5 ms·

There's infinite things to do in many software companies. You're only given 40 hours of work per week. If you had the stamina for two jobs, then they'd give you

by muzani 4y ago

There's infinite things to do in many software companies. You're only given 40 hours of work per week. If you had the stamina for two jobs, then they'd give you 80 hours, with more than double the pay. That's what factories and gig jobs do. But everyone believes that 40 hours is the peak, maybe less, before efficiency drops. You need rest to do well. If you can perform, then just get a better position or a better job. Take on more responsibilities. Use the spare time to fix the problems that nobody brings up. If you can't, then chances are you're not really performing. If you are performing, why aren't you in a CxO position? If you are in a CxO position, are you hitting the 10% week on week growth benchmark? I feel that most people doing two jobs are really just taking multiple low positions with low expectations and low salary caps. It's not always laziness, sometimes just market inefficiency. Now if you are one of the people who can do multiple jobs effectively, consider consulting, where it's completely fine.

soared 4y ago
Allow me to make an edit: >There's infinite things to do in many software companies. You're only given 40 hours of work per week. If you had the stamina for two jobs, then they'd give you 80 hours, with more than double the pay. That's what factories and gig jobs do. But everyone believes that 40 hours is the peak, maybe less, before efficiency drops. You need rest to do well. >If you can perform, then just get a better position or a better job. Take on more responsibilities. Use the spare time to fix the problems that nobody brings up. If you can't, ... If you can't, you're working at a company similar to most people where taking on additional projects outside of your scope is not rewarded with "double pay". Its rewarded with leadership believing you don't have enough work. The claim above makes sense at startups/etc where growth is determined by your output. At my employer, I'm literally not eligible for a promotion or raise until I've been there for 2 years. Regardless of how many hours I put, my (measurable) direct impact on revenue, my (measurable) reductions in cost, it is against policy to promote or pay me more. That is why people look to get seconds jobs. That is why the only against policy raise I was given occurred when 2 coworkers left and cited this specific policy, so the company feared more people would leave. Lets ask why I'm not cxo or even senior level, when I open my companies financials and see myself managing 6x more revenue than the next person with 15% better profit margin.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wisnoskij 4y ago
  You are already willing to get get another job. You already identified that your current employer is a horrible company. Just get another job and quite the bad one.
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
>But everyone believes that 40 hours is the peak False. The 40 hour work week in the US was won on the backs of a militant labor movement in the earlier 21st century. Plenty of bosses and company owners around the world believe more working hours would increase productivity, and laws around the world vary quite a bit too.
- muzani 4y ago
  If working hours would increase productivity, why don't they pay overtime? In most situations where there's a direct correlation between work hours and productivity, someone pays overtime. Why is overtime not offered? Eastern companies often employ 996, where the expectations are roughly 72 hours/week, and compensation is paid accordingly.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    The parent is not arguing anything about productivity. The point is that the 40 hour work week has nothing to do with productivity.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    I’m not taking any position on that. It’s irrelevant to my point.
- speedgoose 4y ago
  What people believe is not necessarily what is measured. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=no&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=work+hours+productivity&oq=work+hours+ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=no&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=work...
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    And what is measured is not what becomes law, hence why I don’t care. The fact is the laws are direct results of hard fought labor battles, not productivity data or theories.
  - 4y ago

by muzani 4y ago

soared 4y ago

Allow me to make an edit: >There's infinite things to do in many software companies. You're only given 40 hours of work per week. If you had the stamina for two jobs, then they'd give you 80 hours, with more than double the pay. That's what factories and gig jobs do. But everyone believes that 40 hours is the peak, maybe less, before efficiency drops. You need rest to do well. >If you can perform, then just get a better position or a better job. Take on more responsibilities. Use the spare time to fix the problems that nobody brings up. If you can't, ... If you can't, you're working at a company similar to most people where taking on additional projects outside of your scope is not rewarded with "double pay". Its rewarded with leadership believing you don't have enough work. The claim above makes sense at startups/etc where growth is determined by your output. At my employer, I'm literally not eligible for a promotion or raise until I've been there for 2 years. Regardless of how many hours I put, my (measurable) direct impact on revenue, my (measurable) reductions in cost, it is against policy to promote or pay me more. That is why people look to get seconds jobs. That is why the only against policy raise I was given occurred when 2 coworkers left and cited this specific policy, so the company feared more people would leave. Lets ask why I'm not cxo or even senior level, when I open my companies financials and see myself managing 6x more revenue than the next person with 15% better profit margin.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wisnoskij 4y ago
You are already willing to get get another job. You already identified that your current employer is a horrible company. Just get another job and quite the bad one.

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

>But everyone believes that 40 hours is the peak False. The 40 hour work week in the US was won on the backs of a militant labor movement in the earlier 21st century. Plenty of bosses and company owners around the world believe more working hours would increase productivity, and laws around the world vary quite a bit too.

muzani 4y ago
If working hours would increase productivity, why don't they pay overtime? In most situations where there's a direct correlation between work hours and productivity, someone pays overtime. Why is overtime not offered? Eastern companies often employ 996, where the expectations are roughly 72 hours/week, and compensation is paid accordingly.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  The parent is not arguing anything about productivity. The point is that the 40 hour work week has nothing to do with productivity.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  I’m not taking any position on that. It’s irrelevant to my point.
speedgoose 4y ago
What people believe is not necessarily what is measured. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=no&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=work+hours+productivity&oq=work+hours+ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=no&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=work...
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  And what is measured is not what becomes law, hence why I don’t care. The fact is the laws are direct results of hard fought labor battles, not productivity data or theories.
- 4y ago