3 ms·

> Really? What makes 40 hours the magic number? I think that's the question that TFA, and parent, and a lot of other people in between, are asking. The answer

by Jedd 8y ago

> Really? What makes 40 hours the magic number? I think that's the question that TFA, and parent, and a lot of other people in between, are asking. The answer tends to be 'because that's how it's been for a while'. Or, if you like, it's what mum and dad taught us, and various governments & employers advocate. Parent was suggesting this is an unnaturally high number, but you're right that coming up with a replacement number - if indeed that's the best approach - is not as straightforward as just picking another one and making forcing everyone else to agree with it. > How many hours of work is required depends on the job. ... > How the heck do you know what is required by every single job? I think this is a dangerous, though obviously prevalent, way of thinking. That every job currently requires ~40 hours a week to perform is, objectively, a ludicrous claim to make. It suggests a massively tightly coupled relationship between scheduling, specific personnel, and output. I'd suggest that's a fallacy because western societies have typically settled upon ~38hr of 'being at work' per week ... and apologists try to work backwards from that number on the assumption it's normal / sensible / just right / tenable forever.

pdonis 8y ago
> That every job currently requires ~40 hours a week to perform is, objectively, a ludicrous claim to make. And that's not what I was saying. I was simply suggesting that there might be some jobs where 40 hours a week is needed, since, as I said explicitly, how many hours is required depends on the job. Therefore the blanket statement the post I responded to made about what a proper "work ethic" is, was way too strong.
- Jedd 8y ago
  > ... how many hours is required depends on the job. My point was that this way of thinking requires that the job is done in a certain timeframe, can't be split between multiple people, etc. It's probably some jobs have genuinely tight timeframes and a focus that can only be satisfactory obtained by engaging a single person to perform the role for short periods, and quite possible some number of jobs are much easier to manage with this thinking. But given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases.
  - pdonis 8y ago
    > given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases. No, it's not "hubris"; it's a common belief that, when looked at closely, might not be on the firm ground that many people seem to believe it is. But that doesn't justify a blanket statement that anyone who has this common belief is therefore guilty of hubris, or "should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired", which is how the post I originally responded to in this subthread put it. To me, it's you and the person who posted "deeply ashamed and possibly fired" who are guilty of hubris, for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else.
    - Jedd 8y ago
      > ... for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else. Very much not what I was claiming.

by Jedd 8y ago

pdonis 8y ago

> That every job currently requires ~40 hours a week to perform is, objectively, a ludicrous claim to make. And that's not what I was saying. I was simply suggesting that there might be some jobs where 40 hours a week is needed, since, as I said explicitly, how many hours is required depends on the job. Therefore the blanket statement the post I responded to made about what a proper "work ethic" is, was way too strong.

Jedd 8y ago
> ... how many hours is required depends on the job. My point was that this way of thinking requires that the job is done in a certain timeframe, can't be split between multiple people, etc. It's probably some jobs have genuinely tight timeframes and a focus that can only be satisfactory obtained by engaging a single person to perform the role for short periods, and quite possible some number of jobs are much easier to manage with this thinking. But given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases.
- pdonis 8y ago
  > given the time, resources, and scope triangle, it's hubris to assume three of those are fixed (and fixed at 40hr/week) in (m)any cases. No, it's not "hubris"; it's a common belief that, when looked at closely, might not be on the firm ground that many people seem to believe it is. But that doesn't justify a blanket statement that anyone who has this common belief is therefore guilty of hubris, or "should be deeply ashamed and possibly fired", which is how the post I originally responded to in this subthread put it. To me, it's you and the person who posted "deeply ashamed and possibly fired" who are guilty of hubris, for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else.
  - Jedd 8y ago
    > ... for claiming that your own personal opinion about how all jobs should be organized outweighs everything else. Very much not what I was claiming.