Hacker News Reader

Comment by imAsking9836 | Hacker News Reader

Other option without the paycut could be 4 10-hours a day week. Might save on gas and other thing and will still have the 3 days weekend, although day to day activities like exercise might prove more difficult to do with fewer hours every day.

Tangential question: when people in the US say 9-5 work, do you take into account the lunch break or that 1 hour is still counted as workable?

View on HN

Purely anecdotal: I feel like it used to mean 9-5, and somewhere in there you'd have lunch. These days I think it's more of a (misnomer) term for 8 hours of on-the-clock work, and most people are expected to go something like 8:30 - 5:30.

I worked a highly labor intensive job on 4-10's for about 18 months. It took a harsh toll on my joints. There wasn't enough recovery time to make up for the extended physical exertion.

I did love the schedule, though, and around holidays, I had some nice lengthy stretches of time off due to it.

My day has a two-hour commute at each end anyway, three or fours days per week (I'm remote the other days) so piling on an extra 2 is pretty much out of the question.

I'm not in the US so I can't answer that!

>Tangential question: when people in the US say 9-5 work, do you take into account the lunch break or that 1 hour is still counted as workable?

There are practically no hourly jobs left in USA that pay you for your lunch. It's now 8-5. The 9-5 is long gone. 9 hours away from home every day without counting your commute. This is not a workers atmosphere.

Typically on a 9-5 day, you get 30 minutes paid for lunch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com