Let’s hear it for the four-hour working day | Hacker News Reader

Let’s hear it for the four-hour working day

theguardian.com

146 pointsDiabloD378 comments

I recently left Square to start a product consultancy&portfolio with a colleauge of mine. One of our primary principles (we have a few) is "Time to think" so we structure our working week with 3 days of work, 1 day of potential meetings and one day of company time working on building a product portfolio.

Our clients seem to like it as we give them time to get back to us. We are not cheap but we (think) we provide a lot of value.

Furthermore we avoid the hours spent discussion and only do days/months.

This model is not for all businesses but it works surpringly well both for us and the kind of clients we work with.

I'm completely over the 8 hour plus 1 hour lunch workday that results in spending 9 hours at or around your place of employment. When you factor in your commute of, say, 30 min each way, you've just spent 10 hours of your day.

Add 8 hours sleep plus 1 hour for dinner plus 1 hour getting up and ready in the morning, that leaves you with 4 hours for your life during the weekdays. Then you watch an hour of TV with your significant other, now you've got 3 hours left. It gets pretty hard to pursue a side project, art, or a hobby living like that. Can you cut an hour or two off sleep? Maybe, but I didn't factor in things like working out or calling your friends/family so it's probably a wash.

What's more is that the lifestyle I've described above doesn't leave people with much time to consume products/services. If people had shorter workdays they would actually have time to spend money, which you'd think capitalism would want most of all. Cutting down the workday would save people so many pointless meetings as well since managers might actually feel some sort of constraint on the time they have their employees in their offices.

I think most people in tech or high-skilled white collar jobs see how their fellow employees do various things to reduce the 40 hour workweek to something reasonable. People work from home one day a week often, or they work four days a week supposedly doing 10 hour days instead of 8. There's a lot of charade involved in the 40 hour week for many employees. However, many other employees aren't able to find these loopholes and it results in a real grind...especially when the job isn't just 40 hours a week and turns into 50 or 60, which quickly becomes unbearable.

We've really got to stop this madness. If you work at SpaceX or Blue Origin, then yeah, what you're doing is pretty important and you might actually save the human race, so you can feel good about those 40 hours. But if you're working at an ad agency making gum commercials, let's get real, it could and should be done in 4 hours a day. And besides, SpaceX and Blue Origin can double their staff if needed to offset the shorter hours. Since their employees would be better rested and happier they probably won't even need 2x their staff, maybe just 1.5x.

Easy. Skip the one hour for lunch, one hour for dinner, and one hour to get ready in the morning. I got for a run and shower and dress, and only need 30 minutes to do all that and leave the house.

These are things you can fix yourself. If you really want more time, millions of people do it.

Also, I cycle in and out so that commute is actually exercise and much more pleasant.

> If people had shorter workdays they would actually have time to spend money

Ok, not sure why that is automatically a great thing.

> Skip the ... one hour for dinner

Not really sure how you are accomplishing this unless you are getting takeout. Between prep, cooking, consuming, cleaning, that is easily 30 minutes to an hour. If you cook enough for several meals that mitigates the cost somewhat, but there are other sacrifices made there.

Further, people have families and dinner is a time to spend with one another.

Then count it towards time spent with your family, not dinner.

Cook for the week in one lot? Eat simpler? (Bean salads are my favourite, takes less than 5 minutes to make).

I don't think the OPs statement is all that unrealistic, especially for a single male.

Perhaps an upper bound would be 50% plus his estimate, but even me, who I don't consider a ridiculous saver of time, shower within 5 minutes (from old clothes to new clothes), make breafkast and eat in in about 15m (egg omelettes are very easy), whip together and eat salads for dinner within 15m.

Time savings can be had without a huge reduction in life quality.

You must be very fast - I can run 10k in 50 min and I need 30 min more to do stretches. I hardly can be as fast as you.

I agree with most of your post, although I think your last paragraph has orthogonal arguments, perhaps you can help me understand.

1. If you work at a company with great purpose for humanity, then you can be satisfied with working 40 hours a week.

2. If you work at a company without great purpose for humanity, your job can and should be done in 4 hours a day.

Presumably, you're also saying a humanity-saving job can be done in 4 hours a day, but it's okay to feel good about more hours because of the mission's importance. If that's your argument, I don't think it holds, because people can find the intrinsic motivation to work on writing gum commercials just as well as they can building rocket ships. And presumably an ad agency would like to hire those people, such that the writers are just as motivated as rocket ship builders at SpaceX.

Or perhaps you're saying the motivation should be extrinsic and measured by what society deems is a good thing?

You might find this article written by a dying advertising creative director interesting. I certainly did. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/overdue-lesson-perspective-li...

You're right though, my last paragraph is not really needed for the argument. It would be better to say that the workday should just be four hours for everyone and companies can pay for overtime as needed when crunch hits. That would apply to SpaceX the same as it would to an ad agency.

I worked in film and I found it sad how many people are working 12 hour days to help create garbage movies that are just a cash grab by studios. Those kinds of hours really take a toll. It's one thing to do those kinds of hours if you are making something you think is really great art (it's still rough) but it's another thing to be making those sacrifices to help create a totally disposable movie meant only to enrich a studio.

I, a software engineer, typically work walking distance from companies in urban environments.

My commute is typically 15 minutes. 10 minutes by Lyft.

My workday is typically 8 hours, which includes a generous lunch break of 45 min to 1 hour.

Yes, the account managers and bloggers operate on a stricter set of work ethics, primarily out of fear, and have much longer commutes. Software engineers aren't exempt from this by any means, there are easily heftier paychecks and brand names that require 3 hour commutes where you are considered lucky if get to do 5 of the 8 hours on a bus.

> It gets pretty hard to pursue a side project, art, or a hobby living like that.

Just pointing out that there is a prevalent and alternate approach here exclusive to workers that can afford it. A vibrant urban environment has lots of impromptu stimulation available. In your observed day, this seems to give back 1 hour for lunch, and an extra 1.5 hour from commuting, so upwards of 2.5 hours gained on top of the 4 hours you identified, giving 6.5 hours for creative endeavors or hobbies.

When including some stretch goals of less sleep for an hour or two, then there is plenty of time without even encroaching on unhealthy territory. Add this up over a week or year and the commodity of time becomes a much more apparent inequality.

"Vibrant urban environments" are great for some things, but not a panacea -- what if your chosen hobby is gardening? Or something that needs a biggish workshop? It's not necessarily impossible, but will certainly cost you.

Depending on the nature of real estate in the given city, there might be Community Gardens and Hackerspaces. An artist's studio in a renovated factory space should only be a few $hundred a month...

Whenever there's a pop-business piece on here, commenters are very eager to point out the obvious blind angles, typically survivorship bias. Let's hold pop-psych to the same standard: Once you look at people who actually have skin in the game (ie. actually runs a company and thus has the authority to put such as change into effect), they aren't doing this. Why? Something doesn't add up, and these books are as a rule very light on analysing what.

If things are so simple as they are laid out, where is the startup that cut their daily working hours to four and still succeeded? It should be possible to find at least one (and it would be easy for them to attract top talent). What are they seeing that these writers aren't? Also, journalists do intellectual, creative work and are often employed as freelancers and paid by the word, not time -- so they'd make perfect guinea pigs. If the argument is as good as it's being presented here, there should be plenty of journalists willing to give it a try. If you can indeed actually get as much done, and possibly even of a higher quality, they'd obviously make it permanent. Yet it doesn't seem to be happening? (Or if it is, why wouldn't this reviewer have added a simple anecdote from his personal experience, or that of friends?)

You seem to be making an assumption that just because you have not seen companies where the management encourages cutting down on daily working hours, then such companies must not exist. From my experience, I would claim that your assumption is false.

During my career, I have worked for a few small as well as big companies where the management indeed encouraged limiting the working hours to about 4 to 6 per day. All of them had 40 hour week on the contract or legal agreement but the company culture went beyond the written contract to support something like a 25 hour week.

In my career, I did not see any kind of correlation between financial success of the company, productivity and the number of working hours. Financial success had a strong correlation with good decisions made by higher management. Productivity had a strong correlation with high skill-level of engineers and managers hired.

Another way to describe what I mean is: When I worked for one of these companies that encouraged four-hour working day, there were competitors who worked the regular eight-hour working days and were beating us in the competition, and there were also competitors who worked the regular eight-hour working days and were losing to us in the competition.

I'm not assuming that, I'm observing that the review doesn't reference any of them, and wondering why (just like when we'd read an article about how some super-successful startup founder owes his success to broccoli, we'd wonder what happened to all the broccoli-eaters who didn't end up as particularly successful).

When you're recommending specific radical reform, it helps your argument to analyse specific implementation of said reform, rather than merely extrapolating from a cool research article and sprinkling a few historical anecdotes.

I can believe that people normally can't get as much done in the second 4 hours of their 8 hour day as they do in the first 4 hours.

I can't believe that people can get as much done in 4 hours as they can in 8 hours.

Less output == less revenues == ultimately less pay. You can't change math, companies aren't going to get paid the same amount for making less stuff or providing less services.

Maybe the difference is only 30-40% less instead of 50%, but I think most people are willing to put in the extra 4 hours for the additional benefits.

> Less output == less revenues == ultimately less pay

Where is the math that working for 4 hours produces less output than working for 8 hours?

Also, like I said before I don't believe that less output == less revenue. Like I said, I have seen no correlation at all between working more number of hours, or producing more output and revenue. What I have seen though is a strong correlation between working on the right problems and revenue.

You are free to believe what you want. Similarly, I am free to believe what I want based on my experience. As a result, I work for companies that don't have a culture where they believe that output is always directly proportional to number of hours spent. A company that believes working for 8 hours leads to more productivity and I may not be a good fit for each other.

Really? If you worked for 4 hours in a single day, there wouldn't be a single useful thing you could do for your company in the next 4 hours?

Well, one issue is that any employee with customer contact generally has to be available for business hours. I can't imagine a sales or support issue being dealt with in the manner of "Sorry, you'll need to contact us between 10 and 2, except on Thursdays". Especially when you have 'clients' rather than 'customers' (~= people who generally expect some continuity in their contact points).

You could argue for support to just 'simply' double the staff to cover the 8-hour day, but that has no handover time, and you also double the fixed per-employee training costs (both starting and ongoing training) and fixed HR/management costs.

The book specifically talks about intellectual and creative work, so it doesn't apply to customer service or any of a lot of other areas. The six-hours work day experiment in Sweden also doesn't apply (in this context, there are other interesting aspects to it) as it was for nurses etc.

Well my company kind of do that. It's not a hard rule but it's definitely something that we do.

I think it comes down to what industry you are working in, who you are, what kind of projects you are doing etc. As I wrote elsewhere my company is having success along those lines (working 3 days a week) but we are also not cheap so that changes our option space quite a lot.

The writers industry is a pretty shitty paid one unless you are famous so you really won't find many stories there.

But if you take larger companies who already have a good business you often see that they are wasting quite a lot of their time being inefficient and working long hours doesn't change that.

The premise is that you are as productive, or even more, in four hours than you are in eight, so how well you're paid should be irrelevant. The fact that journalists often work crazy hours would imply that they can indeed produce more in more hours than they could in fewer hours.

These big corps would love to eliminate their wastefulness, and if you could tell them how, you would be a very rich man. Simply observing wastefulness and then making the leap to "oh, let's just eliminate the waste and take the time off" is exactly the kind of "not adding up" I was referring to.

You are assuming an awful lot of things here.

First off all being more productive does not mean making more money or being more successful it just means higher output. Depending on who you are that can mean a lot of different things.

For one if you spend all your time writing to make money you don't have time to necessarily get new work. I.e. there are diminishing returns on working more. Anyone who have done all nighters know this for a fact. If your mind is only occupied with one thing you don't get it in perspective and thus gets slowed down. So thats just one way to show why working more doesn't give you more.

Second of all I would love if you didn't put words in my mouth. I simply observed that large companies DO have a lot of waste i.e. that people work a lot but do not necessarily get work done which is an indication that it's not just heresay. But you can go into a lot of organizations and see that how some teams spend a lot of time and get very little done while others get a lot done in no time. Sometimes it's because some projects are more difficult than others but plenty of time it's not. Has nothing to do with prescribing what companies should do simply that there is some merit that time spent != productivity or perhaps a better word is useful output.

Thirdly TreeHouse did it this way. Doberman is doing it, and Google is to an extent doing it plus my company do it.

Just because there isn't a lot of companies who do it doesn't mean they couldn't be just as you don't judge the feasibility of remote work based on the number of companies doing it.

It's more complicated than that.

Another way to look at this is the level of detail of problem you try to solve each day. Every day that I'm working, I try to implement 1 feature. I'll often implement 2 or if I'm lucky 3, and sometimes I'll lose a little ground and take 2 or 3 days to implement something. But averaged out - 1 feature per day results in steady forward progress and keeps clients and bosses happy.

It turns out (for me at least) that the level of problem that fits into 1 day most optimizes my productivity. I don't waste time on low-level minutia and I don't let tasks slip into being too broad.

So if you consider a 4 hour workday and imagine this pipelined, then the other half of your day goes into preprocessing the next task with your subconscious. This is where the real gains are made, because as far as I can tell, the subconscious has no real abstraction limit. I'll often sleep on a seemingly insurmountable problem and wake up the next morning knowing the answer.

Put all of this together, and most days I don't do more than 4 hours of work. Sure I'm at the office 6-9 hours, but I find than any more than a single 4 hour stretch of being in the zone each day is not sustainable and actually lowers my productivity. Luckily my workplace realizes this and currently has 6 core hours where it's encourages to be in one's chair, but this has been as low as 4 hours and isn't heavily enforced when overall productivity is up. I highly recommend a policy like this to any leads/managers out there looking to find nonlinear speedups, especially on projects mired in scope creep and overages.

Four-hour working day have many more benefits in modern days, if all companys become four-hour working day, it not just for work efficiency:

First it can give more equality to workers or say human self, let them spend more life time for themself, for family, rather than more work time for companys;

Second it can slow down the whole world entropy, something like in this book: Entropy: A New World View[1]

[1]https://www.amazon.com/Entropy-World-View-Jeremy-Rifkin/dp/0...

How long until enterprising folks decide to work two "four-hour" jobs to get ahead?

I predict less than one then-full working day.

Oh noes! But wait, people already hold multiple jobs.

Wouldn't it be nice if holding two full-time jobs meant 40hrs/wk? Then, that irritating feeling instilled by a typical work week, that our salary is ultimately meaningless beyond a certain point and surely isn't worth the slight but never-ceasing pain and suffering inflicted in a banal-yet-reliable way by the entire corporate hegemony (not with malicious ends but merely out of a desire to ensure the 2% year-over-year train never derails), not to mention the expression that one's spouse wears to cope with the reality that, by working your drone-bee life through its paces and building your career, you've stopped being the sexy intelligent beautiful person that they fell in love with and become an inhuman ghost whose presence at home is welcomed and tolerated only in exchange for ensuring that your childrens' college fund will be well-stocked when they turn 19 and decide to go live a five-year decadence party on your hard-earned pennies, an expression which is no longer full of love but only imitating it shallowly, could be sorrow-drowned not in intoxicants and prostitutes but in the knowledge that you are bringing home sufficient double-income bacon to ensure spousal endearment and the best Greek houses for your kids.

I dunno. I think it might be nice.

Add in the fact that with that extra time, I have time to spend that money I earn.

Right now I barely have time to use Google express or Amazon, with an occasional trip to TJs. Forget about department stores.

More free time for me would = more money spent on leisure activities.

As someone with 99% free time I can not agree. I only did that when the free time was just inbetween jobs and I felt I need to treat myself for doing so much work.

Since I don't I enjoy the little things again and actually spend way less money

How do you manage to have that much free time?

I create things when I want to and sometimes they sell. I own(Ed) a few content websites and a rather well working SaaS

There's always going to be a competitor who is willing to work 5 hours.

Not a problem, just make it illegal and export the externalities.

On the other hand, you're right if you mean workers abroad would be willing to work longer hours for less pay --be they overseas outsourced workers or otherwise.

But, internally, at least, it could be made illegal to get over the competitive aspect out of the picture.

The question the article wants to address though is whether or not working longer is working better. Maybe 5 hours will produce more work than 4, but this is attacking our traditional 8 hour system with the concept that, in the long run, you may be as productive while working less hours.

Then again, their last point about hunter-gatherers isn't very convincing, since our needs have dramatically changed in the last couple hundred years.

I think people's natural tendency will be that if they can get away with 25% slack time now, they'll also take 25% slack time then, rather than halving their proportional slack time.

Basically people adjust really quick to the new baseline.

Preposterous. The inertia holding the 8-hour day in place is due to employers' not needing to change their ways, not due to some imagined environment where businesses compete on how much time is worked.

Were that the case, there'd be such an effect now. Businesses don't seem to be driving 9-hour days. Some lawyers, doctors, and others do work that much, I will grant you that. But they're clearly the exception because they also make good money, had to work hard to become accredited, and generally clearly chose that kind of lifestyle rather than being forced into it.

Sure, you could now claim 8 hours just happens to be the economic equilibrium. But then I invite you to reread this article.

Lawyers in particular will happily bill as many hours as they can, generally speaking.

More specifically, partners will happily have their associates bill as many hours as they can.

I remember listening to Daniel Hannan throwing this number of the number of Germans it takes to work as many hours as an American. Maybe they're just more productive ;).

"In the short term, what's not to like? But there comes a point when you realize that you've been funding this on credit, that you've been depending on external assistance, and that your productivity has fallen further and further behind until you've got to the stage that we've now reached where it takes 4 Germans to work the same hours as 3 Americans. And that in the long term that is just not sustainable. Europe now that it's in a globalized economy competing against China and India and indeed North America, finds that it is shrinking precipitously. In the 1970s, in 1974, Europe accounted for 36%, or Western Europe, for 36% of World GDP. Today it's 25%, 10 years from now it will be 15%. That is an extraordinary decline, over a period when the US share of world GDP has remained pretty steady, round about 26%. So there was always going to be a reckoning and I'm afraid that reckoning has come now." Daniel Hannan https://youtu.be/Ufyov9RO8I0?t=648

The difference in work culture in Germany is large. Americans may spend more time at work than Germans, but Germans work more hours. Even friendly watercooler chats are kept to a minimum, and doing something like looking at Facebook on company time would be considered an infraction in a majority of German workplaces.

This is the experience I had while visiting and working with German colleagues. They don't mess around at work. They get done in 4 hours what Americans do in 8.

Really? I'm a German working in Germany and if you look at the timestamps on my comments, you'll see that a fairly significant proportion of those are made during work.

I've seen plenty of coworkers trading Facebook or whatever, and people chit-chat all the time. Well, not everybody of course, but for example, my own morning routine involves visiting the coworkers at their desks to check on their work and coordinate, and that includes some friendly banter, of course.

But there comes a point when you realize that you've been funding this on credit

The Germans aren't particularly indebted, certainly not as much as the US or UK.

Daniel Hannan has a deeply Eurosceptic view which colours his thinking on everything.

But it will not always be the most successful approach. Really depends on the type of business and project.

There's also always going to be a competitor who is willing to work 10, 12 or even 14 hour days. That doesn't seem to hold back the businesses working 8 hours though.

  > That doesn't seem to hold back the businesses working 8 hours though.

Because the competitor is a hardworking idiot who didn't realize that sort of thinking stopped being effective once computers took over.

The extended workday is underrated.

I'd much rather whip out two 16-hour days than waste all week accomplishing the same tasks.

Since no other comment explicitly spelled it out fully: Why don't people work nine hours in the USA?

The answer is very simple: Benefits, overtime, breaks, and other bits of labor law are written around an eight-hour day. This coerces employers and employees alike into preferring eight hours over seven or nine, simply as a matter of optimizing the business's need to pay out overtime with the employee's need to secure FTE benefits.

If there were such a thing as a 20hr work week in law, not defined as part-time with no benefits, but defined as part-time with partial or full benefits, then I imagine that everybody's tune would change quite quickly and we would end up multimodal, with one peak at four hrs/day and another at eight hrs/day.

There's always going to be a competitor who is willing to work 5 hours.

Great, and as long as they will work 5 hours, and I will work 4, I know I will have the fresher, better ideas in the long run.

I've always heard people say if you can get in 3 hours of good development work a day, that's pretty much the max and you should feel good about the day. So if I get that done, I feel accomplished. I do consulting work and can live that lifestyle, you just plan for it in the contract.

I've found even when working on startup stuff I want to get done, if it's not just monotonous busy work style coding and requires thinking and planning, meanwhile the system is getting bigger and more complex, then yeah, you can only get done a good 2-3 hours of hard thinking work, then you are just braindead, and any more work just means fixing that shit work the next day, meaning you lose productivity. Maybe some people can push past this, maybe some people just think they can and don't recognize, but at least for some of us, that's just it.

I ask my friends about this who work for a living and they agree and say you get 2-3 hours of good work in, the rest is fucking around, meetings, facebook, whatever.

I'm not going to comment on non-dev work because I don't do it, and most of it probably doesn't apply to this, unless you are doing intense thinking. Most of the people reading this are probably devs or have hard thinking jobs.

Sounds like a great way to only pay employees half of what they currently make

Some people would be very happy to have 50% of the money for 50% of the time. There's not currently an option for that, so there's no way for the market to discover the right balance.

It exists, it's called a part time job, and it makes it very hard to do things like "pay rent"

Rent is indeed the real killer, it takes waaaay to much of the budget. It's the only thing that has not gotten more affordable. Maybe even worse over the year.

This is the irony. If people worked 4 hour days for the same salary, some would do two jobs to earn more, and then buy/rent bigger. This leads to an increase in rental costs a which means that working 2x 4 hour jobs is essential to get what 1 4 hour job used to get.

The same phenomena has been seen over the last 30 years. When a parent (usually the mother) stayed at home houses were affordable on a single income. After both parents started working prices shot up, now it's essential for both to work, just to pay the extra rent/mortgage. This pushes childbirth later in life, if at all, and means that children are brought up as a factory process rather than parenting.

In the UK this is explicitly encouraged by tax breaks for outsourcing childcare, taxpayer funded childcare, and penalising single working parents through the tax system (60% marginal tax on £50k household income with 1 earner, 33% on £50k household income with two earners, but no way to share tax subsidies)

Healthcare, daycare, and college tuition have not gotten more affordable either. Probably other things as well. But those have gotten much worse.

I could easily pay my rent (and bills and food) with less than 50% of the median wage. It would make it hard to save up for a house or car though.

"Part time job" doesn't exist in the sense the person you're replying to (probably) intended. Most of the part time jobs I see are unskilled labour where working full time would already put you at a severe wage disadvantage. These are often designed to exploit students who are piss poor to begin with and can't have a full time job anyway.

Where are all the tech companies that won't turn you down if you send an application in response to their ad for an inevitably full-time position and ask to work half the time for half the salary? Where are all the manufacturing companies or stores or schools or trucking companies that won't turn you down?

So what do you call those fulltime jobs where you can choose to work less than 40 hours of work? part fulltime jobs?

Also advocated by Bertrand Russell in his In Praise of Idleness http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

I recently reduced my working hours from 40/week (8/day) to 30/week (6/day), and so far I am very happy with it. Work is much less stressful, and when I get home I have time to get a few chores done and unwind so I can get to sleep in time.

My daily commute is two times 70 minutes, but it is by train, so I have time to read, stare out the window and enjoy nature (lots of rabbits, roe deer and birds to see, plus beautiful landscape) or listen to music or podcasts, which is mostly enjoyable.

I did 32 hours weeks most of the time. I never understood my peers who would insist on 40 and be stressed out all the time

The reduction in working hours came along with a proportionate reduction in income. My lifestyle is fairly modest, so I can handle it (no car, no children, no mortage).

It has reduced my financial flexibility, for sure, but I think it was worth it. Quality of life is hard to quantify. ;-)

I've recently started a small software consulting company with work from home options. I've considered taking two weekdays where I just work 4 hours from home, and then working 4 hours from home every day in the weekend. It seems like a really pleasant way to hit the hours required in a regular work-week. Just imagine how much time you'll have only working 'till lunch - there'd be time for a bunch of other stuff after work instead of just coming home and being tired.

Completely agree with the perspectives here, it is however when telling this to my non-tech friends and collegues a tough pitch: like I'm spoiled or am just living on a completely different planet.

To be honest, given how well tech is compensated, you are living on a different planet.

My brother is smarter than me, and works harder, as a teacher. Arguably a more important job since he is educating the next generation.

I’m building widgets to help some company do something a tiny bit more efficiently. The excess value thrown off by increasing this efficiency is captured by the company and entirely distributed to the various middlemen, it is not a net benefit to society, it is not changing the world. Someone just found a new way to clip the ticket.

Due to the fact that my skills are more in demand, I earn twice his household (him + wife) income. When you add my wife, it’s triple.

My struggles are self-actualisation and finding meaning, materially we are very comfortable. His struggles are keeping food on the table.

It’s fucked. The answer is not that everyone should become a tech worker or banker.

Here in Europe, IT is better paid, and can range up to "much better paid". But it's less of a huge gap compared to, I suppose the US and the real startup scenes there?

You can make 500-800 more then the average other people behind a desk, which are perhaps "managers". But the double of them is only for real teamleader positions.

So I guess it also depends a bit on location... where are you roughly based?

Let's say the average worker is paid 1800-2000. And as decent IT you can add 500-800 on top of that, depending on if you get a car etc also.

But hey yes, it's fucked!

I'm in New Zealand, not the US.

But in many ways, our culture is the same, and inequality is rampant.

Our current center-right government is also systematically dismantling social welfare and public health systems, with the end-goal being something very similar to the US, I guess.

blah blah blah how can we work less and say it is a good thing? Lets write an article about it and rewrirte stuff which is out there for years.

There is a difference if you work 4h a day or 8. 4h.

99% of Jobs do benefit of working 8h a day. A cleaning person can do way more in 8h than in 4h.

the construction worker will also do more.

But not the software engineere! Because he/she is doing 'mind work'. This is bullshit. Yeah we are privileged and yes we understand that there might not be a need to work 8h but than just say it how it is and not invent some bullshit.

But not the software engineere! Because he/she is doing 'mind work'. This is bullshit.

Can you qualify your "this is bullshit" statement? Other than just ranting about it?

There is a significant difference between manual workers and knowledge workers, and pretending it is all the same thing is disingenuous. This isn't a statement about knowledge workers being "better" or "superior", it is simply a recognition of the the fact that these two labor types are not the same.

I actively try to limit my "work" time, because like it or not, my brain doesn't stop working on my active problems and tasks. As somebody who has suffered through 3 consecutive burn-outs, I can only say that I wholly agree with the 4-hour workday.

There is a difference between not knowing when there is to much stress and saing, that 4h are enough.

I do get more stuff done when i work longer.

I might get distracted by stuff but this is also a part of my work. Helping my collegues? Yes part of my job. I do not count my lunch time as work.

And no not the majority of my work as a software engineere is thinking, thinking and thinking. What i really think is tiring is making decisions.

Most of people out there have bad jobs and get paid little. But look at us: Earning good money and talkling about 4h workdays for the same pay. Its fucking arrogant.

I can only recommend to read this: http://bookofhook.blogspot.de/2013/03/smart-guy-productivity...

and no there is no 'but i did my work so i can go home' How about spending the rest of the time to improve something in your company? or bring the garbage out? Or whatever?

And if you are part of a team, you put less work in than others and let them down :(

I think 99% is way exaggerated, at least for a lot of developed countries. Places where the commutes are longest (i.e. big cities) have an even higher fraction of people who don't benefit from longer hours linearly.

Also, if "mind workers" workdays were shorter, so could the work day of the people caring for their kids, driving rush hour buses, cleaning offices after closing and so on. So the effect would grow slightly beyond the first group of office workers too.

Even if this only applies to say 10% of the population and 20% in cities, that's still a huge group of people. I don't think 4h is a realistic goal short term but we have done 40h for a very long time now. Since we began with 40h, most countries have gone from 1, to 2, 3, 4 to 5 or 6 weeks of holiday (for example). It seems natural that the next step would be shorter workdays.

My boss always quotet that he is happy if we are able to be 60% efficient. A lot of time is wasted for the morning coffee and some time after lunch break. A 4 hour workday would make me come to work Ready and finish with at max a short break in between. I would say in about 5 hours of constant work I would definitly do more on average than with 8.

Btw I tried 32/h weeks & 3/4/5h days I never did less work in the end than with 8

And you have never thought about how you waste your time?

I mean how long are you doing your morning coffee oO?! Srsly? why do you think that should be working time?

'some time after lunch break'?

It was part of the company culture. Coffee could take a hour or two and was only semi off work.

> But not the software engineere! Because he/she is doing 'mind work'. This is bullshit.

Why should this be bullshit? Unlike the cleaning persons work a significant portion of this work involves thinking, both consciously and subconsciously. Sitting 2x the time at your desk does not necessarily equate to 2x work done while on the other hand you don't leave your work behind you after leaving. It's really not about working less but more on how to rightfully account the mind work in hours and about how to spend that time most productively.

> blah blah blah how can we work less and say it is a good thing? Lets write an article about it and rewrirte stuff which is out there for years.

Why shouldn't it be a good thing in general if the work still gets done? Especially for the tedious manual labor you mention which is automated away more and more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com