4 ms·

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 lon

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.

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.