6 ms·

In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive for 2-4 hours.

by erokar 8y ago

sombremesa 8y ago
I used to work at Amazon, which is known for its draconian policies, but I was on a good team at one point. On that team, you were expected to allot no more than 4 hours a day to your tickets. The rest of the time was for meetings, code reviews, self organization, administrative tasks, 20% time, etc. Now that I'm in a company where everyone is always heads down and code reviews clog up the pipeline and no one is on the same page, I'm beginning to see that being less "productive" gets more done.
- gubbrora 8y ago
  Slow code review is really bad for productivity. Both cost of task switching as you wait, and of merging upstream changes into your branch.
- dwiel 8y ago
  That's a reasonable observation, but only loosely related to the parent post. Admin, code reviews, meetings all count towards that 2-4 hour goal
- nine_k 8y ago
  Being productive is getting things out the door to production. Writing code is only a part of this equation. If you don't have a process that cares well about the other required things (reviews, testing, meeting and thinking, etc), you end up with a lot of code written, and much less of it useful for business at a given moment.
- awshepard 8y ago
  "The Phoenix Project" references this - when a particular resource (expert) is the only person who can get some task done. Of course that means that person is at or beyond 100% utilization, which means their queue length (or wait time) goes through the roof. Paradoxically, reducing utilization increases productivity/throughput. The section about controlling WIP here [1] illustrates it quite well. [1] https://itrevolution.com/resource-guide-for-the-phoenix-project-kanbans-part-2/ https://itrevolution.com/resource-guide-for-the-phoenix-proj...
fileeditview 8y ago
I wonder what inspires such thoughts. I mean I would love to only work 2-4 hours. I can however not see how it would work if the majority of people did this. I also do not know of any period or place in time where 2-4 hours of work were sufficient for the majority of people. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but why do you think 8 hours is extreme/too much and why 2-4h should be sufficient.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  From what I understand there are a few studies that point towards people only really accomplishing a few hours of work a day no matter how many hours they’re “at work”.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    This really varies by job type. It's also sometimes completely random. Take a nurse for example, they work 12 hour shifts. Some of that shift is lulls but part of it you're hit with multiple patients needing care. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Same goes for retail. You might get slammed with customers at any time but other times you're just watching the store.
- purplezooey 8y ago
  the right wing would never settle for it
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Thank goodness they wouldn't. These calls for short work days "just because" are careless statements that don't take into account the complex realities of our incredibly diverse economy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Frost1x 8y ago
  I think 8 hours of preset structured time is too much for some professions. 2-4 hours of preset/structured time per day is very reasonable with the rest of the time open for flexible creative work as needed, at least in a field that works on intellectual products. I work in a research environment and it's not like creativity just turns on and off with a switch because it's 8am on Monday and someone said I need to be working right now. It also doesn't turn off at 430PM because that's when work ends. You can require me to be there and have me iterate on existing ideas, but you won't see any profound output, just small iterative improvements. My greatest ideas happen in my leisure or during casual yet in-depth conversations. Heck, some of my best output happens when some idea hits me on a slow weekend morning or late in the evening and I delve deep into it. For physical labor, 8 hours a day is pretty doable, I'd say 6-7 is reasonable. I've done both types of work and don't have much problem with 8 hours that don't require me to think very deeply. Typical office work fits in here and involves doing simple broad tasks, often mixing in some random light physical activities and usually has little work baggage that you carry home with you (unlike creative work). If the work is very physically taxing, I feel it has the same effect as very mentally taxing work in that you can sustain it for much less time (say, physically moving heavy objects which requires manual downtime). I recently moved myself and no matter how motivated I was to move those boxes, my body needs a physical recovery break.
rukittenme 8y ago
I would rather be dead than work only 2 hours a day...
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  Uhm... What? I'd be happy working (making profit for someone else, and getting a tiny portion of it) 0 hours a day. I've projects, ideas, experiments, and entertainment I would much rather be doing than 40h/week . I want live and do, not toil for some indifferent capitalist.
  - rukittenme 8y ago
    You've confused employment with work.
    - effingwewt 8y ago
      the article has the word 'workism' in the title. i believe it's extremely disingenuous to be a pedant here.
    - thatoneuser 8y ago
      Youve confused pedantry with meaningful conversation ;)
    - loco5niner 8y ago
      This comment explains why no one agrees with your previous comment. You are using the term "work" differently than EVERYONE else here.
      - rukittenme 8y ago
        Who cares about agreement? I'd rather be right. You can't redefine words when its convenient. You're just appropriating the spirit of the word to make a point that's irrelevant to the word itself. If you read the article, the authors make no distinction between work and employment. If you read the comment I originally replied to, that person made no distinction between work and employment. When "crankylinuxuser" replied to me, he assumed a definition of the word I disagreed with and used that definition to respond to an argument I never made. You don't get to define work as "toiling for some indifferent capitalist" and then treat me like I'm the one pulling the rug out from under you.
chrisco255 8y ago
You can't do anything that takes deep focus in 2-4 hours a day. Or you won't get anywhere significant with that approach. There's also a ton of jobs out there that are impossible to break down to these kinds of shifts.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vvanders 8y ago
  Literally every job I've had in the last 10 years I've self-structured into 4 hours of deep work, 4 hours of everything else(meetings, randomization, etc). Started by getting into the office much earlier(7-8am) when normal office hours started around 10-11. It's worked very well for me and I've had no problem completing significant work at a good pace.
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Oh so you work 8 hour days then? OP is arguing for 2-4 hour work days. So what then? Your particular work situation and career are not the majority of the jobs on the market.
    - vvanders 8y ago
      I mean if you want to move the goalposts(we were just talking about deep focus work) or claim that my career isn't legit be my guest.
      - chrisco255 8y ago
        I'm not moving the goalposts. OP literally said "In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive for 2-4 hours." Which is completely unworkable for most jobs. Won't work in retail, manufacturing, medical profession, legal, retail, etc. If you happen to have a lifestyle job where you can have a high discretion over how your time is spent, that's great...happy for you. But denying the realities of other professions just underscores the ignorance of this whole thread.
tim333 8y ago
It depends if you enjoy your work or not. We are awake about 16 hours a day and many people enjoy their thing and prefer it to many leisure activities.

In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive for 2-4 hours.

by erokar 8y ago

In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive for 2-4 hours.

I used to work at Amazon, which is known for its draconian policies, but I was on a good team at one point. On that team, you were expected to allot no more than 4 hours a day to your tickets. The rest of the time was for meetings, code reviews, self organization, administrative tasks, 20% time, etc. Now that I'm in a company where everyone is always heads down and code reviews clog up the pipeline and no one is on the same page, I'm beginning to see that being less "productive" gets more done.

gubbrora 8y ago
Slow code review is really bad for productivity. Both cost of task switching as you wait, and of merging upstream changes into your branch.
dwiel 8y ago
That's a reasonable observation, but only loosely related to the parent post. Admin, code reviews, meetings all count towards that 2-4 hour goal
nine_k 8y ago
Being productive is getting things out the door to production. Writing code is only a part of this equation. If you don't have a process that cares well about the other required things (reviews, testing, meeting and thinking, etc), you end up with a lot of code written, and much less of it useful for business at a given moment.
awshepard 8y ago
"The Phoenix Project" references this - when a particular resource (expert) is the only person who can get some task done. Of course that means that person is at or beyond 100% utilization, which means their queue length (or wait time) goes through the roof. Paradoxically, reducing utilization increases productivity/throughput. The section about controlling WIP here [1] illustrates it quite well. [1] https://itrevolution.com/resource-guide-for-the-phoenix-project-kanbans-part-2/ https://itrevolution.com/resource-guide-for-the-phoenix-proj...

fileeditview 8y ago

I wonder what inspires such thoughts. I mean I would love to only work 2-4 hours. I can however not see how it would work if the majority of people did this. I also do not know of any period or place in time where 2-4 hours of work were sufficient for the majority of people. So maybe I'm misunderstanding you but why do you think 8 hours is extreme/too much and why 2-4h should be sufficient.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
From what I understand there are a few studies that point towards people only really accomplishing a few hours of work a day no matter how many hours they’re “at work”.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  This really varies by job type. It's also sometimes completely random. Take a nurse for example, they work 12 hour shifts. Some of that shift is lulls but part of it you're hit with multiple patients needing care. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Same goes for retail. You might get slammed with customers at any time but other times you're just watching the store.
purplezooey 8y ago
the right wing would never settle for it
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Thank goodness they wouldn't. These calls for short work days "just because" are careless statements that don't take into account the complex realities of our incredibly diverse economy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Frost1x 8y ago
I think 8 hours of preset structured time is too much for some professions. 2-4 hours of preset/structured time per day is very reasonable with the rest of the time open for flexible creative work as needed, at least in a field that works on intellectual products. I work in a research environment and it's not like creativity just turns on and off with a switch because it's 8am on Monday and someone said I need to be working right now. It also doesn't turn off at 430PM because that's when work ends. You can require me to be there and have me iterate on existing ideas, but you won't see any profound output, just small iterative improvements. My greatest ideas happen in my leisure or during casual yet in-depth conversations. Heck, some of my best output happens when some idea hits me on a slow weekend morning or late in the evening and I delve deep into it. For physical labor, 8 hours a day is pretty doable, I'd say 6-7 is reasonable. I've done both types of work and don't have much problem with 8 hours that don't require me to think very deeply. Typical office work fits in here and involves doing simple broad tasks, often mixing in some random light physical activities and usually has little work baggage that you carry home with you (unlike creative work). If the work is very physically taxing, I feel it has the same effect as very mentally taxing work in that you can sustain it for much less time (say, physically moving heavy objects which requires manual downtime). I recently moved myself and no matter how motivated I was to move those boxes, my body needs a physical recovery break.

rukittenme 8y ago

I would rather be dead than work only 2 hours a day...

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
Uhm... What? I'd be happy working (making profit for someone else, and getting a tiny portion of it) 0 hours a day. I've projects, ideas, experiments, and entertainment I would much rather be doing than 40h/week . I want live and do, not toil for some indifferent capitalist.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  You've confused employment with work.
  - effingwewt 8y ago
    the article has the word 'workism' in the title. i believe it's extremely disingenuous to be a pedant here.
  - thatoneuser 8y ago
    Youve confused pedantry with meaningful conversation ;)
  - loco5niner 8y ago
    This comment explains why no one agrees with your previous comment. You are using the term "work" differently than EVERYONE else here.
    - rukittenme 8y ago
      Who cares about agreement? I'd rather be right. You can't redefine words when its convenient. You're just appropriating the spirit of the word to make a point that's irrelevant to the word itself. If you read the article, the authors make no distinction between work and employment. If you read the comment I originally replied to, that person made no distinction between work and employment. When "crankylinuxuser" replied to me, he assumed a definition of the word I disagreed with and used that definition to respond to an argument I never made. You don't get to define work as "toiling for some indifferent capitalist" and then treat me like I'm the one pulling the rug out from under you.

chrisco255 8y ago

You can't do anything that takes deep focus in 2-4 hours a day. Or you won't get anywhere significant with that approach. There's also a ton of jobs out there that are impossible to break down to these kinds of shifts.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vvanders 8y ago
Literally every job I've had in the last 10 years I've self-structured into 4 hours of deep work, 4 hours of everything else(meetings, randomization, etc). Started by getting into the office much earlier(7-8am) when normal office hours started around 10-11. It's worked very well for me and I've had no problem completing significant work at a good pace.
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Oh so you work 8 hour days then? OP is arguing for 2-4 hour work days. So what then? Your particular work situation and career are not the majority of the jobs on the market.
  - vvanders 8y ago
    I mean if you want to move the goalposts(we were just talking about deep focus work) or claim that my career isn't legit be my guest.
    - chrisco255 8y ago
      I'm not moving the goalposts. OP literally said "In reality we all work too much. 8 hours a day is extreme, we should strive for 2-4 hours." Which is completely unworkable for most jobs. Won't work in retail, manufacturing, medical profession, legal, retail, etc. If you happen to have a lifestyle job where you can have a high discretion over how your time is spent, that's great...happy for you. But denying the realities of other professions just underscores the ignorance of this whole thread.

tim333 8y ago

It depends if you enjoy your work or not. We are awake about 16 hours a day and many people enjoy their thing and prefer it to many leisure activities.