Hacker News Reader

>However, it gives the appearance that I don't care about my career or dont care if the company is successful or not.

That's why 8 hours should be law and overtime should only be used in emergency cases (and paid accordingly).

So that those young & naive, desperate or overly ambitious to foolishly work 10 or 14 hours do not drag down (as "not serious enough with their career") those that want a stable work-life balance.

As soon as you let individuals and businesses decide how they go about it, it's a race to the bottom (those that do want it, fuck all the others).

Its nothing about overly ambitious, its about what you said: a stable work-life balance. Start up culture has lead us to believe that if you don't work 100 hour weeks, you don't want it bad enough or you don't care; that's patently false. If you really need to work 12 hour days to get something done you need to examine how you work. I guarantee you that you could improve your tools (knowledge of your tools), change the way you develop software or spend less time playing foosball and more time in front of the screen. I'm not against working a 10 hour day when a system is down or if something crashes that needs fixed: I'm against doing it everyday. No one is going to be like "Oh I wished I had worked more" when they are on their death beds, and I wish people would start thinking long term and about their health and future.

> As soon as you let individuals and businesses decide how they go about it, it's a race to the bottom...

Or, you get free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, the greatest wealth-producing system known to mankind.

I suppose it depends how you define "wealth." And what is wealth worth if it's in the hands of a small minority, while the rest go without, for instance, healthcare or a decent education? Even if you are in that small minority, is that the society you want?

BTW, the only country I can think of that actually practices laissez-faire capitalism is Somalia: they really have no regulation. Not so much wealth being produced there.

>Or, you get free markets and laissez-faire capitalism, the greatest wealth-producing system known to mankind

Or the suppressor operating at the greatest scale known to mankind (from colonialism and imperialism, to 2 World Wars, post colonialism and still counting).

For, if you want to measure the wealth created by capitalism by the last two (or three) centuries, you cannot just add what you like (e.g the internal US market) and hide the rest under the carpet. Add the ecological impact to the whole thing, and the numbers do not look that good.

Not to mention that such a thing as pure "free market" never existed. It's a slogan, like "Don't be evil". What does exist is a huge market system that's "laissez-faire" only for those in power (countries and individuals) and "take it or be crushed" for others.

And in which the huge wealth comes along with grabbing resources with military might (not very "free"), imposing tariffs and embargoes to who it pleases you as a big western power, operations covert and open to have friendly people (including brutal dictators) in "allied" countries, and the like. Nothing very "free market" about them.

(Actually, from the moment there is even a "patent system", which controls industries and markets of trillions of dollars worth, there's not a "free market" system anymore -- and that's just the tip of the iceberg).

That's a dangerous, shallow, and incorrect blanket statement. Visit China for a month and you'll see what true free market capitalism does to people. Heck, go back 100 years in the US.

The US isn't where it is today wealth-wise JUST because of cold hard capitalism. It also helps that we have a large market with everyone speaking the same language, having similar laws, one currency, copyright and patent acknowledgement to protect inventors (back before corporations ballooned to their current size), a decent amount of civility, fair business law, a respect for the rule of law (something my home country of Bulgaria does not), strong property and land ownership, and a desire to innovate that have allowed people to build wealth.

A country isn't built on everyone doing whatever the hell they want. There's an actual formula for it.

China is an oligarchy or crony capitalist country. The wealthy and powerful use the government to get what they want. In a true free-market system you can't use the government to destroy the competition and make yourself money. This is the problem with the US today, we've given so much power to the central government that we've created a drastically distorted market.

Can you point to a historical example of a true free market system that robustly supported work/life balance?

>In a true free-market system you can't use the government to destroy the competition and make yourself money.

The US has that - look at the telecom companies. I'm sure there's many more prime examples, but Companies do indeed use the government, at least to help them make money, by stopping competition, getting bailouts and grants for things like infrastructure and just pocketing the money and sticking us with higher costs and no improvements on our service.

wtf are you talking about? laissez-faire capitalism exists no where on this planet, so "the greatest wealth-producing system known to mankind" isn't just slightly off; it's complete nonsense.

Even if you had left off "laissez-faire", the statement wouldn't have been wrong it would have been rather weak: what other systems have we actually conceived and/or tried?

I'm definitely with you, in that I'd like shorter work weeks to be the standard, and I don't want to compete with people wishing to work more hours. But what if someone really needs the extra money brought by longer work weeks? Making it illegal for them to work for a price they're willing to accept could hurt them quite a bit.

A case could be made for shorter work weeks as a means to reduce unemployment, as well as to force people to take rest from work, but you'd definitely be pricing some people in need out of the job market, and I'm not sure there's a workaround for that side effect.

>But what if someone really needs the extra money brought by longer work weeks? Making it illegal for them to work for a price they're willing to accept could hurt them quite a bit.

Oh, but I said it should only be allowed if it's paid for. So that will actually HELP those needing the extra money "brought by longer work weeks".

What happens now it that people slave away extra hours for the same basic salary, and don't get any overtime pay.

And I think it will also help unemployed people wanting work. A company will have to hire 3 people, instead of slaving 2 for 12 hours a day (and it wont hurt them, since no other company could slave 2 people either to get the advantage for themselves).

Allowed if a particularly high price is paid for it - sometimes higher than the person would agree to get paid, and higher than their employer would agree to pay. It is in these cases when you make the arrangement illegal.

These are absurd expectations. Very few people are able to pull more that 8 hours a day consistently without sharp decline of productivity.

With me - after 4-5 hours in the flow - I am done, squeezed like a lemon.

The only benefit after that is for task that require very out of the box thinking - when i am sleepy dead tired etc the crazy stuff comes on its own. The thing I am most proud of inventing came at 3 am.

> With me - after 4-5 hours in the flow - I am done, squeezed like a lemon.

That's what I'm currently trying to establish for myself - 4 to 5 hours of work a day tops. I used to think that I could do more, used to work hard on trying to do more, but the truth is pretty simple. If you want to get more done, you need to become more efficient, not work longer hours. And structure your life around those 4-5 hours so that within them, you are able to deliver.

I recommend limiting work hours to everybody these days, but it seems that the mindset is simply too ingrained.

> The only benefit after that is for task that require very out of the box thinking [...] when i am sleepy dead tired etc [...]

Maybe those "you need to put in more than 10 hours a day" people should switch to 4 hours of work, plus a full-out boxing match plus 1 hour of "crazy stuff" work?

Next up on News At Ten - The crazy new crossover trend sweeping through Silicon Valley: A breakthrough mixture of Extreme Programming and Fight Club that has blue collar workers eyes twitching.

Key phrase: in the flow.

If the people I work with would shut their traps when in the office I'd get everything I get done in an 8-hour day today done in 2-3 hours, tops. I find that the people who appear to love to work 100 hours a week are the ones doing most of the yapping.

I find that the people who appear to love to work 100 hours a week are the ones doing most of the yapping.

Part of this is when your work life becomes your social life. Particularly in startups, being at work can be a mix of actual work and chatting, getting lunch, having a drink and a good time.

It's difficult, because you do spend more time with these people than you do most others. Nowadays I work somewhere where we just go to a bar after work. Much simpler.

>Part of this is when your work life becomes your social life. Particularly in startups, being at work can be a mix of actual work and chatting, getting lunch, having a drink and a good time.

But they still count that all as work time, which is... silly, and brings lie to this idea that you can productively work 80+ hour weeks. Just hanging out with the gang at the office isn't work. I mean, if you count 'being around people who are employees of the company' as work, it is actually fairly rare that I don't work a 20+ hour day.

Having an in-demand skill gives you a ton of leverage. I'm a 35 year old father of two and a tech arch. My job requires long hours around releases and the like but if there isn't an urgent need, I will just get up and leave whenever my family needs me or I just really want to see them. They can fire me if they don't like it, but they really have no choice because I'm too hard to replace.

How does one become a 'tech arch'- sounds like one of those niche jobs that only specialized companies have.

I'm in a similar situation. I've got a six-week-old and too often I find I'm juggling competing guilts. Do I let the startup I work for down or do I neglect my family?

The startup you work for will probably go down no matter what you do. It should be pretty obvious where your loyalties should lie, at least to me.

Yeah, I wasn't very clear. My family has won out each time, but I still have pangs of guilt when I can't deliver in the way I think my colleagues expect.

"(which I have no idea how much/or little that is)"

I humbly suggest that this is part of your problem.

I think OP was probably just being humble himself.

Bingo, I don't want to say : I'm a programming god (because I know I'm not), but I also don't want to admit I'm a smuck (because I know I'm not). For my age, I'd probably gander I'm ahead of the curve developmentally, but in terms of the market, I'd suggest I got a lot to learn (but who doesn't?)

On a related note: I am UK developer working a 40 hour week with 32 days of holiday a year. I would really like to move to the US and work there, but is it really the norm to work 10-12 hours a day? Do people actually work solidly for that time, or is there a lot of slacking? I've become quite accustomed to a 40 hour work week and have no motivation to do anything longer (if anything, I'd work less and get paid less). Thanks in advance.

"Do people actually work solidly for that time"

I've been doing four tens per week (plus occasional disaster overtime, etc) for many years now. The key seems to be exercise at lunchhour including hot shower (if possible/applicable). Then it feels a heck of a lot more like five hour days. I'll never go back to five eights per week unless I absolutely have to.

No, that's not the norm, at least not in SF. I work at a later-stage startup and do 8 hour days with the occasional crunch period at 9-10 hours. That's not to say shops with crazy time requirements don't exist, but it's definitely avoidable. Companies with older senior management are more likely to have sane work schedules.

However, you'd struggle to find a job with European levels of vacation. Most jobs will start out with 10-15 days of paid vacation, plus ~10 holidays.

The thing that's going to hurt the most is vacation. In the US it's common to get 1-2 weeks and only after you've already worked a whole year. So that means working an entire year with zero vacation.

The 4-6 weeks you can get in Europe is extremely rare in the US (where I worked, I finally got 3 weeks after 7 years of service).

Is it possible to take unpaid vacation? Is that generally looked down upon?

Not sure I can go without 32 days a year, I'd go nuts I think.

Depends on the place. In some places, unpaid vacation is a "perk" (I'm not joking, sadly). In other places it's simply not allowed. I've heard of places that allow it, though to get it in your first you will probably require negotiation.