6 ms·

38 hours (the estimated work week) is exactly half of the 996 week (76 hours) of some companies in China. I don’t think that’s healthy, but if I had to bet, I’d

by harles 5y ago

38 hours (the estimated work week) is exactly half of the 996 week (76 hours) of some companies in China. I don’t think that’s healthy, but if I had to bet, I’d pick the 76 hour workers outcompeting their 38 hour counterparts.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
amelius 5y ago
A race to the bottom it is.
bla3 5y ago
Depends on the type of work, surely. If it's menial tasks and labor is plenty, you can afford your workforce continuously burning out, since it's fast to train and easy to replace. It's exploitative, but as long as it makes the market happy... For highly-educated jobs where people need 6 months of onboarding and institutional knowledge matters, it's probably more efficient to reduce churn.
- jonathonf 5y ago
  > it's probably more efficient to reduce churn That would be lovely. Unfortunately, many places would rather you move job than give you a raise. It's cheaper in their accounts, and that's what (ah) counts.
  - IMTDb 5y ago
    You are living under the assumption that giving a raise would prevent churn. In many cases it does not work like that, just reading the comments in this thread shows that many people would be OK earning less if that meant working part-time. This is consistent with many studies showing that above a certain level of revenues, money matters less and less, while free time matters more and more. Since training is expensive, what companies are looking for are people that are willing to work more so that those costs are divided amongst more working hours. And they notice that paying more does not translate in people working more, for the reasons outlined above. A equilibrium is reached when people work the amount that they need to reach a certain comfort level then switch to looking for more free time.
chpatrick 5y ago
It really depends on the type of work. You can't pump out creativity and it's actually an advantage to be well-rested.
dj_mc_merlin 5y ago
Do you work 76 hours?
Gareth321 5y ago
Assembling thousands of parts on an assembly line? Probably. Anything remotely requiring critical thought? Not a chance.
melissalobos 5y ago
Consider this, imagine someone working every single waking minute at their job. Clearly they will not be very happy and after a time not very productive. So there exists some optimum level of productivity between 0 and 18 hours of work per day. The big question is whether it is closer to the 0 or closer to the 18. Currently there is some good evidence for it being in the 3-6 hour range(I don't have the studies on hand, maybe someone else can chip in here). Now that is of actual productive work and not "work"(where you are just visible in the office or sitting at a meeting table).
- harles 5y ago
  I think this misses the point - the 9 to 9 point was probably just a distraction. Compare 4 day work weeks to 6 day work weeks. 50% more work days seems like a big advantage, even if workers only perform 3-6 hours of work per day.
  - marmarama 5y ago
    Any advantage of having 50% more work days is quickly negated if your workers are unhappy, and giving them only one day a week off seems like a pretty good way of making them unhappy in the long term.
- DougN7 5y ago
  It’s probably not the same productivity rate for each hour though. Those first 3 are perhaps most productive followed by less for the next 3, less for the next and so on. So value is still produced in the later hours. At some point it might not be worth paying the same rate as is paid for those first 3 though. Too bad all of this can’t be measured accurately (in many cases).
- thesuitonym 5y ago
  > The big question is whether it is closer to the 0 or closer to the 18. And to be sure, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. What the number is probably depends on the task at hand--though I would argue that (all other things being equal) it's probably closer to 0 than 18 for any job.
geraldyo 5y ago
lol dem chinese comin for ya brother
McWobbleston 5y ago
This is assuming the 38 hour worker isn't doing other productive things off the clock. I think it gets a lot less clear if any significant number of the 4 day workers are producing useful works in their new free time or helping with productive actions that aren't well suited towards a profit motive

by harles 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

amelius 5y ago

A race to the bottom it is.

bla3 5y ago

Depends on the type of work, surely. If it's menial tasks and labor is plenty, you can afford your workforce continuously burning out, since it's fast to train and easy to replace. It's exploitative, but as long as it makes the market happy... For highly-educated jobs where people need 6 months of onboarding and institutional knowledge matters, it's probably more efficient to reduce churn.

jonathonf 5y ago
> it's probably more efficient to reduce churn That would be lovely. Unfortunately, many places would rather you move job than give you a raise. It's cheaper in their accounts, and that's what (ah) counts.
- IMTDb 5y ago
  You are living under the assumption that giving a raise would prevent churn. In many cases it does not work like that, just reading the comments in this thread shows that many people would be OK earning less if that meant working part-time. This is consistent with many studies showing that above a certain level of revenues, money matters less and less, while free time matters more and more. Since training is expensive, what companies are looking for are people that are willing to work more so that those costs are divided amongst more working hours. And they notice that paying more does not translate in people working more, for the reasons outlined above. A equilibrium is reached when people work the amount that they need to reach a certain comfort level then switch to looking for more free time.

chpatrick 5y ago

It really depends on the type of work. You can't pump out creativity and it's actually an advantage to be well-rested.

dj_mc_merlin 5y ago

Do you work 76 hours?

Gareth321 5y ago

Assembling thousands of parts on an assembly line? Probably. Anything remotely requiring critical thought? Not a chance.

melissalobos 5y ago

Consider this, imagine someone working every single waking minute at their job. Clearly they will not be very happy and after a time not very productive. So there exists some optimum level of productivity between 0 and 18 hours of work per day. The big question is whether it is closer to the 0 or closer to the 18. Currently there is some good evidence for it being in the 3-6 hour range(I don't have the studies on hand, maybe someone else can chip in here). Now that is of actual productive work and not "work"(where you are just visible in the office or sitting at a meeting table).

harles 5y ago
I think this misses the point - the 9 to 9 point was probably just a distraction. Compare 4 day work weeks to 6 day work weeks. 50% more work days seems like a big advantage, even if workers only perform 3-6 hours of work per day.
- marmarama 5y ago
  Any advantage of having 50% more work days is quickly negated if your workers are unhappy, and giving them only one day a week off seems like a pretty good way of making them unhappy in the long term.
DougN7 5y ago
It’s probably not the same productivity rate for each hour though. Those first 3 are perhaps most productive followed by less for the next 3, less for the next and so on. So value is still produced in the later hours. At some point it might not be worth paying the same rate as is paid for those first 3 though. Too bad all of this can’t be measured accurately (in many cases).
thesuitonym 5y ago
> The big question is whether it is closer to the 0 or closer to the 18. And to be sure, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. What the number is probably depends on the task at hand--though I would argue that (all other things being equal) it's probably closer to 0 than 18 for any job.

geraldyo 5y ago

lol dem chinese comin for ya brother

McWobbleston 5y ago

This is assuming the 38 hour worker isn't doing other productive things off the clock. I think it gets a lot less clear if any significant number of the 4 day workers are producing useful works in their new free time or helping with productive actions that aren't well suited towards a profit motive