6 ms·

> "High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back, often by choice" This seems like great news. I know se

> "High-earning men in the 25-to-39 age range who could be described as “workaholics” were pulling back, often by choice" This seems like great news. I know several guys who've recently opted to earn less in exchange for more time off at home with their young kids. They are happier and the kids love it.

leetrout 4y ago
I just had this conversation with a potential employer yesterday. I have worked hard at not working so hard (seeing a therapist for life coaching) and I am "guarding my calm" with looking for a job.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I see job postings with "must be able to multitask" and "high intensity environment" and I think the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back. It's common knowledge - or should be - multitasking is a productivity loss, not gain. And the last thing the world needs is another headless-chicken culture where working hard and frantic is confused with smart and efficient. Guard your calm...no one else will.
  - starkd 4y ago
    There will always be a need for some multi-taskers. Some are better at it than others. Not everyone is the same. Office secretaries/assistants/receptionists are the heartbeat of any business.
    - flir 4y ago
      My line manager multitasks so I don't have to.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      It's still a productivity killer. Full stop. And unless the work is literally a matter of life or death, then excessive multitasking - to point you list it as a desired skill - is simply a sign of poor planning, poor priority setting, and so on. The job ad might as well say, "Must enjoy working at a shit show, or at least has had a life-long dream of working at a circus."
      - starkd 4y ago
        ahhh, but the planning and priority setting is a part of the multi-tasking. No one said multi-tasking must be a circus. That said, I am terrible at multi-tasking. But we really do need to do some to some degree.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      You can't multitask deep work.
      - Gud 4y ago
        So what? Must work is not deep work.
        chiefalchemist 4y ago
        Well, it's not (read: can't be)...if you're always multitasking. Multitasking from the brain's POV is intensive and a form of distraction. If it's work, then chances are some level of focus and attentiveness is required. Deep or not, work is work. And focusing the brain to be not-what-it's-wired-to-be is a proven fool's errand.
  - tmountain 4y ago
    What are some strategies for guarding your calm that have worked for the HN crowd?
    - grugagag 4y ago
      With the risk of being fired, pushing back and saying no if your plate is full is an okay stategy. I think the stated risk is worth it
    - kevinventullo 4y ago
      http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
  - collyw 4y ago
    I am so glad the trend of bragging about multitasking from a decade or two ago has died out. I can't think of a bigger productivity killer that constantly context switching. I just quit a job and a lot of it was down to that, the system was so buggy that I could never focus for long before something broke and needed looking at.
  - nradov 4y ago
    We all know that multitasking reduces productivity, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's better to optimize for low latency instead of high throughput.
    - ludston 4y ago
      True, but you've mixed up the wording. Throughput is the word for speed at which the team delivers complete things, so you could say, "Sometimes optimising for low latency will cause higher throughput than optimising for personal efficiency."
    - taneq 4y ago
      Also sometimes your work is frequently stalled waiting on outside inputs (documentation reviews, approvals, client decisions etc.) If so you can’t just sit around waiting for the thing, you need to do something productive in the meantime.
  - aikiplayer 4y ago
    "the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back." This phrase made me laugh out loud - literally. Thanks for this! Also, this thread is spot on.
ren_engineer 4y ago
the last sentence of the article hints at the real reason it was written in the first place: >But as staff cut back their hours, it costs medical organizations money it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. I think the pandemic had a large effect on people in terms of 1. Having to face potential mortality much earlier than expected and thus putting lower priority on long term career stuff 2. Gave lots of people a glimpse of how much they miss out on due to commuting and being in office when in reality they can do most of their work from home and get benefits like more time with family, more time for hobbies, etc.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  >> it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. That depends on how many of these jobs are positional and therefore cannot be easily supplemented. In my kneck of the woods we are having an issue with judges. There are only so many jobs for judges. But in recent years more than half of them switched to reduced hours. That lost time cannot be just replaced with a part-timer. This is probably true for many senior doctors too. Not every profession has a substitute pool of qualified people to step in every time a senior person decides to not work Fridays.
  - lumost 4y ago
    > But more than half of them have switched to reduced hours. Why are they switching to reduced hours? This sounds like the value/output equation is out of line. Why not pay more, or hire more judges to reduce the workload?
    - sandworm101 4y ago
      A judgeship is often a specific job. They are paid good money and, like tenured professors, cannot have their salary easily reduced. It's like being the mayor of a town. If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference. Their income is protected. There can be only one.
maxerickson 4y ago
The decline, by my math, is from 55 hours to 50 hours a week. edit: Oops, that 5 hour decline is for the highest 10% of workers, not the highest 10% of earners. Given that they are discussing the hours worked by people making 90th percentile income, I wonder how much of the shift is due to changes in the population that ends up being in the top 10% (there's similar declines in the 80th and 70th deciles, which sort of points away from that concern). The guy in the article cutting back to 60-70 was and still is an outlier (during short weeks, still a long workday a week more than the mean).
lightbendover 4y ago
I have been deeply considering going part time to pursue a passion project that will likely never generate income but will at least leave me creatively satisfied in a way that a big tech gig never could.
RobinL 4y ago
I had 9 months off and then went down to three days/week 3 years ago, after the birth of my first child. Definitely happier, the kids love it, and both parents are less tired so we have more quality time. Also it turned out having kids are way cheaper than I thought so long as you're happy to buy everything second hand and don't need to pay for much childcare. One reason for the decision was I figured in 20 years looking back, I doubt I'll regret sacrificing my career (to some degree), but I can imagine I'd seriously regret missing out on the time with my kids, which you can never get back. Before I had kids, I remember someone on a podcast saying some thing like 'I'd give anything to go back and have another day with my kids when they were young'. It had quite a big impact on me, and I still think about it often (especially when we're having a hard day!)
- clarge1120 4y ago
  The impact of your decision will grow with time. Always getting better. The upside is immense. The downside is that very few people will understand or share your experience.

leetrout 4y ago

I just had this conversation with a potential employer yesterday. I have worked hard at not working so hard (seeing a therapist for life coaching) and I am "guarding my calm" with looking for a job.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
I see job postings with "must be able to multitask" and "high intensity environment" and I think the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back. It's common knowledge - or should be - multitasking is a productivity loss, not gain. And the last thing the world needs is another headless-chicken culture where working hard and frantic is confused with smart and efficient. Guard your calm...no one else will.
- starkd 4y ago
  There will always be a need for some multi-taskers. Some are better at it than others. Not everyone is the same. Office secretaries/assistants/receptionists are the heartbeat of any business.
  - flir 4y ago
    My line manager multitasks so I don't have to.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    It's still a productivity killer. Full stop. And unless the work is literally a matter of life or death, then excessive multitasking - to point you list it as a desired skill - is simply a sign of poor planning, poor priority setting, and so on. The job ad might as well say, "Must enjoy working at a shit show, or at least has had a life-long dream of working at a circus."
    - starkd 4y ago
      ahhh, but the planning and priority setting is a part of the multi-tasking. No one said multi-tasking must be a circus. That said, I am terrible at multi-tasking. But we really do need to do some to some degree.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    You can't multitask deep work.
    - Gud 4y ago
      So what? Must work is not deep work.
      - chiefalchemist 4y ago
        Well, it's not (read: can't be)...if you're always multitasking. Multitasking from the brain's POV is intensive and a form of distraction. If it's work, then chances are some level of focus and attentiveness is required. Deep or not, work is work. And focusing the brain to be not-what-it's-wired-to-be is a proven fool's errand.
- tmountain 4y ago
  What are some strategies for guarding your calm that have worked for the HN crowd?
  - grugagag 4y ago
    With the risk of being fired, pushing back and saying no if your plate is full is an okay stategy. I think the stated risk is worth it
  - kevinventullo 4y ago
    http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html http://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
- collyw 4y ago
  I am so glad the trend of bragging about multitasking from a decade or two ago has died out. I can't think of a bigger productivity killer that constantly context switching. I just quit a job and a lot of it was down to that, the system was so buggy that I could never focus for long before something broke and needed looking at.
- nradov 4y ago
  We all know that multitasking reduces productivity, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's better to optimize for low latency instead of high throughput.
  - ludston 4y ago
    True, but you've mixed up the wording. Throughput is the word for speed at which the team delivers complete things, so you could say, "Sometimes optimising for low latency will cause higher throughput than optimising for personal efficiency."
  - taneq 4y ago
    Also sometimes your work is frequently stalled waiting on outside inputs (documentation reviews, approvals, client decisions etc.) If so you can’t just sit around waiting for the thing, you need to do something productive in the meantime.
- aikiplayer 4y ago
  "the 80s called and it wants its 8 ball of coke back." This phrase made me laugh out loud - literally. Thanks for this! Also, this thread is spot on.

ren_engineer 4y ago

the last sentence of the article hints at the real reason it was written in the first place: >But as staff cut back their hours, it costs medical organizations money it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. I think the pandemic had a large effect on people in terms of 1. Having to face potential mortality much earlier than expected and thus putting lower priority on long term career stuff 2. Gave lots of people a glimpse of how much they miss out on due to commuting and being in office when in reality they can do most of their work from home and get benefits like more time with family, more time for hobbies, etc.

sandworm101 4y ago
>> it's just companies screeching that they are making less money because salaried employees are doing less unpaid work. That depends on how many of these jobs are positional and therefore cannot be easily supplemented. In my kneck of the woods we are having an issue with judges. There are only so many jobs for judges. But in recent years more than half of them switched to reduced hours. That lost time cannot be just replaced with a part-timer. This is probably true for many senior doctors too. Not every profession has a substitute pool of qualified people to step in every time a senior person decides to not work Fridays.
- lumost 4y ago
  > But more than half of them have switched to reduced hours. Why are they switching to reduced hours? This sounds like the value/output equation is out of line. Why not pay more, or hire more judges to reduce the workload?
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    A judgeship is often a specific job. They are paid good money and, like tenured professors, cannot have their salary easily reduced. It's like being the mayor of a town. If a mayor wants to reduce their worked hours, you cannot just hire another one to make up the difference. Their income is protected. There can be only one.

maxerickson 4y ago

The decline, by my math, is from 55 hours to 50 hours a week. edit: Oops, that 5 hour decline is for the highest 10% of workers, not the highest 10% of earners. Given that they are discussing the hours worked by people making 90th percentile income, I wonder how much of the shift is due to changes in the population that ends up being in the top 10% (there's similar declines in the 80th and 70th deciles, which sort of points away from that concern). The guy in the article cutting back to 60-70 was and still is an outlier (during short weeks, still a long workday a week more than the mean).

lightbendover 4y ago

I have been deeply considering going part time to pursue a passion project that will likely never generate income but will at least leave me creatively satisfied in a way that a big tech gig never could.

RobinL 4y ago

I had 9 months off and then went down to three days/week 3 years ago, after the birth of my first child. Definitely happier, the kids love it, and both parents are less tired so we have more quality time. Also it turned out having kids are way cheaper than I thought so long as you're happy to buy everything second hand and don't need to pay for much childcare. One reason for the decision was I figured in 20 years looking back, I doubt I'll regret sacrificing my career (to some degree), but I can imagine I'd seriously regret missing out on the time with my kids, which you can never get back. Before I had kids, I remember someone on a podcast saying some thing like 'I'd give anything to go back and have another day with my kids when they were young'. It had quite a big impact on me, and I still think about it often (especially when we're having a hard day!)

clarge1120 4y ago
The impact of your decision will grow with time. Always getting better. The upside is immense. The downside is that very few people will understand or share your experience.