4 ms·

The key point is "consciously and happily". Different people have different situations going on in their life. If you're a 23-year old single employee, you migh

The key point is "consciously and happily". Different people have different situations going on in their life. If you're a 23-year old single employee, you might decide that you are willing to work 60 hours a week because you really like your work. If you're a 38-year old married employee with kids, you might decide that you're only willing to work 40 hours a week because you value time with your family. Having a company that realizes that there's a difference between people, and not everybody has the flexibility or willingness to put in 60-hour weeks, that's the key.

alooPotato 12y ago
as long as people in those two camps are rewarded differently then this makes sense
- adt2bt 12y ago
  And this train goes back to the "perceived effort" vs "actual effort" approach to compensation. Fundamentally, is 60+ hour weeks sustainable, even if you love your job? Many in HN might view burnout, or an unwillingness to work 60+/week, as a personal flaw. But there's also another camp that argues consistent overtime produces a poorer product in the end. Personally, I notice a dip once I've worked 50+ hours/week for a couple weeks. I come into work mentally tired & get far less done. Sure, an easy approach to compensation is "how much of his time/life did he sacrifice to work?" It's also by far the most common. Additionally, the people who signal that they're working hard in through self-promotion tend to take home more bacon. I understand human beings are emotional creatures, but in the vacuum of commenting on how much people should be compensated for hours on the job in a white-collar brain-intensive task, I think there should be more nuance than "Pay = hours * rate".