Productivity At 20 Hrs A Week Vs 40

Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Wishful thinking to get it all done in 20 hours a week if you want to be successful in business or science or professions.

You want to love your work so it’s not work. Hours often have to be long in real life.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I was referring to why hours are so long and why they keep increasing, not why it’s 40 hours specifically.

Irrelevant. Your original point still ignored an 80 year old Federal Law that specifically defines thresholds for hours worked, compensation, and possible penalties for non compliance. And it's not the only law. Government rules and regulations impact hours worked, both directly and indirectly.
 

somuch4food

Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2018
Messages
1,281
It ultimately comes down to finding something you love where the hours aren't just a way to make money, but are fulfilling and make the loss of free time easier to accept. Or being self-employed or so damn talented at an in-demand skill that you can make your own rules. The latter can be extremely difficult once you're already an older adult without those skills and the need to continue working while developing them. There's only so many hours in the day and none of us have unlimited energy.

I was fortunate enough to acquire a good reputation as an employee in an in-demand skill with shortage of talent. After having a kid, I decided to reduce my hours and my boss had no trouble accepting this since he prefers to have me as a part timer to losing me entirely. I work 5.5 hours a day. This allows me not to rush at the end of the day and have some quality time with my toddler.

Wishful thinking to get it all done in 20 hours a week if you want to be successful in business or science or professions.

You want to love your work so it’s not work. Hours often have to be long in real life.

It depends on what you base your success on. I used to be like this wanting to work harder to get better at my job and be "successful", but at the end of the day, I realized that while I like my work, it still is work and it does not make me feel a whole lot happier because I get a promotion or a better salary. I find much more happiness in the little things from everyday life than in the productivity frenzy that work generally is.
 

gaze

Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
2,270
Irrelevant. Your original point still ignored an 80 year old Federal Law that specifically defines thresholds for hours worked, compensation, and possible penalties for non compliance. And it's not the only law. Government rules and regulations impact hours worked, both directly and indirectly.

I ignored the law cause no one follows the law. You actually believe the 40 hours a week means anything? Have you met any first year lawyers, investment bankers, or almost any professions besides heavily regulated jobs like a cashier who are putting in 30-40 hours unofficially either there or at home because that’s what’s required of them? The original question was why isn’t 20 hours the norm instead of 60+ hours. The fact is that companies will always be able to find someone who’s willing to work longer, and harder, and the output they can generate from someone at those hours is way higher then the slight productivity increase from making someone only work 20 hours.
 
Last edited:
OP
Cirion

Cirion

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
3,731
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
It depends on what you base your success on. I used to be like this wanting to work harder to get better at my job and be "successful", but at the end of the day, I realized that while I like my work, it still is work and it does not make me feel a whole lot happier because I get a promotion or a better salary. I find much more happiness in the little things from everyday life than in the productivity frenzy that work generally is.

This exactly. I was super productive in my teens and 20s in school and early on at my job, but the whole time I was manic and starved and running of stress hormones and coffee and little sleep.

Now that I'm in my 30s, I'm certainly not old, but I'm old(er) and I've already reached stress hormone burnout, and still haven't recovered from it.

To really crave 40-60+ hr workweeks you either need to be:

-- Full of manic energy (Most people)
-- Incredibly full of androgens (Hardly any people, and certainly not me)

If @ecstatichamster is #2, that's great, but it's not me and I daresay it's not many people. Most people are sleep deprived, stress hormone dominant and should not be working long hours. Even if its work they enjoy! Perhaps once androgens/hormones/thyroid is restored, but not before, but even at that, stress hormones are what trashed my health in the first place, so I'm rather dis-illusioned with "productivity" at this point because I know what it leads to (degradation of health). Yes, even work you "enjoy". For example -- I often enjoy video games. But I would NEVER sacrifice sleep or nutrition for the sake of it even though it's something I choose to do with my free time and enjoy doing. Health should ALWAYS trump ALL other things, even things you enjoy!

Yes, some people really do have a strong "drive" to succeed but 99% of the time this is pure manic energy / stress hormones. Not to bring politics in the mix, but take Trump for example. For all intents and purposes he has "Succeeded" in life -- hot wife, president of the US, successful billionaire business owner/investor. But I daresay his health is likely far from ideal. He is on meds, he is pretty overweight, probably doesn't get enough sleep, etc. Productivity is not at correlated to good health. This is called "Grit" or the "Willpower" to "succeed" despite sub optimal health. There's more to life than "success". If you crave it, then by all means, go for it, but it's not the path to ideal health (IMO), but it could be an adjunct to already good health, I suppose. Don't get me wrong things like money can buy freedom and ultimately improve your health, and I actively am seeking to increase my investments, but I draw the line at putting excessive energy towards it. It doesn't take much effort to check in my investment accounts for a few minutes every few days, but starting a business takes insane amounts of energy to do.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
I ignored the law cause no one follows the law. You actually believe the 40 hours a week means anything? Have you met any first year lawyers, investment bankers, or almost any professions besides heavily regulated jobs like a cashier who are putting in 30-40 hours unofficially either there or at home because that’s what’s required of them? The original question was why isn’t 20 hours the norm instead of 60+ hours. The fact is that companies will always be able to find someone who’s willing to work longer, and harder, and the output they can generate from someone at those hours is way higher then the slight productivity increase from making someone only work 20 hours.

Well, just because you are ignorant of that law doesn't mean that corporations aren't. And, again, your examples of lawyers, investment bankers and such are irrelevant, because their work hours and compensation still fall within the limits of that law. They are all hitting the baseline minimum wage plus overtime requirements for 60-70-80 or more hour weeks. It doesn't say that no one can ever work 40 plus hours in a week, simply that there are certain pay requirements that must be hit.

EDIT- The median income per capita in the US was $31,786, and $61,372, meaning the majority of workers would not fall into the first year lawyer/investment banker category, making those examples even more of an outlier, but still, not a violation of the FLSA.

The original question, was specifically "So why do workplaces insist on 40 hr+ workweeks?" Ignoring a law that specifically lays out hourly work thresholds in that discussion, especially when said law uses 40 hours as a key threshold, seems ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.
 
Last edited:

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
Well, just because you are ignorant of that law doesn't mean that corporations aren't. And, again, your examples of lawyers, investment bankers and such are irrelevant, because their work hours and compensation still fall within the limits of that law. They are all hitting the baseline minimum wage plus overtime requirements for 60-70-80 or more hour weeks. It doesn't say that no one can ever work 40 plus hours in a week, simply that there are certain pay requirements that must be hit.

EDIT- The median income per capita in the US was $31,786, and $61,372, meaning the majority of workers would not fall into the first year lawyer/investment banker category, making those examples even more of an outlier, but still, not a violation of the FLSA.

The original question, was specifically "So why do workplaces insist on 40 hr+ workweeks?" Ignoring a law that specifically lays out hourly work thresholds in that discussion, especially when said law uses 40 hours as a key threshold, seems ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.

But your argument is rather disingenuous - without labour movements (especially with precedent being set by the original UK labour movement via keir hardie) people would still be forced into 60 hour work weeks. When it was left to "private deals between two parties" it was abundantly in favour of plutocracy and abundantly against human wellbeing. Both parties are not free, as I've explained countless times, because humans have to meet their basic needs and are therefore easily exploitable to those that have wealth power.

I know this line of argument goes nowhere with you and I, however on a seperate specific point - I'm interested in your thoughts on unions? These are non government entities that represent collectives of workers and are pretty strongly responsible for the Scandinavian levels of life quality. That is; lots of maternity leave (400+days), comfortable unemployment benefit, excellent wages, very strong workers employment rights etc etc.
 

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
But your argument is rather disingenuous - without labour movements (especially with precedent being set by the original UK labour movement via keir hardie) people would still be forced into 60 hour work weeks. When it was left to "private deals between two parties" it was abundantly in favour of plutocracy and abundantly against human wellbeing. Both parties are not free, as I've explained countless times, because humans have to meet their basic needs and are therefore easily exploitable to those that have wealth power.

I know this line of argument goes nowhere with you and I, however on a seperate specific point - I'm interested in your thoughts on unions? These are non government entities that represent collectives of workers and are pretty strongly responsible for the Scandinavian levels of life quality. That is; lots of maternity leave (400+days), comfortable unemployment benefit, excellent wages, very strong workers employment rights etc etc.

I wasn't arguing for the law, but the fact is it has existed for 80+ years in US and there is no way it doesn't influence work hours, both directly and indirectly. I think these laws, especially in America, have put a lot of small and mid sized businesses out of business. I've seen many people that have had their hours cut and limited because of the law, mostly part timers just starting out. Often times, both boss and employee would like for the employee to work more hours, but they are not able to. I experienced the same thing when I was a part time worker. I personally would like to work without the "protection" of such laws, but they have been around in the US for a lot longer than I have, so I don't truly know if it would be like you describe, or something far different.

As for unions, not much of a fan these days. I am actually a union member, but that membership doesn't do much of anything for me these days. I did get some amazing work under that unions terms a few times, and that work (and compensation) was fantastic. But, it was for sporadic work, and that work hasn't come in a lot recently. That same union of mine has made some incredibly bad choices recently. Overall, I think if the union is more of a voluntary collective that workers are free to join or leave, they probably are much better unions. I think a lot of the unions have merged, and suffer from the same oligopoly/monopoly type practices of massive corporations. I have a friend who worked for Trader Joes, and he mentioned that none of the workers there ever want to join the union (there are reps that come around and lobby them to) because the company treats its employees so well in pay and benefits and such. There is nothing for them to offer but job security, and most employees don't want that, as that keeps them free of problem workers.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
I am actually a union member

Haha, well that's a surprise.

I personally would like to work without the "protection" of such laws, but they have been around in the US for a lot longer than I have, so I don't truly know if it would be like you describe, or something far different.

To me it's just common sense that it'll be the outcome. It's not that every business owner wants to be a bastard, it's just that without regulation or union representation it simply becomes a race to the bottom and the one with the least moral scruples will usually win such a competition.

Overall, I think if the union is more of a voluntary collective that workers are free to join or leave, they probably are much better unions. I think a lot of the unions have merged, and suffer from the same oligopoly/monopoly type practices of massive corporations.

On that point we completely agree. If the unions are too big then it's less likely they'll be able to meet the specific needs of a particular industry or niche sector. Also, like with massive corporations the bigger something becomes then the less personal and "human" it can be - those at the top become so disconnected from those at the bottom that they can no longer effectively represent their needs. On the other hand I do think unions need relatively widescale membership to actually be an effective threat to corporate power.

Where we probably disagree is that I think in a country with such stark inequality of opportunity (and wealth) as the USA, there needs to be an initial government step-in to properly educate people about the benefits and quality of life mass union membership can bring. Then it can be left to its own devices like in Scandinavia.

I have a friend who worked for Trader Joes, and he mentioned that none of the workers there ever want to join the union (there are reps that come around and lobby them to) because the company treats its employees so well in pay and benefits and such. There is nothing for them to offer but job security, and most employees don't want that, as that keeps them free of problem workers.

That's the ideal - creating a company that holds your values and carries them into the world in your own private microcosm. It works in niche sectors, especially ones that put ethics at the forefront of their brand and have high middle class appeal, but unfortunately the "race to the bottom" we consistently see occuring in liberal economies doesn't allow those types of business to competitively survive.
 

Hildy

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
110
There will be comin a day in the not so distant future where people will be wistfully longing for that 40 hour work week.....said trepidatiously
 

johnwester130

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2015
Messages
3,563
I used to watch self help videos and Zig Ziglar said about 40% of a workers time is totally wasted doing nothing.
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
21
Views
5K
PointOutside
P
Back
Top Bottom