5 ms·

On the subject of working a lot of hours, this article argues that a 40-hour work week is optimal (you don't get more done even if you work longer hours) http:/

On the subject of working a lot of hours, this article argues that a 40-hour work week is optimal (you don't get more done even if you work longer hours) http://www.alternet.org/story/154518/why_we_have_to_go_back_to_a_40-hour_work_week_to_keep_our_sanity?paging=off http://www.alternet.org/story/154518/why_we_have_to_go_back_...

thoughtsimple 14y ago
Yeah. Everyone is different. I don't have a spouse, kids or dog. I like it when I'm working on a problem and the world goes away for 10-12 hours at a time. I can get a lot of work done in a week where I work 60-70 hours. I'm sure many people can't and on average, 40 hours may be optimal but there is no way that 40 hours is optimal for me when I'm doing something interesting. Having said that, I've also been burnt out working for startups. You can do 50-60 hours a week for many months but at some point you need a break. I've done it for 18 months but after that, I was pretty useless for several months. One way I take a break is to work as a software contractor (which I'm doing now.) This pays well and is almost always a 40-hour per week job. It also tends to be pretty boring but it gives me a chance to recharge. BTW, to relate this back to the topic, I just turned 50 and hope to continue writing software for at least another 20 years.
- cachichas 14y ago
  I for one do have a spouse and a child, no dog though :( I have worked probably the same amount of hours when I was younger but due to other responsibilities that came up after I got married, I had to stick with the 35 - 40 hours work weeks. I was recently involved with a very small shop (5 people, 3 full time developers) and it really took a toll on me. I got caught up in a project that had no end in sight and really caused me great frustration and a sense of not accomplishing anything which contributed immensely in my decision to walk away. Right now I'm taking a long break but still update myself with what is going on in tech & programming in particular. I have always been a coder (only job I ever had) and I can't see myself doing anything else. BTW, I just turned 50 myself. So here's to another 20 years of writing software. Cheers!
xxiao 14y ago
too long to read... with internet access nearby, including reading posts like this one, a 40-hour week becomes 20-hour for work, the rest are for surfing the net and replying email,etc, so yes I need 80-hour a week to make sure I have 40-hour for the work I'm paid for.
ken 14y ago
I only skimmed that article, but I don't see anywhere it says 40 hours is optimal. I only see where it says every hour beyond 40 is harmful: "By the eighth hour of the day, people's best work is usually already behind them (typically turned in between hours 2 and 6)." It sounds like 30 hours might well be optimal, but has simply never been tested.
- henrik_w 14y ago
  You're right. Good point.
- mattm 14y ago
  Actually it has. See Kellogg's 6 hour day
  - ken 14y ago
    That looks like it's about round-the-clock shifts for factory workers. I can think of a lot of differences between that and, say, computer programmers that might render the conclusion less relevant. For example, I don't know any software companies in the world that build software with 3 8-hour shifts of workers.
ww520 14y ago
I would argue that in those 60 hours work week or 90 hours work week people mostly idling, staring at the screen, or browsing the web, or doing other stuff. The real work happens in much less time. Most companies equate face time in office as work and thus people just put in long hours there.

thoughtsimple 14y ago

Yeah. Everyone is different. I don't have a spouse, kids or dog. I like it when I'm working on a problem and the world goes away for 10-12 hours at a time. I can get a lot of work done in a week where I work 60-70 hours. I'm sure many people can't and on average, 40 hours may be optimal but there is no way that 40 hours is optimal for me when I'm doing something interesting. Having said that, I've also been burnt out working for startups. You can do 50-60 hours a week for many months but at some point you need a break. I've done it for 18 months but after that, I was pretty useless for several months. One way I take a break is to work as a software contractor (which I'm doing now.) This pays well and is almost always a 40-hour per week job. It also tends to be pretty boring but it gives me a chance to recharge. BTW, to relate this back to the topic, I just turned 50 and hope to continue writing software for at least another 20 years.

cachichas 14y ago
I for one do have a spouse and a child, no dog though :( I have worked probably the same amount of hours when I was younger but due to other responsibilities that came up after I got married, I had to stick with the 35 - 40 hours work weeks. I was recently involved with a very small shop (5 people, 3 full time developers) and it really took a toll on me. I got caught up in a project that had no end in sight and really caused me great frustration and a sense of not accomplishing anything which contributed immensely in my decision to walk away. Right now I'm taking a long break but still update myself with what is going on in tech & programming in particular. I have always been a coder (only job I ever had) and I can't see myself doing anything else. BTW, I just turned 50 myself. So here's to another 20 years of writing software. Cheers!

xxiao 14y ago

too long to read... with internet access nearby, including reading posts like this one, a 40-hour week becomes 20-hour for work, the rest are for surfing the net and replying email,etc, so yes I need 80-hour a week to make sure I have 40-hour for the work I'm paid for.

ken 14y ago

I only skimmed that article, but I don't see anywhere it says 40 hours is optimal. I only see where it says every hour beyond 40 is harmful: "By the eighth hour of the day, people's best work is usually already behind them (typically turned in between hours 2 and 6)." It sounds like 30 hours might well be optimal, but has simply never been tested.

henrik_w 14y ago
You're right. Good point.
mattm 14y ago
Actually it has. See Kellogg's 6 hour day
- ken 14y ago
  That looks like it's about round-the-clock shifts for factory workers. I can think of a lot of differences between that and, say, computer programmers that might render the conclusion less relevant. For example, I don't know any software companies in the world that build software with 3 8-hour shifts of workers.

ww520 14y ago

I would argue that in those 60 hours work week or 90 hours work week people mostly idling, staring at the screen, or browsing the web, or doing other stuff. The real work happens in much less time. Most companies equate face time in office as work and thus people just put in long hours there.