4 ms·

Good for you that you're so competent that you can work smart instead of hard, some people aren't as smart, and they need to work hard and longer to achieve the

Good for you that you're so competent that you can work smart instead of hard, some people aren't as smart, and they need to work hard and longer to achieve the same you achieve in less time.

scarface74 4y ago
I know a lot of skilled craftsmen who are very adamant about not putting in extra hours - plumbers, electricians, car repairmen who own their own business, etc. My dad is a retired factory worker and he turned down overtime opportunities a lot during the latter part of his career. My mom (teacher) and my dad retired in their mid 50s and are still going strong at 77 and 80. They had ordinary middle class jobs and never got involved in the rat race.
- walkhour 4y ago
  Did they incidentally live through the biggest economic boom humanity has ever seen? I don't think your parents decisions are an option for most people that want the same lifestyle as them.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    My mom as a teacher never got above cost of living raises after she got her masters early in her career. Her retirement is a combination of a government pension and social security. My dad as a factory worker just got shares of middling performing consumer goods company (Proctor and Gamble) for his retirement. They bought a house in 1978 in southern Georgia where they still live. It only increased in value along with inflation.
ryanbrunner 4y ago
Numerous studies have shown that in the long term, working excessive hours is a net reduction in productivity. You're achieving less by working more hours, particularly for knowledge work.
- walkhour 4y ago
  Please link the studies. I believe productive per hour decreases after certain point. I find it harder to believe the output is lower when working hours are longer. How much is long term? And reconcile this with some companies requiring 80+ hours a week. I guess you think they are ignorantly damaging themselves. I find very unlikely the idea that we have found the sweet spot of hours worked per week at 40. How do you know it's not 50 hours per week which maximizes production?
  - parthianshotgun 4y ago
    Look for the literature around '4 day work week', namely pilot programs
  - watwut 4y ago
    From what I remember: the "long term" is 6 weeks. The productivity goes up up to 40 hours a week, then it remains constant up to 50 and then goes down with hours. 80+ week schedule is not because of output effectively. One reason for it is mismanagement - a lot of wasted time and general chaos. People posturing how much they work, but not actually being productive. And second reason is creating social buble - a group of people effectively isolated from outside relationship. That allows for generaly more abusive/controlling style of management, it allows you to shape employees opinions more. That is necessary condition for companies like Enron used to be to operate.
  - tremon 4y ago
    https://docs.iza.org/dp8129.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp8129.pdf Pencavel, "The Productivity of Working Hours", 2014 > The conclusion from the work presented in this section is that the output-hours relation is decidedly non-linear: below 49 weekly hours, variations in output are proportional to variations in hours; for those observations corresponding to 49 or more hours, output rises with hours at a decreasing rate and a maximum of output occurs at about 63 hours. Output at 70 hours differs little from output at 56 hours and, therefore, the HMWC’s recommendations about the innocuous effects for output of hours reductions are consistent with these estimates. Note that this is about manual labour, not knowledge work. I guess you think they are ignorantly damaging themselves. Not the OP, but I would think they are deliberately damaging their workers. The effect on the company itself is of no concern relative to that.

Good for you that you're so competent that you can work smart instead of hard, some people aren't as smart, and they need to work hard and longer to achieve the same you achieve in less time.

scarface74 4y ago

I know a lot of skilled craftsmen who are very adamant about not putting in extra hours - plumbers, electricians, car repairmen who own their own business, etc. My dad is a retired factory worker and he turned down overtime opportunities a lot during the latter part of his career. My mom (teacher) and my dad retired in their mid 50s and are still going strong at 77 and 80. They had ordinary middle class jobs and never got involved in the rat race.

walkhour 4y ago
Did they incidentally live through the biggest economic boom humanity has ever seen? I don't think your parents decisions are an option for most people that want the same lifestyle as them.
- scarface74 4y ago
  My mom as a teacher never got above cost of living raises after she got her masters early in her career. Her retirement is a combination of a government pension and social security. My dad as a factory worker just got shares of middling performing consumer goods company (Proctor and Gamble) for his retirement. They bought a house in 1978 in southern Georgia where they still live. It only increased in value along with inflation.

ryanbrunner 4y ago

Numerous studies have shown that in the long term, working excessive hours is a net reduction in productivity. You're achieving less by working more hours, particularly for knowledge work.

walkhour 4y ago
Please link the studies. I believe productive per hour decreases after certain point. I find it harder to believe the output is lower when working hours are longer. How much is long term? And reconcile this with some companies requiring 80+ hours a week. I guess you think they are ignorantly damaging themselves. I find very unlikely the idea that we have found the sweet spot of hours worked per week at 40. How do you know it's not 50 hours per week which maximizes production?
- parthianshotgun 4y ago
  Look for the literature around '4 day work week', namely pilot programs
- watwut 4y ago
  From what I remember: the "long term" is 6 weeks. The productivity goes up up to 40 hours a week, then it remains constant up to 50 and then goes down with hours. 80+ week schedule is not because of output effectively. One reason for it is mismanagement - a lot of wasted time and general chaos. People posturing how much they work, but not actually being productive. And second reason is creating social buble - a group of people effectively isolated from outside relationship. That allows for generaly more abusive/controlling style of management, it allows you to shape employees opinions more. That is necessary condition for companies like Enron used to be to operate.
- tremon 4y ago
  https://docs.iza.org/dp8129.pdf https://docs.iza.org/dp8129.pdf Pencavel, "The Productivity of Working Hours", 2014 > The conclusion from the work presented in this section is that the output-hours relation is decidedly non-linear: below 49 weekly hours, variations in output are proportional to variations in hours; for those observations corresponding to 49 or more hours, output rises with hours at a decreasing rate and a maximum of output occurs at about 63 hours. Output at 70 hours differs little from output at 56 hours and, therefore, the HMWC’s recommendations about the innocuous effects for output of hours reductions are consistent with these estimates. Note that this is about manual labour, not knowledge work. I guess you think they are ignorantly damaging themselves. Not the OP, but I would think they are deliberately damaging their workers. The effect on the company itself is of no concern relative to that.