  It's not just standard of living. There's a lot of safety net you forego. In the US, you won't qualify for employer health insurance, and in most states you won't qualify for unemployment. You won't be eligible for promotions, career advancement, or vacation benefits. It's remarkable how many policies are in place to ensure a 40 hour work week.
- iza 9y ago
  Nothing to do with the standard of living, it's about exploiting as much surplus value from the workers as possible.

cygned 9y ago

The linked study about when to sleep is on ReasearchGate and can be found via your search engine of preference. (Not linking directly because I am not sure if that page is legal, Taylor & Francis Online charges for access).

sammoorhouse 9y ago
> (Not linking directly because I am not sure if that page is legal, Taylor & Francis Online charges for access). Obviously you don’t owe anyone an explanation, but do you mind discussing your objective here? Is it to make it harder for someone to find the study? Or you don’t want to promote the page by linking to it? Are you worried you’d be breaking the law by adding a direct link? What are your thoughts on the legal vs moral impact of the study being publicly available? I don’t have an agenda, it’s just clear you’ve put some thought into the whole thing. Cheers.
- cygned 9y ago
  Thanks for asking! The thread's article links to NCBI which links to Taylor & Francis providing the paper. They charge for access to it, though. As I was interested in reading it, I searched for it on Google and found it on the aforementioned ReasearchGate site, accessible for free. As I was not sure if free access to it is legal but I also wanted to enable others to find it, I named the name of the page allowing everyone with the paper's name to find it, without getting into trouble because of linking to it directly.