4 ms·
I reliably put in four or five 50+ hour weeks per year (especially if I'm at a new startup), but I've learned through hard experience that it's unbelievably cou
by jcdreads 15y ago
I reliably put in four or five 50+ hour weeks per year (especially if I'm at a new startup), but I've learned through hard experience that it's unbelievably counterproductive to do that for longer than a week or two at a time. My personal life and ability to stay awake, much less think/code clearly, suffer otherwise.
Of course, if work is sufficiently interesting then I end up spending what free time I have thinking about it, which can make my work time incredibly productive, obviating the need to be "working" too much to begin with.
But most importantly: YMMV.
- lsc 15y agoyeah. what I find interesting is that while most people seem to claim 40-50 hours, they don't appear to be working as much as people I know who track their hours (and don't count breaks) who have a difficult time reaching 40 hours a week. I suspect most people inflate the number of hours spent working (or count things like hacker news as work.)
- burke 15y agoI think most people that have a 9-5 and do a small amount of after-hours contracting, or regularly stay a little bit late to finish something up will be voting 40-50. That's how I voted, even though if you subtract slacking time and lunch, I probably clock in under 40 hours most weeks. This would seem likely to encompass the majority of HN's readership, startup crowd aside.
- veyron 15y agoWhen you bill per hour, its harder to reach that number. This is misleading because salaried employees and equity holders can easily work many hours, but hourly workers are limited by how many hours their employers will allow them to work (or by how many hours contractors can invoice their clients)