4 ms·

To everyone who jumped in to comment that 60+ hours at work is just fine, because they can do it. I have to say, stop equating work with progress. Busiest time

by x0054 13y ago

To everyone who jumped in to comment that 60+ hours at work is just fine, because they can do it. I have to say, stop equating work with progress. Busiest time in my life was when I was studying for the California Bar exam. According to the program I was doing, I was expected to study 12 hours a day. Most people I knew did 12+ hours of studying at least, all of them passed the bar. I did about 6 hours a day (+ other stuff for my startup), and still got the same results. The truth is, I actually observed the study habits of my friends. About 7 hours into their study sessions their brains would start to shut down slowly. Questions they would normally take seconds to answer would take them minutes to comprehend. The point of the article is that working 60+ hours is fine, if you need to, but being proud of it is silly. Be proud of the work you produce, not the amount of time it took you to produce it. And certainly don't be proud putting in 60+ hours for some one else, even if they are buying you with stock options. To be clear, some of us are lucky enough to make money by doing things we would otherwise do anyway, there is nothing wrong with devoting you life to your hobby and have it bring you a ton of money in the process. But don't kill your self for someone else and feel proud about it because you think it's somehow manly to work 60+ hours.

omegant 13y ago
This is my experience as well. I had my final exams, 2 days with 5 exams each day at mid April (of more than a decade and a half ago, boy I'm getting older fast). Most people in my class (around 40) had been studying since November, around 12+ hours a day. I begun studying in February, just due to my natural tendency to be lazy, I should have started in November too. But the point is that I tried all kind of timetables and ways to study in the next 2 and a half months. Early , late, all day, nothing. I discovered that for me what it worked was 4 hours at the morning, with a mandatory break every hour. Then lunch and maybe a nap or gym. Then another 3 hours at the afternoon. Every time I did less I was loosing time. If I did try to push it too much, studying till late, it was time lost sitting but not really advancing. Each hour of studying or writing had a effective time "on the zone" of around 20 min only. But what´s more interesting is that if I studied more than 7 hours, the next day was almost lost due to my lack of concentration. I managed to get the 3rd best results of my class, only failing one exam which I had only studied for 2 days. Only two students passed all the exams, and they were sitting very close and they confirmed me that they had been checking results between them when possible (yes cheating). So I guess that smart studying was more important that time spent seated. Of course there are other fundamental factors, but I actively tried to improve my study routine during that months, and I felt the difference.
Shivetya 13y ago
Sixty hours is fine when you enjoy your work. Sixty hours a week was a short week in the old days, the conveniences of a modern society allow us to choose more free time should we want it, all you have to do is venture outside of our comfortable environments and you will find people wishing 60 was the max. Having grown up on a farm all I can say is, you don't notice it unless the wrong stuff keeps piling up. Its amazing how energized you feel when you enjoy the work and don't have idle time to worry.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  It's a bit easier when your job doesn't require you to think all the time. You get really depleted after a few hours, and you need more rest than the physical fatigue farm work brings.
  - hueving 13y ago
    >You get really depleted after a few hours, and you need more rest than the physical fatigue farm work brings. Do you have a source for that? I find it highly unlikely that the human body needs less rest after spending 10 hours a day performing manual labor than it does after a few hours of programming.
    - Ma8ee 13y ago
      Not the human body, but the human brain.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        Yes, the body is amazingly adept at subliminalizing the motor-co-ordination of physical work. Truly creative, mental work actually takes a different approach. This is why traditional academic architecture is the way it is. And why even artists can suffer through periods of burnout and "creative block". This is not to diminsh the role of back-breaking labor in any way, but just to highlight the underlying issue. Its comparing apples and pine-apples.
    - 13y ago
nhangen 13y ago
Thank you for bringing some sense to the debate. It's typical that threads on this topic result in a pointless debate about <40 and >40 work weeks (I'm in the > 40, but am a founder) in which neither side understands each other, and this thread has not disappointed. I work like a madman, but unless you asked me about my hours, you'd never know. I work for a result, and if I ever do brag, it's about the result of the work. The hours worked are the natural side effect of achieving said result. I would never take a job in which I was required to work 60 hours per week (unless I believed the pay made that sacrifice worthwhile), nor would I expect 60 hours per week from employees on a regular basis. You'll find me breaking from this sentiment near the 40 hour point (I've been vilified for this on this very site), but I'd rather hire more people than burn them out, which is inefficient and leads to resentment. People are self-renewing resources, and a manager can either choose to cultivate them as assets, or treat them as a battery, throwing them out when they've run out of juice. I'd prefer the former.

by x0054 13y ago

omegant 13y ago

This is my experience as well. I had my final exams, 2 days with 5 exams each day at mid April (of more than a decade and a half ago, boy I'm getting older fast). Most people in my class (around 40) had been studying since November, around 12+ hours a day. I begun studying in February, just due to my natural tendency to be lazy, I should have started in November too. But the point is that I tried all kind of timetables and ways to study in the next 2 and a half months. Early , late, all day, nothing. I discovered that for me what it worked was 4 hours at the morning, with a mandatory break every hour. Then lunch and maybe a nap or gym. Then another 3 hours at the afternoon. Every time I did less I was loosing time. If I did try to push it too much, studying till late, it was time lost sitting but not really advancing. Each hour of studying or writing had a effective time "on the zone" of around 20 min only. But what´s more interesting is that if I studied more than 7 hours, the next day was almost lost due to my lack of concentration. I managed to get the 3rd best results of my class, only failing one exam which I had only studied for 2 days. Only two students passed all the exams, and they were sitting very close and they confirmed me that they had been checking results between them when possible (yes cheating). So I guess that smart studying was more important that time spent seated. Of course there are other fundamental factors, but I actively tried to improve my study routine during that months, and I felt the difference.

Shivetya 13y ago

Sixty hours is fine when you enjoy your work. Sixty hours a week was a short week in the old days, the conveniences of a modern society allow us to choose more free time should we want it, all you have to do is venture outside of our comfortable environments and you will find people wishing 60 was the max. Having grown up on a farm all I can say is, you don't notice it unless the wrong stuff keeps piling up. Its amazing how energized you feel when you enjoy the work and don't have idle time to worry.

StavrosK 13y ago
It's a bit easier when your job doesn't require you to think all the time. You get really depleted after a few hours, and you need more rest than the physical fatigue farm work brings.
- hueving 13y ago
  >You get really depleted after a few hours, and you need more rest than the physical fatigue farm work brings. Do you have a source for that? I find it highly unlikely that the human body needs less rest after spending 10 hours a day performing manual labor than it does after a few hours of programming.
  - Ma8ee 13y ago
    Not the human body, but the human brain.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      Yes, the body is amazingly adept at subliminalizing the motor-co-ordination of physical work. Truly creative, mental work actually takes a different approach. This is why traditional academic architecture is the way it is. And why even artists can suffer through periods of burnout and "creative block". This is not to diminsh the role of back-breaking labor in any way, but just to highlight the underlying issue. Its comparing apples and pine-apples.
  - 13y ago

nhangen 13y ago

Thank you for bringing some sense to the debate. It's typical that threads on this topic result in a pointless debate about <40 and >40 work weeks (I'm in the > 40, but am a founder) in which neither side understands each other, and this thread has not disappointed. I work like a madman, but unless you asked me about my hours, you'd never know. I work for a result, and if I ever do brag, it's about the result of the work. The hours worked are the natural side effect of achieving said result. I would never take a job in which I was required to work 60 hours per week (unless I believed the pay made that sacrifice worthwhile), nor would I expect 60 hours per week from employees on a regular basis. You'll find me breaking from this sentiment near the 40 hour point (I've been vilified for this on this very site), but I'd rather hire more people than burn them out, which is inefficient and leads to resentment. People are self-renewing resources, and a manager can either choose to cultivate them as assets, or treat them as a battery, throwing them out when they've run out of juice. I'd prefer the former.