4 ms·

we used to spend 16 hours a day working on weebly, mon-fri and sunday, but we'd always take friday night and saturday off. we were fairly productive, so i'd say

we used to spend 16 hours a day working on weebly, mon-fri and sunday, but we'd always take friday night and saturday off. we were fairly productive, so i'd say at least 50% of that time was actual, productive work. over time, and with a move into our own office (and out of the apartment), we've shifted to what feels a more sustainable 10-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. at the same time, we're pretty liberal with vacation as appropriate (probably 5-6 weeks a year), as it's a great time to recharge the batteries. in this context, vacation generally means working at a much reduced output -- it's pretty hard to step away completely. all in all, we feel very happy with what we've been able to accomplish at work, and feel lucky that we're able to have as much personal time as we do -- it's sometimes not as much about the amount of time, as it is about the flexibility to take time off at the drop of a hat.

ojbyrne 17y ago
So that first paragraph means that if you eliminated the non-productive time, you work 6 x 8 hour days. And gain some work life balance.
- swombat 17y ago
  Thanks for your 37-signalite contribution. Here's a fantastic bit of information: people are different, not everyone is like 37-S and their cohorts.
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    I was just making an observation, from the perspective of someone who has no work-life balance, and is occasionally jealous of the people who put their work away at 5pm and have families, houses, friends, etc.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  However, having been there, that didn't work for me. The amount of time that isn't spent coding seems fairly consistent as a percentage, leaving aside a small constant factor. When I ran my small business, I would sometimes deliberately work fewer hours a week to try to increase productive time, and after falling below a (fairly high) number of hours per week, the productive time was cut at least as much as the non-productive time.
- drusenko 17y ago
  early on, i think it was pretty hard to figure out when we were going to be productive, and when we weren't. partially because some of the stuff you do (email, research, etc) doesn't feel particularly productive, even though it needs to get done. let's put it this way: we had no cable, gaming system, or anything of the like -- we most definitely were not wasting time, it was more like 8 hours a day of solid, uninterrupted coding, surrounded by 8 hours of email, meals, catching up on the news, etc. the one benefit to being very committed early on: we did occasionally have weeks that were (usually by necessity) insanely productive, where we'd accomplish some absolutely unbelievable task, something that would have otherwise taken a month, usually because of a strict deadline. if you refuse to work more than 4 x 8, a la 37 signals, that's just not going to be possible. believe it or not, though, i was actually trying to provide an example of a positive work-life balance :)
  - ojbyrne 17y ago
    I do actually believe that 40 work weeks are artificial, and not conducive to either good work or a good life outside of work. When it's time to be enthusiastic and produce something, rigid hours should not get in the way. But, on the same theme, when it's time to take a break, a two day weekend often won't do, nor will arbitrarily scheduled holidays, or even 2-3 weeks of vacation.

ojbyrne 17y ago

So that first paragraph means that if you eliminated the non-productive time, you work 6 x 8 hour days. And gain some work life balance.

swombat 17y ago
Thanks for your 37-signalite contribution. Here's a fantastic bit of information: people are different, not everyone is like 37-S and their cohorts.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  I was just making an observation, from the perspective of someone who has no work-life balance, and is occasionally jealous of the people who put their work away at 5pm and have families, houses, friends, etc.
randallsquared 17y ago
However, having been there, that didn't work for me. The amount of time that isn't spent coding seems fairly consistent as a percentage, leaving aside a small constant factor. When I ran my small business, I would sometimes deliberately work fewer hours a week to try to increase productive time, and after falling below a (fairly high) number of hours per week, the productive time was cut at least as much as the non-productive time.
drusenko 17y ago
early on, i think it was pretty hard to figure out when we were going to be productive, and when we weren't. partially because some of the stuff you do (email, research, etc) doesn't feel particularly productive, even though it needs to get done. let's put it this way: we had no cable, gaming system, or anything of the like -- we most definitely were not wasting time, it was more like 8 hours a day of solid, uninterrupted coding, surrounded by 8 hours of email, meals, catching up on the news, etc. the one benefit to being very committed early on: we did occasionally have weeks that were (usually by necessity) insanely productive, where we'd accomplish some absolutely unbelievable task, something that would have otherwise taken a month, usually because of a strict deadline. if you refuse to work more than 4 x 8, a la 37 signals, that's just not going to be possible. believe it or not, though, i was actually trying to provide an example of a positive work-life balance :)
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  I do actually believe that 40 work weeks are artificial, and not conducive to either good work or a good life outside of work. When it's time to be enthusiastic and produce something, rigid hours should not get in the way. But, on the same theme, when it's time to take a break, a two day weekend often won't do, nor will arbitrarily scheduled holidays, or even 2-3 weeks of vacation.