3 ms·

There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this wi

There is a frequent pattern which concerns me of primarily justifying the desire for reduced work hours in terms of the alleged increase in productivity this will bring about (by allowing recharging, preventing burnout, etc.). I worry that this already concedes too much. This allows for just as much stressful dominance of work over the rest of life, and shame over any deviation from this script, as maximizes productivity. Even if my shorter-work-hours productivity doesn't match my longer-work-hours productivity, I'd still prefer shorter-work-hours, with no guilt over having those preferences. My goal in life is not to optimize everything I do for maximum benefit of my employer; I have my own priorities and trade-offs to worry about.

Ultimatt 9y ago
Work can still be for your self. I work harder, longer and more frequently working for mysel than an employer.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  I think that's covered in GP's "I have my own priorities and trade-offs to worry about". For me - a lot of the things I want to do for myself involves exactly the same kind of activities as my dayjob - but the end goal is mine, and I actually believe in it.
Joeri 9y ago
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 same pay and that it’s the government’s job to regulate a reduction in work hours to improve quality of life. Neither argument is wrong, in practice you need both systems for different people, but the nature of politics, especially in the U.S., requires a binary choice the net result of which is that everyone works more hours.
- konschubert 9y ago
  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?
  - Joe-Z 9y ago
    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.
  - imgabe 9y ago
    It is difficult to work part time and get benefits such as health insurance. Since this is a necessity for most people there is no practical option to work part time.
    - konschubert 9y ago
      I didn't consider the health insurance system in the US.
    - smileysteve 9y ago
      To emphasize the contrast to the parent comment on libertarianism and free market. Government does not dictate that a company can not pay for benefits such as health insurance for part time workers.
      - imgabe 9y ago
        Insurance providers sometimes have minimum numbers of hours required for an employee to be eligible to participate. I have an arrangement with my employer to work only 4 days a week (32 hours), but I was told that going any lower than that would complicate things with regard to benefits. No, government does not "dictate" necessarily, but the current situation in the US with employer-provided healthcare greatly complicates working part-time, to the point that it's not really worthwhile for a business to spend time figuring it out when there are plenty of people willing to work full time.
Ended 9y ago
Totally agree. I was disappointed to see the article follow the trend of framing everything in life around the notion of productivity. But one can only be thankful that poor mental health is correlated with poor productivity - it means the evolutionary pressure for modern capitalist society is at least acting in the right direction...

Ultimatt 9y ago

Work can still be for your self. I work harder, longer and more frequently working for mysel than an employer.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
I think that's covered in GP's "I have my own priorities and trade-offs to worry about". For me - a lot of the things I want to do for myself involves exactly the same kind of activities as my dayjob - but the end goal is mine, and I actually believe in it.

Joeri 9y ago

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 same pay and that it’s the government’s job to regulate a reduction in work hours to improve quality of life. Neither argument is wrong, in practice you need both systems for different people, but the nature of politics, especially in the U.S., requires a binary choice the net result of which is that everyone works more hours.

konschubert 9y ago
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?
- Joe-Z 9y ago
  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.
- imgabe 9y ago
  It is difficult to work part time and get benefits such as health insurance. Since this is a necessity for most people there is no practical option to work part time.
  - konschubert 9y ago
    I didn't consider the health insurance system in the US.
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    To emphasize the contrast to the parent comment on libertarianism and free market. Government does not dictate that a company can not pay for benefits such as health insurance for part time workers.
    - imgabe 9y ago
      Insurance providers sometimes have minimum numbers of hours required for an employee to be eligible to participate. I have an arrangement with my employer to work only 4 days a week (32 hours), but I was told that going any lower than that would complicate things with regard to benefits. No, government does not "dictate" necessarily, but the current situation in the US with employer-provided healthcare greatly complicates working part-time, to the point that it's not really worthwhile for a business to spend time figuring it out when there are plenty of people willing to work full time.

Ended 9y ago

Totally agree. I was disappointed to see the article follow the trend of framing everything in life around the notion of productivity. But one can only be thankful that poor mental health is correlated with poor productivity - it means the evolutionary pressure for modern capitalist society is at least acting in the right direction...