3 ms·

"Almost every industry out there manages to make good profits without their employees having to give up their lives." Medicine and law being two exceptions.

by larrys 15y ago

nostrademons 15y ago
Note the pattern: medicine, law, and engineering are 3 industries where the employees carry significant human capital with them (finance is another one, and i-bankers also give up their lives). I suspect the reason for this is because human capital makes the payoff for additional hours worked non-linear. One cashier working 80 hours a week should be just about as productive as two cashiers working 40 hours a week (a bit more even, because of fatigue). However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week, because of the overhead required to get the second engineer up to speed and then the communication delays needed to make sure any information makes its way to both engineers. Note that these professions are paid more as a result, too, because they're not fungible laborers. If that one engineer quits, you are a lot more hosed than if one of your cashiers quits. The effect of both of this is that professional jobs tend to work longer hours, both because the worker himself is more productive doing so, and because they reap a greater percentage of the rewards for doing so. They have the option of deliberately short-circuiting these incentives, by eg. quitting and traveling the world for a year using savings. I know folks who've done this, and greatly enjoyed it. But it runs counter to societal expectations, so many don't.
- DanBC 15y ago
  If I have the choice I want a rested doctor working less than 48 hours per week, even if that's "less productive" than the same doctor working 70 hour weeks. Anyone working an 80 week is absolutely less productive than two people working 40 hour weeks, even taking "communication overhead" into account.
- henrikschroder 15y ago
  > However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week Only for short periods of time. Every single piece of research on working hours for knowledge workers show that longer periods of overtime decrease productivity. These people work longer hours because the people that pay them are unable to measure productivity properly and instead pay them by hours worked. Good for your salary. Crap for your company's productivity.
  - nostrademons 15y ago
    Well, yes. I was mostly using the numbers for illustration's sake; substitute 1 40 hr/week employee vs. 2 20 hr/week employees if it makes the point clearer. (And it should make the point clearer: if you've ever had to manage volunteers, I bet you'd take one dedicated full-timer over a team of 10 half-time volunteers.) I suspect there's an equilibrium point where the gains of human capital are offset by the losses of fatigue. My point is that you get declining efficiency in both directions; if you try to speed up work by adding more people, you incur costs in communication & learning overhead.
- jes5199 15y ago
  > However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week Disagree! An engineer working 80 hours a week will make worse decisions, understand things more slowly, get more confused by bugs, and make poorer decisions overall. The net productivity will be lower. Some of the best programmers I know turn into terrible programmers after one long day. If you make that long day Friday, you might be able to squeeze 45 high-quality hours out of them in a week.
- larrys 15y ago
  "one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week" Similar in medicine doctors (hospitalists in particular) will work 12 hour shifts because of "continuity of care" which is better for the patient - to not be passed between two doctors.
- anothermachine 15y ago
  The reason an employer prefers a single "80 hour" employee is because either (a) an 80-hour employee costs less than 2 40-hour employees (worker willing to be abused), or (b) there is a labor shortage (either natural or artificial (lawyers, doctors, dealmakers with connections) so there are not enough qualified/capable staff.

"Almost every industry out there manages to make good profits without their employees having to give up their lives." Medicine and law being two exceptions.

by larrys 15y ago

"Almost every industry out there manages to make good profits without their employees having to give up their lives." Medicine and law being two exceptions.

nostrademons 15y ago

Note the pattern: medicine, law, and engineering are 3 industries where the employees carry significant human capital with them (finance is another one, and i-bankers also give up their lives). I suspect the reason for this is because human capital makes the payoff for additional hours worked non-linear. One cashier working 80 hours a week should be just about as productive as two cashiers working 40 hours a week (a bit more even, because of fatigue). However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week, because of the overhead required to get the second engineer up to speed and then the communication delays needed to make sure any information makes its way to both engineers. Note that these professions are paid more as a result, too, because they're not fungible laborers. If that one engineer quits, you are a lot more hosed than if one of your cashiers quits. The effect of both of this is that professional jobs tend to work longer hours, both because the worker himself is more productive doing so, and because they reap a greater percentage of the rewards for doing so. They have the option of deliberately short-circuiting these incentives, by eg. quitting and traveling the world for a year using savings. I know folks who've done this, and greatly enjoyed it. But it runs counter to societal expectations, so many don't.

DanBC 15y ago
If I have the choice I want a rested doctor working less than 48 hours per week, even if that's "less productive" than the same doctor working 70 hour weeks. Anyone working an 80 week is absolutely less productive than two people working 40 hour weeks, even taking "communication overhead" into account.
henrikschroder 15y ago
> However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week Only for short periods of time. Every single piece of research on working hours for knowledge workers show that longer periods of overtime decrease productivity. These people work longer hours because the people that pay them are unable to measure productivity properly and instead pay them by hours worked. Good for your salary. Crap for your company's productivity.
- nostrademons 15y ago
  Well, yes. I was mostly using the numbers for illustration's sake; substitute 1 40 hr/week employee vs. 2 20 hr/week employees if it makes the point clearer. (And it should make the point clearer: if you've ever had to manage volunteers, I bet you'd take one dedicated full-timer over a team of 10 half-time volunteers.) I suspect there's an equilibrium point where the gains of human capital are offset by the losses of fatigue. My point is that you get declining efficiency in both directions; if you try to speed up work by adding more people, you incur costs in communication & learning overhead.
jes5199 15y ago
> However, one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week Disagree! An engineer working 80 hours a week will make worse decisions, understand things more slowly, get more confused by bugs, and make poorer decisions overall. The net productivity will be lower. Some of the best programmers I know turn into terrible programmers after one long day. If you make that long day Friday, you might be able to squeeze 45 high-quality hours out of them in a week.
larrys 15y ago
"one engineer working 80 hours a week is significantly more productive than two engineers working 40 hours a week" Similar in medicine doctors (hospitalists in particular) will work 12 hour shifts because of "continuity of care" which is better for the patient - to not be passed between two doctors.
anothermachine 15y ago
The reason an employer prefers a single "80 hour" employee is because either (a) an 80-hour employee costs less than 2 40-hour employees (worker willing to be abused), or (b) there is a labor shortage (either natural or artificial (lawyers, doctors, dealmakers with connections) so there are not enough qualified/capable staff.