4 ms·
Yes, but he wasn't working continuously for 8.5 years. If a full time work-year is about 240 hours, that's 312 1/2 years! I admire his persistence.
by rgovostes 15y ago
Yes, but he wasn't working continuously for 8.5 years. If a full time work-year is about 240 hours, that's 312 1/2 years! I admire his persistence.
- Natsu 15y ago240 hours is a very short full time work-year. (52 weeks/year - 2 weeks vacation) * 40 hours/week == 2000 hours. Many workers exceed that.
- kghose 15y ago50 weeks/year * 40 hours/week * 60 min/hour = 120000 work min/year -> 37.5 years. So, most possibly, Watterson was refering to the total time, not just the time spent at work 365.25 days/year * 24 hrs/day * 60 min/hr = 525960 min/yr -> 8.5 years which is STILL a very long time. I have not (yet) had to spend so many years on something I did not like.