5 ms·

Forget the 4 day work week. When can we have the 10 hour work week.

by from-nibly 2y ago

jeremyt 2y ago
Anytime you want. You just have to live modestly.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- darth_avocado 2y ago
  10 hour work weeks are 520 work hours in a year. Even if you get paid $100 per hour, you’d have to heavily rely on govt benefits to support your family. (Avg. non subsidized health insurance costs for a family of 4 are $24000/year)
  - stocknoob 2y ago
    Or, save and live off investments: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...
    - phreack 2y ago
      But then it's not "anytime you want"
  - mulderc 2y ago
    Who said anything about supporting a family?
    - brevhtff 2y ago
      Exactly. It’s a choice. I had a family instead, but anyone can do it.
      - darth_avocado 2y ago
        > anytime you want Doesn’t really then apply to anyone and everyone. Not like I can abandon my child or an ailing parent anytime I want. (Which is my point) Besides, not marrying and having kids can be a choice that’s relatively easy. But cutting ties with your parents especially when they need you can be a difficult one.
  - nanomonkey 2y ago
    With your free time you can exercise and eat well, which will get you further health wise then having insurance.
    - pineaux 2y ago
      No, it does not work that way, you can't eat and exercise a broken leg away.
      - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        If you don't engage in high risk activities, you are almost certainly not going to break your leg. It's common knowledge that the young healthy folks who don't go adrenaline-chasing are subsidizing healthcare for everyone else. If you fit into that group, you're getting fleeced by everyone else your insurance company underwrites. Personally, I've been on Medi-Cal for years. I've never taken a cent from it, nor have I paid a cent into it (not counting the taxes I pay). It's great. I feel bad for all the folks that haven't figured it out yet.
        somenameforme 2y ago
        This reminds me of recently going to a hospital and there was a guy, probably around 20 years old, who had broken leg casted from heel to thigh. He has his friend cruising him around on just the back wheels of his wheel chair, running at full speed in circles on the minimal area there was. It's really a wonder how this kid broke his leg to begin with. The mysteries of life.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        Skiing? That's how I broke mine at that age.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        Something extremely interesting is looking at life expectancy in the past. I assume you, like most people, think people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood. It's just that infant mortality was way higher. If one guy dies in childbirth, and another dies at 80 - you have a life expectancy of 40. You can find evidence for this in numerous ways. For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3. [1] Even in the Bible one finds numbers that match up basically exactly, 'Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.' You can also find things like the minimum age for Roman Consuls being 42 years, and so on endlessly. And all of this was in an era when there were no vaccines, no knowledge of germs or how disease spread, and when cutting edge medical science had to do with balancing the 4 humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) with some sort of an elemental association of air/water/fire/earth with each. Eating well and exercising can indeed take you extremely far, because it damn sure wasn't their healthcare doing it. That said modern medicine has basically been a miracle worker for childhood survival, but once you make it to adulthood - your body is strong enough, or can be made strong enough, to get you most of the way to your expiration date. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/
  - Sharlin 2y ago
    > your family Rather a large tacit assumption there.
  - yzydserd 2y ago
    Presumably that’s the US? In the UK, an industry body annually publishes estimates of retirement income needs. USD$52k is GBP£41k which is about enough for a “comfortable” retirement for a single and a “moderate level” retirement for a couple. We have good free healthcare of course. Many people who “FIRE” in their 40s and 50s have targets that allow drawdowns much smaller than this. When you hit 67, you’ll also receive USD$15k pa state pension, provided you worked for 35 years, even if you continue to work. If you’re still a “family of 4”, it’ll take a bit more.
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      But you’re not making $100/hour in the UK.
      - yzydserd 2y ago
        Why not? That’s £500/day. It’s a standard UK contractor dev rate.
  - panda-giddiness 2y ago
    $1000/week is almost the median weekly earnings for full-time US employees ($1139/week) [1]. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
jonas21 2y ago
When you're 67 and basically retired (as Einstein was at this time)? By contrast, in his 20s, he wrote 4 highly-influential papers in a single year, in his spare time while also working full-time at the Swiss patent office.
- brevhtff 2y ago
  He was incredible and to think he wasnt working incredibly hard to develop his work is (probably, who can say?) nonsense.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    It depends how you define "work". For Einstein, daydreaming was work.
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      Was it? Slacking off doesn't become "work" just because it lead to something more important than the job itself. See also, Feynman, who was quite openly talking about the idea that you need to goof off a bit to do anything interesting. Nah, this wasn't work, that sounds more like the hobby that's in love-hate relationship with the work (need work to live, but it takes time and energy from the hobby).
      - noncoml 2y ago
        That’s a very narrow interpretation of work What’s important is not how much one suffers but how much benefit one adds to the society
        TeMPOraL 2y ago
        It's not a very narrow interpretation of work - it's the one that matters in this context, and the one that matters day-to-day. Sure, you could define work as anything one did that had results you find interesting, but the narrower definition that's important here is things you do because you have to, because you're obliged to do them by others or by circumstances, vs. things you do for fun - because you want to, and which you control. A job vs. a hobby is a good approximation. It's not uncommon to see people being much more effective at their hobbies than at their jobs, even when both of them are in the same domain. It's also not uncommon to see a hobby to be more worthwhile than one's work.
astrange 2y ago
If your job is thinking it's always happening unconsciously. Though, you have to convince whoever's paying you about that.
- mordae 2y ago
  You can flush your cache to relax. It takes effort. Usually 2 days of different activities. I schedule 2-3 days at home, just lazying in front of TV or playing games to flush job out of my brain before starting vacations, to prevent carrying job over to the vacation and spoiling it.

Forget the 4 day work week. When can we have the 10 hour work week.

jeremyt 2y ago

Anytime you want. You just have to live modestly.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
darth_avocado 2y ago
10 hour work weeks are 520 work hours in a year. Even if you get paid $100 per hour, you’d have to heavily rely on govt benefits to support your family. (Avg. non subsidized health insurance costs for a family of 4 are $24000/year)
- stocknoob 2y ago
  Or, save and live off investments: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...
  - phreack 2y ago
    But then it's not "anytime you want"
- mulderc 2y ago
  Who said anything about supporting a family?
  - brevhtff 2y ago
    Exactly. It’s a choice. I had a family instead, but anyone can do it.
    - darth_avocado 2y ago
      > anytime you want Doesn’t really then apply to anyone and everyone. Not like I can abandon my child or an ailing parent anytime I want. (Which is my point) Besides, not marrying and having kids can be a choice that’s relatively easy. But cutting ties with your parents especially when they need you can be a difficult one.
- nanomonkey 2y ago
  With your free time you can exercise and eat well, which will get you further health wise then having insurance.
  - pineaux 2y ago
    No, it does not work that way, you can't eat and exercise a broken leg away.
    - dumbo-octopus 2y ago
      If you don't engage in high risk activities, you are almost certainly not going to break your leg. It's common knowledge that the young healthy folks who don't go adrenaline-chasing are subsidizing healthcare for everyone else. If you fit into that group, you're getting fleeced by everyone else your insurance company underwrites. Personally, I've been on Medi-Cal for years. I've never taken a cent from it, nor have I paid a cent into it (not counting the taxes I pay). It's great. I feel bad for all the folks that haven't figured it out yet.
      - somenameforme 2y ago
        This reminds me of recently going to a hospital and there was a guy, probably around 20 years old, who had broken leg casted from heel to thigh. He has his friend cruising him around on just the back wheels of his wheel chair, running at full speed in circles on the minimal area there was. It's really a wonder how this kid broke his leg to begin with. The mysteries of life.
        dumbo-octopus 2y ago
        Skiing? That's how I broke mine at that age.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      Something extremely interesting is looking at life expectancy in the past. I assume you, like most people, think people probably just tended to start dropping dead around 40, if not earlier. In reality, people tended to live comparably long to modern times, if they made it to adulthood. It's just that infant mortality was way higher. If one guy dies in childbirth, and another dies at 80 - you have a life expectancy of 40. You can find evidence for this in numerous ways. For instance studies looking at classical Greeks 'of renown', found a median life expectancy was 70, and average life expectancy was 71.3. [1] Even in the Bible one finds numbers that match up basically exactly, 'Our days may come to seventy years, or eighty, if our strength endures; yet the best of them are but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away.' You can also find things like the minimum age for Roman Consuls being 42 years, and so on endlessly. And all of this was in an era when there were no vaccines, no knowledge of germs or how disease spread, and when cutting edge medical science had to do with balancing the 4 humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile) with some sort of an elemental association of air/water/fire/earth with each. Eating well and exercising can indeed take you extremely far, because it damn sure wasn't their healthcare doing it. That said modern medicine has basically been a miracle worker for childhood survival, but once you make it to adulthood - your body is strong enough, or can be made strong enough, to get you most of the way to your expiration date. [1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18359748/
- Sharlin 2y ago
  > your family Rather a large tacit assumption there.
- yzydserd 2y ago
  Presumably that’s the US? In the UK, an industry body annually publishes estimates of retirement income needs. USD$52k is GBP£41k which is about enough for a “comfortable” retirement for a single and a “moderate level” retirement for a couple. We have good free healthcare of course. Many people who “FIRE” in their 40s and 50s have targets that allow drawdowns much smaller than this. When you hit 67, you’ll also receive USD$15k pa state pension, provided you worked for 35 years, even if you continue to work. If you’re still a “family of 4”, it’ll take a bit more.
  - darth_avocado 2y ago
    But you’re not making $100/hour in the UK.
    - yzydserd 2y ago
      Why not? That’s £500/day. It’s a standard UK contractor dev rate.
- panda-giddiness 2y ago
  $1000/week is almost the median weekly earnings for full-time US employees ($1139/week) [1]. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

jonas21 2y ago

When you're 67 and basically retired (as Einstein was at this time)? By contrast, in his 20s, he wrote 4 highly-influential papers in a single year, in his spare time while also working full-time at the Swiss patent office.

brevhtff 2y ago
He was incredible and to think he wasnt working incredibly hard to develop his work is (probably, who can say?) nonsense.
- pineaux 2y ago
  It depends how you define "work". For Einstein, daydreaming was work.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Was it? Slacking off doesn't become "work" just because it lead to something more important than the job itself. See also, Feynman, who was quite openly talking about the idea that you need to goof off a bit to do anything interesting. Nah, this wasn't work, that sounds more like the hobby that's in love-hate relationship with the work (need work to live, but it takes time and energy from the hobby).
    - noncoml 2y ago
      That’s a very narrow interpretation of work What’s important is not how much one suffers but how much benefit one adds to the society
      - TeMPOraL 2y ago
        It's not a very narrow interpretation of work - it's the one that matters in this context, and the one that matters day-to-day. Sure, you could define work as anything one did that had results you find interesting, but the narrower definition that's important here is things you do because you have to, because you're obliged to do them by others or by circumstances, vs. things you do for fun - because you want to, and which you control. A job vs. a hobby is a good approximation. It's not uncommon to see people being much more effective at their hobbies than at their jobs, even when both of them are in the same domain. It's also not uncommon to see a hobby to be more worthwhile than one's work.

astrange 2y ago

If your job is thinking it's always happening unconsciously. Though, you have to convince whoever's paying you about that.

mordae 2y ago
You can flush your cache to relax. It takes effort. Usually 2 days of different activities. I schedule 2-3 days at home, just lazying in front of TV or playing games to flush job out of my brain before starting vacations, to prevent carrying job over to the vacation and spoiling it.