Japan's government plans to encourage 4-day workweek, but experts split(mainichi.jp)
mainichi.jp
Japan's government plans to encourage 4-day workweek, but experts split
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210619/p2g/00m/0na/014000c
517 comments
I fully agree with your comment overall, but as someone who lives in Japan I'd like to point out that specifically "people who fill in the holes in roads" is a running joke in Japan since small street constructions always seem way over-staffed.
It's amazing because they do finish a lot faster than in western countries, but you can definitely remove 20% of the people in street-level construction and would see little difference. An example: they hire 2 people on every sidewalk just to tell people to continue walking the way they are walking and make sure they don't fall into a pit while looking at their phones[1].
From what I've learned, this specific job is normally filled by people who have already retired but don't have enough to live, so they are paid peanuts (I believe they might also be paid a bit extra by gvmt to go back to work, but I'm not sure I understood this point properly). They have started to be replaced by "robots" though [2].
Edit: in general everything in Japan seems overstaffed compared to the western counterparts, not just road construction. I believe this is how they can maintain very low levels of unemployment here, but I don't yet know how the incentives work to make it possible.
[1] The guys with the blue shirt, notice one on each side https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HBJ2K1/japanese-people-in-construc...
[2] https://japangasm.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rwintro-swing0...
It's amazing because they do finish a lot faster than in western countries, but you can definitely remove 20% of the people in street-level construction and would see little difference. An example: they hire 2 people on every sidewalk just to tell people to continue walking the way they are walking and make sure they don't fall into a pit while looking at their phones[1].
From what I've learned, this specific job is normally filled by people who have already retired but don't have enough to live, so they are paid peanuts (I believe they might also be paid a bit extra by gvmt to go back to work, but I'm not sure I understood this point properly). They have started to be replaced by "robots" though [2].
Edit: in general everything in Japan seems overstaffed compared to the western counterparts, not just road construction. I believe this is how they can maintain very low levels of unemployment here, but I don't yet know how the incentives work to make it possible.
[1] The guys with the blue shirt, notice one on each side https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HBJ2K1/japanese-people-in-construc...
[2] https://japangasm.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/rwintro-swing0...
Sometimes I think what passes for appropriately staffed in the West is actually understaffed. What's called optimal staffing in the West is just at capacity, which is a nice way of saying "with no spare capacity."
Of course, with Japan being the land of just-in-time, one could argue that spare capacity is bad -- but that's an oversimplification. Necessary spare capacity is good. What's bad is not being able to address the reasons the spare capacity is needed. Maybe when it comes to humans doing road work there's no way around the need for spare capacity?
Of course, with Japan being the land of just-in-time, one could argue that spare capacity is bad -- but that's an oversimplification. Necessary spare capacity is good. What's bad is not being able to address the reasons the spare capacity is needed. Maybe when it comes to humans doing road work there's no way around the need for spare capacity?
From my experience visiting, there were lots of jobs that were "nice to have". Like the man making sure people don't fall in the hole, or the person standing by the carpark exit making sure the way is clear. You could probably do without them, but it's a nice thing to have.
There's lots of examples of that, people doing things that you would see brutally optimized out of western city and those cities I feel are worse off for that optimization.
One way to look at it is that with their wealth they've decided to employ more people and do more good, versus pocketing the profit and calling it efficiency.
The famous railway networks in Japan are actually privatized rail companies which was very surprising to me. When the rail companies privatized in my country they immediately became worse, as they were suddenly serving a very different purpose. Staff were let go, the trains are cleaned less often, services were cut. That kind of thing.
There's lots of examples of that, people doing things that you would see brutally optimized out of western city and those cities I feel are worse off for that optimization.
One way to look at it is that with their wealth they've decided to employ more people and do more good, versus pocketing the profit and calling it efficiency.
The famous railway networks in Japan are actually privatized rail companies which was very surprising to me. When the rail companies privatized in my country they immediately became worse, as they were suddenly serving a very different purpose. Staff were let go, the trains are cleaned less often, services were cut. That kind of thing.
Case in point: I saw once an older man washing traffic cones in Japan. I don’t think traffic cones get washed in the US.
I found this patent for “Apparatus for cleaning a traffic cone” : https://patents.google.com/patent/GB2434970A/en
It references other patents (prior and subsequent).
It references other patents (prior and subsequent).
> From my experience visiting, there were lots of jobs that were "nice to have". Like the man making sure people don't fall in the hole, or the person standing by the carpark exit making sure the way is clear. You could probably do without them, but it's a nice thing to have.
How would liability play out for the construction company in a Japanese court? It's already a low margin competitive industry so passing risk management costs onto customers (the cost of the people monitoring the holes) is likely more practical than risking all profits evaporating and years of litigation, especially if insurance has anything to say about it.
How would liability play out for the construction company in a Japanese court? It's already a low margin competitive industry so passing risk management costs onto customers (the cost of the people monitoring the holes) is likely more practical than risking all profits evaporating and years of litigation, especially if insurance has anything to say about it.
I don't know the answer to that sorry, you're right to point it out though. Perhaps there is actually some prior court case that defined a liability to make those individuals necessary to be compliant.
In Australia we certainly don't have those people, construction companies just use a few signs, some cones and barricades and that's all that is required to be compliant. If someone falls in the hole they shouldn't have walked past the cones!
In Australia we certainly don't have those people, construction companies just use a few signs, some cones and barricades and that's all that is required to be compliant. If someone falls in the hole they shouldn't have walked past the cones!
> In Australia we certainly don't have those people
Not the case in Victoria. Pretty normal to see a couple of workers standing near the site entrance making sure pedestrians don't get run over by a truck. Or standing in front of a closed footpath, directing pedestrians to cross the road.
There's pretty strict rules around keeping the public out of construction sites and excavations. Putting a couple of cones around a hole is definitely not all that's required.
Not the case in Victoria. Pretty normal to see a couple of workers standing near the site entrance making sure pedestrians don't get run over by a truck. Or standing in front of a closed footpath, directing pedestrians to cross the road.
There's pretty strict rules around keeping the public out of construction sites and excavations. Putting a couple of cones around a hole is definitely not all that's required.
We definitely do, and I'm not against having extra people when it comes to safety. Simply putting on some signs is not enough, what about children?
How many people? The more people you put (let's say fixing a pothole) the safer it is. Would you put 1 extra? 10? 100? 1000? At what point do you stop?
There's absolutely a limit where adding another person only adds marginal safety. For instance, children who don't know they should not jump to jump a barrier and then go into a pothole should not be allowed alone on the streets. We are not talking about a random hole in the street, these things are already heavily warded in Japan with barriers and signs AND on top of it there's also workers AND on top of it the mentioned security guards. My argument is, many or all of these security guards are not needed.
There's absolutely a limit where adding another person only adds marginal safety. For instance, children who don't know they should not jump to jump a barrier and then go into a pothole should not be allowed alone on the streets. We are not talking about a random hole in the street, these things are already heavily warded in Japan with barriers and signs AND on top of it there's also workers AND on top of it the mentioned security guards. My argument is, many or all of these security guards are not needed.
> children who don't know they should not jump to jump a barrier and then go into a pothole
Here is the thing: there are adults who know all this and they fell into a potholes by accident, or momentary negligence
Here is the thing: there are adults who know all this and they fell into a potholes by accident, or momentary negligence
In my country the government used to run the railways, but it had been run down for decades and was at the verge of closing all but the busiest commuter lines into the capital. It was privatized, and since then usage has skyrocketed (well pre covid) to over twice the level pre-privatization, so clearly something's gone well.
The privitization is split into different companies, the best having had a 30 year contract to revitilise their line, and they've done wonders with it, while one of the worst was (pre covid) run to the exact orders of the government
The privitization is split into different companies, the best having had a 30 year contract to revitilise their line, and they've done wonders with it, while one of the worst was (pre covid) run to the exact orders of the government
"versus pocketing the profit and calling it efficiency."
You mean vs allowing those people to spend their time on something that might instead be more productive for society?
If that person is going to spend an hour doing something, is that truly the greatest contribution they can make? Maybe it is! Then again, maybe not.
You mean vs allowing those people to spend their time on something that might instead be more productive for society?
If that person is going to spend an hour doing something, is that truly the greatest contribution they can make? Maybe it is! Then again, maybe not.
My pet conspiracy theory is that Toyota's liberal knowledge sharing with competitors is really a psy-op to keep the competitors perpetually on the edge of ruin while they laugh all the way to the bank.
They don't even have to be deceptive about it. Just in time is obviously about not having undue spare capacity, not about not having any spare capacity at all. But Toyota knows this nuance is going to be lost on buzzword-loving PHBs and greedy management consultant firms. You see the same thing happening with corporate Agile.
They don't even have to be deceptive about it. Just in time is obviously about not having undue spare capacity, not about not having any spare capacity at all. But Toyota knows this nuance is going to be lost on buzzword-loving PHBs and greedy management consultant firms. You see the same thing happening with corporate Agile.
Toyota knows it competitive edge is its culture. Culture to change, to be retrospective, to improve. Lean, JIT, Kanban etc were derived from a culture of striving for perfection and to develop the optimal processes for a specific company is something that takes decades and is never ending, not something that can be read in a book, taught on a course in a short period of time.
There's also that story from back when Toyoda was making sewing machines or whatever it was, and a competitor stole copies of the engineering drawings for their latest model. Toyoda shrugged and said something to the effect of "So what? The really valuable knowledge are the mistakes we made coming up with those drawings, and that's not in the drawings. By the time our competitors have managed to get their copy of our machine to the market, we will have innovated away from that for our next model. And that innovation is informed not by what our current model looks like, but by the exploration we did to get there. None of that was stolen, so after this model, they will just keep repeating the mistakes we made."
I have no idea of whether this is true at all, but I really like the story anyway.
----
What I do know is true is that modern day Toyota doesn't mind sharing the solutions they have come up with to various problems, because they think the real value is in the people and processes to (a) identify the problems in the first place, and (b) come up with solutions suited to those specific problems.
Blindly applying Toyota's solutions to Toyota's problems to your organisation, just hoping that you have the same problems as Toyota and that their solutions will work also for you is a recipe for confusion, and not what matters. (Yet virtually every "development methodology" is a specific solution to a specific problem blindly applied to an organisation.)
I have no idea of whether this is true at all, but I really like the story anyway.
----
What I do know is true is that modern day Toyota doesn't mind sharing the solutions they have come up with to various problems, because they think the real value is in the people and processes to (a) identify the problems in the first place, and (b) come up with solutions suited to those specific problems.
Blindly applying Toyota's solutions to Toyota's problems to your organisation, just hoping that you have the same problems as Toyota and that their solutions will work also for you is a recipe for confusion, and not what matters. (Yet virtually every "development methodology" is a specific solution to a specific problem blindly applied to an organisation.)
You see this a lot in IT companies if it works for google, Amazon and Microsoft, It will work for us while we have like a millionth their load or complexity.
> None of that was stolen, so after this model, they will just keep repeating the mistakes we made.
The competitor probably could have purchased a sewing machine and replicated the engineering drawings themselves. Teardowns of competitor products is common today, and I'm sure it was back then as well.
I think Toyota's "helpful" attitude comes from the Western paranoia in the 70-90s that Japan was going to completely dominate worldwide manufacturing. After all, their rise was fast: in the mid 60s, Japanese manufactures were practically begging to sell rudimentary formed metal components in the USA, but by the early 80s, they were a leader in the high-tech manufacturing. That rise caught many people off guard and I've heard it said that the "lost decade" in Japan was the result of American trade policy specifically designed to curtail Japan's growth in manufacturing.
Viewed in that light, it makes sense that Japanese companies would appear "helpful" to American ones. Why else would Toyota co-build a plant with GM in order to teach GM their Kaizen philosophy for manufacturing?
The competitor probably could have purchased a sewing machine and replicated the engineering drawings themselves. Teardowns of competitor products is common today, and I'm sure it was back then as well.
I think Toyota's "helpful" attitude comes from the Western paranoia in the 70-90s that Japan was going to completely dominate worldwide manufacturing. After all, their rise was fast: in the mid 60s, Japanese manufactures were practically begging to sell rudimentary formed metal components in the USA, but by the early 80s, they were a leader in the high-tech manufacturing. That rise caught many people off guard and I've heard it said that the "lost decade" in Japan was the result of American trade policy specifically designed to curtail Japan's growth in manufacturing.
Viewed in that light, it makes sense that Japanese companies would appear "helpful" to American ones. Why else would Toyota co-build a plant with GM in order to teach GM their Kaizen philosophy for manufacturing?
According to the book The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer by Jeffrey Liker, one of the motivations for Toyota was to repay the debt to American manufacturers who participated in the postwar rebuilding of Japan and taught American manufacturing techniques to Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers.
I’ve heard recently (in a video that I don’t know how to find again) that that’s exactly what happened with the automotive industry’s chip shortage: Toyota was the only one that built a stock of chips in advance, and now are the only ones that can keep producing cars without being limited by the shortage.
Edit: found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI&t=804s
At 13 min. 24 seconds:
> Just in time is such a simple principle, but the pursuit of the elimination of waste is now the central mission of any major manufacturer.
> However, most did it wrong. Manufacturers globally saw the headline “elimination of inventory leads to massive efficiency gains” and jumped on that without actually determining what made it work for Toyota.
> They ignored that Japan's small physical size made for short domestic supply chains, less vulnerable to things going wrong.
> They ignored the company's production leveling: finding the average daily demand and producing that regardless of short-term changes and demands.
> They ignored the fact that eliminating excess inventory is different from eliminating all inventory.
> They ignored the principle of growing strong teams of cross-functional workers predicated on respecting people.
> They ignored the culture of stopping and fixing problems to get things right the first time.
> They ignored huge swaths of the Toyota Way and created a system that’s less effective and less resilient but can impress shareholders through short-term savings.
> How Toyota has effectively implemented this system fills books but many are just reading the covers.
> Even Toyota though is not perfect.
> In 2011 japan was rocked by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake the fourth strongest ever recorded anywhere. Not only did this cause immense destruction to life and property but it also led Toyota to recognize a flaw in its own system.
> As japan recovered some supply chains were quick to as well. For example, securing plastic resin for door panel production is not difficult: there are plenty of manufacturers globally creating easily substitutable alternatives.
> That’s not the case with, say, semiconductors: the hugely expensive facilities that create these chips require years to construct and after the 2011 earthquake it took many months to mend them back to operating status.
> This surfaced a truth that had never been fully considered: not all supply chains are made equal. Plastic resin can handle supply chain disruption, semiconductors cannot. Therefore Toyota made changes: all along, their mission was not to eliminate inventory full stop; it was to eliminate excess inventory.
> Supply chain disruption is inevitable. It's inevitable in the same way that Titanic's flawed design would eventually encounter an iceberg, or the structural economic vulnerabilities of 2008 would eventually collide with a market panic. Therefore semiconductor inventory is not excess because inevitably, due to the inevitability of disruption, excess semiconductor inventory will eventually become necessary.
> Recognizing this, Toyota in recent years has started to build up a stockpile of two to six months worth of chips and that's why the company is the only major vehicle manufacturer that is unfazed by the semiconductor shortage.
> Toyota followed its own principles. It did not stray from them, and it did not reinvent them. It’s no surprise that Toyota excels at implementing its own system, but it is a surprise that the entire manufacturing world has so wholeheartedly embraced flawed implementation of the system.
Edit: found the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1JlYZQG3lI&t=804s
At 13 min. 24 seconds:
> Just in time is such a simple principle, but the pursuit of the elimination of waste is now the central mission of any major manufacturer.
> However, most did it wrong. Manufacturers globally saw the headline “elimination of inventory leads to massive efficiency gains” and jumped on that without actually determining what made it work for Toyota.
> They ignored that Japan's small physical size made for short domestic supply chains, less vulnerable to things going wrong.
> They ignored the company's production leveling: finding the average daily demand and producing that regardless of short-term changes and demands.
> They ignored the fact that eliminating excess inventory is different from eliminating all inventory.
> They ignored the principle of growing strong teams of cross-functional workers predicated on respecting people.
> They ignored the culture of stopping and fixing problems to get things right the first time.
> They ignored huge swaths of the Toyota Way and created a system that’s less effective and less resilient but can impress shareholders through short-term savings.
> How Toyota has effectively implemented this system fills books but many are just reading the covers.
> Even Toyota though is not perfect.
> In 2011 japan was rocked by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake the fourth strongest ever recorded anywhere. Not only did this cause immense destruction to life and property but it also led Toyota to recognize a flaw in its own system.
> As japan recovered some supply chains were quick to as well. For example, securing plastic resin for door panel production is not difficult: there are plenty of manufacturers globally creating easily substitutable alternatives.
> That’s not the case with, say, semiconductors: the hugely expensive facilities that create these chips require years to construct and after the 2011 earthquake it took many months to mend them back to operating status.
> This surfaced a truth that had never been fully considered: not all supply chains are made equal. Plastic resin can handle supply chain disruption, semiconductors cannot. Therefore Toyota made changes: all along, their mission was not to eliminate inventory full stop; it was to eliminate excess inventory.
> Supply chain disruption is inevitable. It's inevitable in the same way that Titanic's flawed design would eventually encounter an iceberg, or the structural economic vulnerabilities of 2008 would eventually collide with a market panic. Therefore semiconductor inventory is not excess because inevitably, due to the inevitability of disruption, excess semiconductor inventory will eventually become necessary.
> Recognizing this, Toyota in recent years has started to build up a stockpile of two to six months worth of chips and that's why the company is the only major vehicle manufacturer that is unfazed by the semiconductor shortage.
> Toyota followed its own principles. It did not stray from them, and it did not reinvent them. It’s no surprise that Toyota excels at implementing its own system, but it is a surprise that the entire manufacturing world has so wholeheartedly embraced flawed implementation of the system.
I thought I'd rather watch the video than read your long transcript, I clicked it, it's Wendover with his weird speech pattern (some syllables loud, some syllables he runs through, but some vowels he drawls on...).
> Just IN tiime, is such a SIMple principlee, but the purSUIT of the ELIMination of waste...
Tab closed, thanks for the transcript.
> Just IN tiime, is such a SIMple principlee, but the purSUIT of the ELIMination of waste...
Tab closed, thanks for the transcript.
Did the speaker on wendover change like 1~2 years ago? I feel like the voice used to be more, uh, geeky sounding.
He probably got some sort of speech coaching because he didn't like the way he sounded. A bad one, I would say. I looked up a video from 2017, he sounded ok, I could hear some long syllables but they weren't as long as they are now. It also sounds like he got a different mic.
What is amazing about this is that it is a super simple game of "what if?". What if our current supply of chips are disrupted? It would mean production halts, there is a non negligible risk and we cannot source new chips in less than 6 months, so stockpile that to keep uninterrupted service. That conclusion probably take quite a while to get to, but the kick off question is really simple.
It's not that simple, though. "What if our supply chain of X is disrupted?" always leads to a problem where one of the most obvious solutions is "Stockpile huge inventories of X!"
That's what manufacturers had done ever since Ford tried to scale up his initial (very Toyota-esque) operation, and scaled it incorrectly but managed to inspire hordes of other manufacturers to repeat his mistakes.
The novelty of Toyota et al. was not that they asked the what if question, but that they answered it unconventionally: they worked on making the supply chains more reliable instead of adding buffers.
That's what makes this next move counter-intuitive to so many people: when Toyota encountered a supply chain that couldn't be made more reliable, they chose the previously-conventional response, apparently in defiance of their whole thing. Except it wasn't.
You're right in that it is simple, but in trying to show that you're making it too simple.
That's what manufacturers had done ever since Ford tried to scale up his initial (very Toyota-esque) operation, and scaled it incorrectly but managed to inspire hordes of other manufacturers to repeat his mistakes.
The novelty of Toyota et al. was not that they asked the what if question, but that they answered it unconventionally: they worked on making the supply chains more reliable instead of adding buffers.
That's what makes this next move counter-intuitive to so many people: when Toyota encountered a supply chain that couldn't be made more reliable, they chose the previously-conventional response, apparently in defiance of their whole thing. Except it wasn't.
You're right in that it is simple, but in trying to show that you're making it too simple.
I think that is the easy way to answer that question. Obviously the first "What if .." should be try to source from somewhere else, or perhaps have multiple supply chains. For instance cloth is a commodity, and if they know they can get the quality they need from multiple vendors on all 7 continents - they don't need to do much except perhaps validate the supply chain of some selected to ensure they don't source from the same place. But if they are using a particular mineral that is only available from one location, something else must obviously be done.
Just stockpiling is not really an answer as much as it's trying to just do the least amount of problem solving and thinking.
Just stockpiling is not really an answer as much as it's trying to just do the least amount of problem solving and thinking.
Yes it's well know in manufacturing management that there is a trade off between utilisation, capacity and cycle time.
Naively it looks like it's cheapest to get close to 100% utilisation by removing all slack from the system.
If you do that though you can't deal with shocks to the system and it costs you much more in the medium term. In the long term your company dies.
This is very well illustrated by John Sterman's Beer game[1]. That's aimed at supply chains in general but works well in any system you can make brittle via cost over optimisation.
This happens a lot because initially over optimisation makes accountants and managers look good to share holders. By the time the chickens have come home to roost they've moved on to another job.
1. https://www.isixsigma.com/training/training-materials-aids/t...
Naively it looks like it's cheapest to get close to 100% utilisation by removing all slack from the system.
If you do that though you can't deal with shocks to the system and it costs you much more in the medium term. In the long term your company dies.
This is very well illustrated by John Sterman's Beer game[1]. That's aimed at supply chains in general but works well in any system you can make brittle via cost over optimisation.
This happens a lot because initially over optimisation makes accountants and managers look good to share holders. By the time the chickens have come home to roost they've moved on to another job.
1. https://www.isixsigma.com/training/training-materials-aids/t...
> Just in time is obviously about not having undue spare capacity,
Also about making spare capacity undue. The lazy solution to unreliable delivery is inventory. The efficient solution is working with the supplier to make delivery more reliable.
Also about making spare capacity undue. The lazy solution to unreliable delivery is inventory. The efficient solution is working with the supplier to make delivery more reliable.
The West seems to target a "skeleton" staff for nearly everything these days. Management theory piles it as a best practice under "just in time delivery", but the reality is that there no longer is the distinction between fully staffed and skeleton.
I spent some time in Belgium a few years ago and was amazed to see that the two people on road projects who turn the "slow/stop" signs to control traffic on single-lanes were replaced with robots. So the EU has managed to figure out how to go under skeleton at least.
Meanwhile, when I was in Japan, there were indeed lots of seemingly "useless" people doing "useless" jobs on similar sized projects.
I spent some time in Belgium a few years ago and was amazed to see that the two people on road projects who turn the "slow/stop" signs to control traffic on single-lanes were replaced with robots. So the EU has managed to figure out how to go under skeleton at least.
Meanwhile, when I was in Japan, there were indeed lots of seemingly "useless" people doing "useless" jobs on similar sized projects.
No it's not just that.
The minute we got off the plane in Tokyo we were met by a greeter pointing people to the escalator. Not that you could miss it, that was the only exit.
In the city you could see people guarding potholes. Bus stations (not particularly busy) would have a couple men at each station that would help arrange the passenger luggage: something usually helped by the driver in the West.
Once we took a night stroll in the city, meeting a roadwork on a deserted street. There were 3 men along the fenced dig basically showing us to walk around it.
Can't see any of that sustainable if you pay people full wages.
The minute we got off the plane in Tokyo we were met by a greeter pointing people to the escalator. Not that you could miss it, that was the only exit.
In the city you could see people guarding potholes. Bus stations (not particularly busy) would have a couple men at each station that would help arrange the passenger luggage: something usually helped by the driver in the West.
Once we took a night stroll in the city, meeting a roadwork on a deserted street. There were 3 men along the fenced dig basically showing us to walk around it.
Can't see any of that sustainable if you pay people full wages.
Does it make sense from an economics standpoint? Perhaps not. But there are benefits to society as a whole. Quite often the people doing those sorts of jobs are getting on in life, if having that job means the person can stay active that could represent a few additional years where they won't be a burden on the health system.
Honestly, giving people these unproductive jobs seems to me like a way of giving out UBI without people even realising it. Because at the end of the day, these jobs are just UBI. They don't add much to the economy.
It promotes a better culture. I would support this system over USA's welfare.
You seem to be misunderstanding what UBI is. This sounds more like a job guarantee, which is the opposite of UBI. The main point of UBI is to make sure nobody can ever be pressured into accepting such a job.
Those jobs hardly add any value to society (let alone economy). If you just hand out money instead, some people might find something more useful to do, or at least be better off for themselves. See also David Graeber's essay "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs".
Those jobs hardly add any value to society (let alone economy). If you just hand out money instead, some people might find something more useful to do, or at least be better off for themselves. See also David Graeber's essay "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs".
Why is it unsustainable? The money they take home gets spent thus supporting other people.
The overhead of employing properly compensated people instead of signage and traffic cones is fairly high, while the work they do is not necessary in any meaningful sense. Which is moot anyway as apparently these folks are paid a pittance.
The alternative is to pay people for doing nothing, like many EU countries do. In the end it's not cheaper.
The US provides EU-level social safety net benefits (healthcare, housing) to the lower classes—via employment in the military, which is in part a stealth jobs program that both major political parties support paying for.
We provide a jobs program for white-collar folks through our excessively-large and exceptionally expensive healthcare system. We pay for whole categories of jobs that don't need to exist and are only adding costs. A double-digit percentage of our healthcare costs are a white-collar jobs program paying people to do nothing useful whatsoever, and we spend a lot on healthcare so even 10% makes it a fairly big program.
We provide a jobs program for white-collar folks through our excessively-large and exceptionally expensive healthcare system. We pay for whole categories of jobs that don't need to exist and are only adding costs. A double-digit percentage of our healthcare costs are a white-collar jobs program paying people to do nothing useful whatsoever, and we spend a lot on healthcare so even 10% makes it a fairly big program.
That’s not really a safety net, because not everybody is physically fit to join the military.
Yeah, I'm aware. It's a really sick way to give working-poor families access to universal healthcare, housing, and free education, which other OECD states mostly manage to do without that. But, it's what we've got.
There are similar measures in many EU countries. For example hiring unemployed people to help kids pass particularly busy streets near primary schools.
https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/k/r/1/6c/83/5b7d5e3b2b9de_p.jpg?153...
https://d-pt.ppstatic.pl/k/r/1/6c/83/5b7d5e3b2b9de_p.jpg?153...
The scale is different. In Japan those jobs can be seen everywhere.
That's called welfare, which has an advantage of not masking unemployment. (but to be fair am unsure if people doing traffic cone jobs in Japan are considered employed)
Anyhow my point is it has little to do with system redundancy.
Anyhow my point is it has little to do with system redundancy.
Welfare / UBI ignores that one of the realities of the human condition is that we are social creatures that have a desire for purpose and utility to those around us, and having that purposes in a society that recognizes us helps give us dignity and a place in society.
It's not important that all jobs are high value, it is important that we as a society have a way to create and recognize purpose for individuals to support their mental and personal wellbeing. While welfare / UBI may ensure they have basic needs met to sustain life, it does nothing to support their mental and personal wellbeing, which is why these systems often results in the creation of delinquent behaviors that are mostly absent in a system like that in Japan.
It may be the the same economically, but socially it is much better to have someone doing an "unnecessary" job that is recognize as valued by society vs simply collecting a check.
It's not important that all jobs are high value, it is important that we as a society have a way to create and recognize purpose for individuals to support their mental and personal wellbeing. While welfare / UBI may ensure they have basic needs met to sustain life, it does nothing to support their mental and personal wellbeing, which is why these systems often results in the creation of delinquent behaviors that are mostly absent in a system like that in Japan.
It may be the the same economically, but socially it is much better to have someone doing an "unnecessary" job that is recognize as valued by society vs simply collecting a check.
This is why I support forcing the idle rich to work retail or construction. Otherwise their mental well-being will be at risk.
Standing there in place of a traffic cone is not much of a dignity IMO, but it certainly could be cultural.
There's definitely a cultural element. I made the point that these jobs must be recognized as valuable by society for a reason.
You say they're standing there in place of a traffic cone, Japanese society instead says that they're there to provide a friendly face ensuring safety of passersby around the dangers of construction work. A traffic cone cannot assist someone who has trouble walking to traverse rough ground because of the work being done. A traffic cone doesn't smile or acknowledge your presence.
That sociocultural element is what has value, and as long as it has value, the job is valuable.
You say they're standing there in place of a traffic cone, Japanese society instead says that they're there to provide a friendly face ensuring safety of passersby around the dangers of construction work. A traffic cone cannot assist someone who has trouble walking to traverse rough ground because of the work being done. A traffic cone doesn't smile or acknowledge your presence.
That sociocultural element is what has value, and as long as it has value, the job is valuable.
It's what the market demands in the end of the day and why I don't understand Japan too much (yet). If a company hires 4 people just for road signaling, and another 0, I'd hire the second one since it's going to be cheaper.
That's why I believe these market forces push to at-capacity, because if someone has spare capacity or a lot of profit another company is going to come in at a lower margin and win the market. Yes this leads to breaking at some situations that happen once every 20 years, but otherwise you die from competition so that's what we are stuck with.
That's why I believe these market forces push to at-capacity, because if someone has spare capacity or a lot of profit another company is going to come in at a lower margin and win the market. Yes this leads to breaking at some situations that happen once every 20 years, but otherwise you die from competition so that's what we are stuck with.
> I'd hire the second one since it's going to be cheaper.
You would. But the guy doing the hiring is just giving the job to his drinking buddy, sure that the favor will come back in some way or the other.
There’s also the social factor to consider. These extra people could be superfluous, but if they’re not there everyone walking past will condemn that construction site as being unsafe.
You would. But the guy doing the hiring is just giving the job to his drinking buddy, sure that the favor will come back in some way or the other.
There’s also the social factor to consider. These extra people could be superfluous, but if they’re not there everyone walking past will condemn that construction site as being unsafe.
Definitely not (except for the most egregious cases), long-term construction sites in Japan are already fully covered by white panels that don't even let you see inside and short-term ones have at least two barriers and lots of signals. While them not being there does not mark "dangerous", I do think them being there could mark them as "extra-safe".
Isn’t it oversimplifying it to suggest that all “the market” rewards is low prices? Doesn’t the market also sometimes reward quality and timeliness?
I would do some nitpicking here: The market _rewards_ low prices. But the market _punishes_ low quality and untimeliness.
Why do I phrase it this way? Because the only market mechanism is a sale, you either buy or you don't. Low price is visible before a sale, so a new sale is reward for the low price offered. Quality and timeliness are only apparent after a sale, so can only be punished retroactively by not buying again.
The punishment signal is also far weaker than the reward signal, lots of goods are not bought too often and problems get forgotten by customers, alternatives may have their own problems, etc. And prices can be compared objectively for standardized goods, and at least easily for other goods. Quality and timeliness are often in the eye of the beholder, subject to variation. Comparisons in those areas are also systematically prevented by most vendors.
Why do I phrase it this way? Because the only market mechanism is a sale, you either buy or you don't. Low price is visible before a sale, so a new sale is reward for the low price offered. Quality and timeliness are only apparent after a sale, so can only be punished retroactively by not buying again.
The punishment signal is also far weaker than the reward signal, lots of goods are not bought too often and problems get forgotten by customers, alternatives may have their own problems, etc. And prices can be compared objectively for standardized goods, and at least easily for other goods. Quality and timeliness are often in the eye of the beholder, subject to variation. Comparisons in those areas are also systematically prevented by most vendors.
> Why do I phrase it this way? Because the only market mechanism is a sale, you either buy or you don't.
That's not always true. When a rail network gets privatized, the argument is that the market will make sure it's a good service still. But they are usually paid by the government, not the patrons. The commuters vote becomes negligible, and the rail network has every incentive to optimize for a minimum viable network that meets their government set targets while the service gets worse and worse in all other metrics. Seats are shittier, service is less clean, graffiti stacks up, railstock gets rickety etc.
That's not always true. When a rail network gets privatized, the argument is that the market will make sure it's a good service still. But they are usually paid by the government, not the patrons. The commuters vote becomes negligible, and the rail network has every incentive to optimize for a minimum viable network that meets their government set targets while the service gets worse and worse in all other metrics. Seats are shittier, service is less clean, graffiti stacks up, railstock gets rickety etc.
That railway example is just a plain market failure, and an uncorrectable one at that. Markets only work under certain conditions, very important among those: absence of monopoly, monopsony and limitations that work to the same effects. A privatized rail network is still the only rail network in the country or region, so still a monopoly. If you hack it to bits and split it up too much, it will be useless, connectivity is paramount in that business. If you leave it as a large network (or several large networks) it will be a national or regional monopoly. Having only the government pay is a monopsony. Limiting building new stations and tracks (which the government will have to do at some point, if real estate prices don't) will also prevent competition. So having a functioning rail market is impossible, therefore any argument about market mechanisms involving railways (or roads, water, gas and electricity distribution) is nonsense: Those can never be proper free markets.
I think you're right, I went through a E40m construction project once and the leaders kept saying how they have to chose the lowest bidder. But that was actually a convenient lie they did to avoid having to do due diligence on the bidders.
Mid and long term cost actually turned out a lot higher than if they had chosen the better slightly more expensive bids.
Mid and long term cost actually turned out a lot higher than if they had chosen the better slightly more expensive bids.
I've seen this turn out the other way on a road contract near my house. (rural Ireland)
Some Italian construction company underbid, and slightly later went bankrupt after finishing some of the work. They just about missed the contract milestones for payment too, and got nothing out of it. Then, the contract went to someone else who bid, with expected costs adjusted. Think there was an 8-ish month delay.
Some Italian construction company underbid, and slightly later went bankrupt after finishing some of the work. They just about missed the contract milestones for payment too, and got nothing out of it. Then, the contract went to someone else who bid, with expected costs adjusted. Think there was an 8-ish month delay.
The way I see the successful low bids happen is usually the following:
1. Submit a low bid for EXACTLY what's written in the RFP
2. Submit contract delay notifications with contract amendment offers, explaining that the original bid was incorrect and therefore if the amendment is not accepted the project can't continue.
3. rinse and repeat
No. 2 is basically legal speak to make sure you get paid(or win a lawsuit in the event that you don't) even though you can't continue construction.
It's basically saying, you made a mistake in your original RFP, therefore nobody could have continued the construction anyway and therefore you have to accept my amendment.
Good bidders will actually tell you that your RFP was wrong. As an example in the construction project I was in the main architect requested custom spliced decades outdated Fiber wiring, when I finally got a hold of the wiring company and asked them why didn't just do MTP, they mentioned that a) they mentioned to the architect that the request wiring makes no sense and b) they were not allowed to talk to us(the engineering department) directly. Same happened with the fire protection rules from anything like stair handles to the garage.
That's also why I don't think the Airport delays in Berlin were engineering mistakes but rather gross mismanagement.
Also, while in this whole project there is a lot of physical work that you can't optimize away, a lot of the physical work delays and do-overs were also due to gross mismanagement, which is something the toplevel comment completely ignores in his assessment of the 4 day workweek.
1. Submit a low bid for EXACTLY what's written in the RFP
2. Submit contract delay notifications with contract amendment offers, explaining that the original bid was incorrect and therefore if the amendment is not accepted the project can't continue.
3. rinse and repeat
No. 2 is basically legal speak to make sure you get paid(or win a lawsuit in the event that you don't) even though you can't continue construction.
It's basically saying, you made a mistake in your original RFP, therefore nobody could have continued the construction anyway and therefore you have to accept my amendment.
Good bidders will actually tell you that your RFP was wrong. As an example in the construction project I was in the main architect requested custom spliced decades outdated Fiber wiring, when I finally got a hold of the wiring company and asked them why didn't just do MTP, they mentioned that a) they mentioned to the architect that the request wiring makes no sense and b) they were not allowed to talk to us(the engineering department) directly. Same happened with the fire protection rules from anything like stair handles to the garage.
That's also why I don't think the Airport delays in Berlin were engineering mistakes but rather gross mismanagement.
Also, while in this whole project there is a lot of physical work that you can't optimize away, a lot of the physical work delays and do-overs were also due to gross mismanagement, which is something the toplevel comment completely ignores in his assessment of the 4 day workweek.
"get three quotes and take the middle" is a common heuristic in my locale - for any work you're going to be living in, under or on, at any rate.
If you can provide a product with those features at lower cost the market would still reward you.
But yes any description of economics is necessarily a simplification. For example market segments where people intentionally pay more for the exclusivity that comes with being charged more.
But yes any description of economics is necessarily a simplification. For example market segments where people intentionally pay more for the exclusivity that comes with being charged more.
Companies like Action, IKEA and Amazon thrive on low prices and efficiency.
Manufacturing and construction are pretty different segments. When manufacturing, it's very easy to optimize for cost because you know exactly how much material is required and how much time, probably to the second, it takes to process such material into the final form. Even shipping prices are pretty well known and can be optimized for through effective packaging.
Construction isn't like that. Companies aren't cranking out a million buildings a day, so they can't remove every ounce of unnecessary materials; they don't control the environment, making delays a fact of life; they don't control all of the companies and people involved; etc. There's just so much unknown when it comes to construction. Like software, it can be difficult to figure out how much padding to put into estimates. It's a good bit easier when it comes to things like roads, but companies still need to contend with unexpected delays a lot.
Construction isn't like that. Companies aren't cranking out a million buildings a day, so they can't remove every ounce of unnecessary materials; they don't control the environment, making delays a fact of life; they don't control all of the companies and people involved; etc. There's just so much unknown when it comes to construction. Like software, it can be difficult to figure out how much padding to put into estimates. It's a good bit easier when it comes to things like roads, but companies still need to contend with unexpected delays a lot.
> It's amazing because they do finish a lot faster than in western countries, but you can definitely remove 20% of the people in street-level construction and would see little difference.
Maybe the 20% extra people is the reason they always finish a lot faster.
Maybe the 20% extra people is the reason they always finish a lot faster.
Or the reason everything in Japan is so clean and actually efficient and reliable. You won't see the casual litter and degraded infrastructure that is commonplace in US and Western Europe - everything is kept in tip-top shape, because why not? When you have the wealth and workforce to spare, in practical terms it's just better to allocate capacity for this sort of tasks in quantities that might look sub-optimal on a spreadsheet.
Yep, exactly. I completely agree with you.
So there's normally 2x-3x people working in construction compared to western countries. I'm saying 20% of those workhours are not needed, but that'd still leave quite a lot more workers there compared to western countries and why they finish early. An example is that they normally work around the clock (24/7, but fairly quietly at night).
Japan on paper is the wealthiest (non-microstate) Asian country GDP per capita, but if you compare by PPP it's actually not great because of meh economic productivity/import tariffs, and slips behind South Korea and Taiwan.
Um, actually construction appears to lay people as "overstaffed" due to safety, breaks, inspections and synchronization of people, tools and materials.
https://qr.ae/pGFloE
https://qr.ae/pGFloE
Yes, I understand some people that seem to not be doing much are actually safety people, or taking a normal break, but in the case of Japan it's quite extreme and that's why I pointed it out.
Living in Japan also, the rumor I heard was that these additional workers actually work as a shadow force for political parties during elections.
To circumvent strict donation laws, the idea is that these people will be "lended" as administrative staff and door-knockers during elections, in exchange of juicy contracts.
And let's be real, that linked in [2] does not point to a job that requires automation, a blinking panel is enough. Often I have seen the sad spectacle of one mannequin handling a signal on the end and a human on the other end. It is totally a bullshit job.
To circumvent strict donation laws, the idea is that these people will be "lended" as administrative staff and door-knockers during elections, in exchange of juicy contracts.
And let's be real, that linked in [2] does not point to a job that requires automation, a blinking panel is enough. Often I have seen the sad spectacle of one mannequin handling a signal on the end and a human on the other end. It is totally a bullshit job.
Some notably low-staffed places in Japan are Yoshinoya and Sukiyaki (beef bowel fast food, often 24/7). It seems there usually just one person working there at a time.
Not sure about Yoshinoya, but I've heard that Sukiya is considered a "black" company. Means they run over people, understaff and, in general, it's not a place you want to work in unless you're desperate. That was few years ago, though, so not sure how is it, now.
You probably went during off time? It's usually more than 1 during busy time. (And it's Sukiya, not Sukiyaki)
And it's also probably not for wanting just 1 staff -- it's probably because no one want to work at those place.
And it's also probably not for wanting just 1 staff -- it's probably because no one want to work at those place.
I went once at about 3-4PM and also came away feeling like it was a bit understaffed. One worker and about 8 people in there eating. I didn't have to wait a crazy amount of time so maybe it's fine though, gyudon doesn't take a long time to prepare if some ingredients are prepped
By low-staffed, do you mean that you had to wait long time to get your order? These places are highly automated so they don't need as many staff, sure there's few people working there but usually more than enough for serving the orders that come through in just few minutes.
Yes it's very optimized so single person can handle operation, but I prefer to have at least two for backup and safety.
You forget that there's an etos of work in Japan. Besides of getting some small amount of money, those people get a chance for being useful. That is a mental effect as well and should not be overlooked. Not to mention it reduces unemployment.
If you look around there's plenty of such a "pointless" jobs. The same with people steering the traffic at the parking lot entrances/exits at any bigger entertainment or shopping center. Sometimes with almost no pedestrians around and yet those people are standing there in sun or rain alike. Or people who's only job is to smile and open doors for you, less common, but happens as well.
To be honest, though, as a "consumer" of such jobs (pedestrian in this case) I do feel they took an extra mile to make it as safe and comfortable for me as possible. And I do feel better about it.
It may look pointless at the surface, but I think those jobs are extremely important for society at large.
If you look around there's plenty of such a "pointless" jobs. The same with people steering the traffic at the parking lot entrances/exits at any bigger entertainment or shopping center. Sometimes with almost no pedestrians around and yet those people are standing there in sun or rain alike. Or people who's only job is to smile and open doors for you, less common, but happens as well.
To be honest, though, as a "consumer" of such jobs (pedestrian in this case) I do feel they took an extra mile to make it as safe and comfortable for me as possible. And I do feel better about it.
It may look pointless at the surface, but I think those jobs are extremely important for society at large.
I don't know if Japanese construction projects are overstaffed or not, but if they are, do you think that would change? My guess is that they would continue the same staffing arrangement and get less construction work done.
They even have signs that look like people that day watch out for the sidewalk that stand next to the guy that says watch out for the sidewalk. But everyone who wants to work should have a job.
> The Japanese government isn't saying "Let's get rid of pointless meetings and busy work!"
Maybe, but if you've worked in Japan, or even just living here, you know about the long, pointless meetings, desk warming and busy work. Thus, it's highly possible the government is saying "let's get rid of pointless meetings and busy work". Things are that top-down here that often companies won't do anything unless the government has said something (and it's likely that it was the big companies that control the politicians that told them to say it).
There are plenty of examples of this kind of thing, one is when the government had to do the same to force companies to let/get employees to use their holiday entitlements. Western principles such as truth, innocence and self-reliance aren't foundational here - the moment you accept that you understand so much more about the culture, in much the same way you won't understand Buddhism if you use a mental model constructed out of your understanding of Christianity.
Maybe, but if you've worked in Japan, or even just living here, you know about the long, pointless meetings, desk warming and busy work. Thus, it's highly possible the government is saying "let's get rid of pointless meetings and busy work". Things are that top-down here that often companies won't do anything unless the government has said something (and it's likely that it was the big companies that control the politicians that told them to say it).
There are plenty of examples of this kind of thing, one is when the government had to do the same to force companies to let/get employees to use their holiday entitlements. Western principles such as truth, innocence and self-reliance aren't foundational here - the moment you accept that you understand so much more about the culture, in much the same way you won't understand Buddhism if you use a mental model constructed out of your understanding of Christianity.
> Western principles such as truth, innocence and self-reliance aren't foundational here
... nor in the West, to be fair. Lies and cheats are commonplace in any Western workplace.
I think you are over-generalizing. Self-reliance is big in Japan too, even while egoism is not - it's drilled into people basically from birth, with things like students cleaning their own schools. Innocence is always politely expected until openly questioned, at which point it turns almost automatically into guilt; but it doesn't mean it's not "foundational" - in fact, it's much more entrenched, it's just that the act of questioning it carries so much more weight on all sides (an unfair accusation, if determined, would be extremely shameful) that nobody wants to go there until absolutely necessary.
They just play the game with a slightly different set of practical rules.
... nor in the West, to be fair. Lies and cheats are commonplace in any Western workplace.
I think you are over-generalizing. Self-reliance is big in Japan too, even while egoism is not - it's drilled into people basically from birth, with things like students cleaning their own schools. Innocence is always politely expected until openly questioned, at which point it turns almost automatically into guilt; but it doesn't mean it's not "foundational" - in fact, it's much more entrenched, it's just that the act of questioning it carries so much more weight on all sides (an unfair accusation, if determined, would be extremely shameful) that nobody wants to go there until absolutely necessary.
They just play the game with a slightly different set of practical rules.
Perhaps I should've used the word ideals instead of principles, as you're right, plenty of liars and cheats around (we're all human). Aside from that I'm happy with what I wrote. You can't have innocence and truth as fundamental ideals of a shame culture.
Just a nitpick. We all are playing the same game. Any society is a set of abstract rules and beliefs. We may agree or disagree about the rules on the other side of the globe, but nonetheless we all are bound by some rules.
> Western principles such as truth, innocence and self-reliance aren't foundational here
Then what is?
Then what is?
I'm 4th generation Japanese-American, and in no way whatsoever qualified to answer your question, but I'll gladly do it nonetheless: they prioritize the collective over the individual.
This is entirely correct, it seems you are displaying the kind of humility that would make your ancestors proud!
People are still going to work more efficient when they work 32 instead of 40 hours in many jobs as fatigue sets in at some point.
No, there are jobs where you do rote things on demand or at particular intervals with no fatigue at 40 hours per week.
Examples from my own employment experience:
- front desk clerk at a hotel
- fuel pump operator
Both of these are pretty dull work that doesn’t exhaust you at all at the 40 hour work week. Most of the time is spent idle and the time spent working doesn’t require much going on upstairs.
Examples from my own employment experience:
- front desk clerk at a hotel
- fuel pump operator
Both of these are pretty dull work that doesn’t exhaust you at all at the 40 hour work week. Most of the time is spent idle and the time spent working doesn’t require much going on upstairs.
I have done a job that was 80% dull work. I can guarantee you I have never been more exhausted when I came home from work. Don't ask me how it works, but doing 'nothing' can be extremely tiring. And this was a desk job.
Most of these customer facing jobs will be abandoned or optimised away in the next few decades.
Front desk work could be done away with mostly by electronic systems (most of the time when I "check in" it's just picking up a ready made room card as I checked in online). You could even centralise the "talking to a human" part in a call center operating a number of hotels, who delegate to staff on the premises (house keeping, maintenance, room service, etc). Of course luxury hotels will still have humans.
Fuel pump operator hasn't been a job in most Western countries for decades, as you just pump fuel yourself (and often even pay at the pump). Is "EV charger operator" a job?
Front desk work could be done away with mostly by electronic systems (most of the time when I "check in" it's just picking up a ready made room card as I checked in online). You could even centralise the "talking to a human" part in a call center operating a number of hotels, who delegate to staff on the premises (house keeping, maintenance, room service, etc). Of course luxury hotels will still have humans.
Fuel pump operator hasn't been a job in most Western countries for decades, as you just pump fuel yourself (and often even pay at the pump). Is "EV charger operator" a job?
As far as I can see. These front desk jobs exist as theft/crime deterrent and to handle edge cases. Sure you could fully automate fuel stations but who is going to call the police when kids start spray painting the windows unless you have someone sitting at a desk watching cctv all day. And who is going to deal with customers who are trying to report something is wrong with a pump. These jobs have already been automated to the point that one person can handle a large store/hotel.
> Sure you could fully automate fuel stations
Where are you from? I thought fuel stations in most Western countries were fully automated already. In Sweden there are loads with no people at all but even the ones with a store you just pay at the pump. You only go inside if you need to buy something else.
Very strange example to use and kind of invalidates your whole point.
Where are you from? I thought fuel stations in most Western countries were fully automated already. In Sweden there are loads with no people at all but even the ones with a store you just pay at the pump. You only go inside if you need to buy something else.
Very strange example to use and kind of invalidates your whole point.
Apparently, it's illegal to pump your own gas in New Jersey. [0]
[0] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/74549/why-cant-you-pump-...
[0] https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/74549/why-cant-you-pump-...
From NJ, wouldn't change it.
No need to get out of your car and deal with a dirty pump. You can also get out to go in the store while they fill your tank, or some smaller places you can buy stuff right from the attendant. Gas doesn't cost any extra because of it either. We used to have some of the cheapest gas in the country before a recent tax hike. Basically a free service, no tipping either.
One downside is that if it is busy you might have to wait, but the guys are usually pretty quick.
No need to get out of your car and deal with a dirty pump. You can also get out to go in the store while they fill your tank, or some smaller places you can buy stuff right from the attendant. Gas doesn't cost any extra because of it either. We used to have some of the cheapest gas in the country before a recent tax hike. Basically a free service, no tipping either.
One downside is that if it is busy you might have to wait, but the guys are usually pretty quick.
You pay for that service whether you realize it or not.
Apparently not?
The cost can come from the margin for the gas station, not the consumer
The cost can come from the margin for the gas station, not the consumer
Gas stations are a notoriously low-margin business. Realistically costs get passed on to the consumer.
LOL. Who do you think you’re buying the gas from and who sets the price?
> but who is going to call the police when kids start spray painting the windows unless you have someone sitting at a desk watching cctv all day.
A neural network trained to classify spray-painting kids?
A neural network trained to classify spray-painting kids?
The deterrent effect is less because clerks are more effective than cameras at detecting crime, and more because people don't like committing crimes when there are other people nearby.
Obviously that's not an absolute statement, especially considering that armed robbery is a thing. But in general humans are better crime deterrents than security cameras or robots.
In a lot of cases, that's the sole reason for employing security guards, since the only thing they're actually allowed to do when they encounter crimes in progress is ring the police.
Obviously that's not an absolute statement, especially considering that armed robbery is a thing. But in general humans are better crime deterrents than security cameras or robots.
In a lot of cases, that's the sole reason for employing security guards, since the only thing they're actually allowed to do when they encounter crimes in progress is ring the police.
I can't wait until short window-washers start getting arrested.
I kinda feel some countries care a lot about full employment. How they can afford it is beyond me though.
If we can afford to keep people alive surely we can arrange for them to do something useful too. Unless we intend to condemn large numbers of people to chronic poverty we have to pay more than starvation wages even to those who do nothing.
It seems to me that the question to be answered is: how can we afford to not have full employment?
It seems to me that the question to be answered is: how can we afford to not have full employment?
It's quite simple: they can afford it by having full employment.
Full employment means lots of good things: a population that's richer per-capita and spends more, less expenses on welfare, less poverty, less crime, less billionaires, etc.
Full employment means lots of good things: a population that's richer per-capita and spends more, less expenses on welfare, less poverty, less crime, less billionaires, etc.
> Fuel pump operator hasn't been a job in most Western countries for decades, as you just pump fuel yourself
Nope. See Oregon and NJ, unless you don’t these American states to be part of these “Western countries”.
In general, don’t respond to examples of jobs that actually exist now with a hypothetical world where they don’t exist to state something about the current world.
Nope. See Oregon and NJ, unless you don’t these American states to be part of these “Western countries”.
In general, don’t respond to examples of jobs that actually exist now with a hypothetical world where they don’t exist to state something about the current world.
> > Fuel pump operator hasn't been a job in most Western countries for decades, as you just pump fuel yourself
> Nope. See Oregon and NJ, unless you don’t these American states to be part of these “Western countries”.
Two states out of fifty. Maybe, in general, don’t respond to examples of jobs that hardly exist any more with a tiny and dwindling part of the world where they’re still just barely hanging on and pretend that has any relevance to the world economy.
(As for the US as a “Western country”... Well, sure, at least geographically.)
> Nope. See Oregon and NJ, unless you don’t these American states to be part of these “Western countries”.
Two states out of fifty. Maybe, in general, don’t respond to examples of jobs that hardly exist any more with a tiny and dwindling part of the world where they’re still just barely hanging on and pretend that has any relevance to the world economy.
(As for the US as a “Western country”... Well, sure, at least geographically.)
These jobs are disappearing as part of the constant search for productivity increases. A front desk clerk will now spend their “down” time doing admin work for example
Since we are on the topic of Japan and hotel front desk, this video shows an example day of a Japanese hotel staff who does a whole bunch of multi-tasking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZsdm0RZ18k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZsdm0RZ18k
I agree that not all jobs are like that, but the comment I was replying to was talking about retail workers, factory workers and people who fill in the holes in roads, which do suffer from fatigue.
Idling at work is one of the most exhausting "occupations".
Sometime I don't get enough sleep when I start at 8am. It makes the result of work so much worse when you aren't rested. Sure, I could make sure to go to bed earlier, but life happens and honestly I don't live for work.
No because they will change the number of days not of working hours.
Tine's Heimdal factory in Norway did do 30 hour work week for a while - with good results in efficiency (and employee happiness). It was unfortunately scrapped due to cost concerns (workers kept same pay as for 37.5h work week).
Its not clear if the change back to "normal" week was entirely rational - there were other suggestions to make the cited target of 80M NOK/year savings.
Its not clear if the change back to "normal" week was entirely rational - there were other suggestions to make the cited target of 80M NOK/year savings.
It is more like: our people are overworking themselves to death and taking holidays is not socially acceptable. Let's force everyone to work less, and hopefully they will have time to make more babies.
> In tech it’s very likely someone going from 5 days to 4 days could still achieve the same amount of actual work. As other commenters have said, many tech workers don’t do productive work all the time they’re present.
While someone working a reduced schedule in an office where other people are working a full schedule may be able to set a schedule that misses some of the things they consider nonproductive (and may actually be more productive/hour for doing so), I don’t think that actually is likely to scale to the whole office switching schedules. If the people in authority that think that the meetings you feel are nonproductive are essential are still in the same positions of authority, they’ll still have the same meetings at least the same share of working hours, though there is a substantial risk that some of them will instead take the same number of hours per calendar week, regardless of the reduction in working hours.
While someone working a reduced schedule in an office where other people are working a full schedule may be able to set a schedule that misses some of the things they consider nonproductive (and may actually be more productive/hour for doing so), I don’t think that actually is likely to scale to the whole office switching schedules. If the people in authority that think that the meetings you feel are nonproductive are essential are still in the same positions of authority, they’ll still have the same meetings at least the same share of working hours, though there is a substantial risk that some of them will instead take the same number of hours per calendar week, regardless of the reduction in working hours.
There was another thread on 4 day workweeks, and I’ll reiterate what I wrote there: people had the same concerns when society shifted to a 40 hour workweek and productive actually went up. Fewer injuries and illness, etc.
1: “The Rise and Fall of American Growth”
1: “The Rise and Fall of American Growth”
Completely true. Working has become a race to the bottom. For substanance, we should today be able to work three days for that matter. Volunteers for more are fine too. Problem is, that all economies must find common ground, or you will indeed get behind.
This is also a curious method for opening more employment and reducing potential income inequality. If a factory needs to produce X things, and each worker produces Y things per hour you will always need X/Y working hours. If workers reduce working hours by 20% then you'll need to hire 20% more workers or improve Y (productivity) by 20%.
If the majority of the economy follows a linear production curve in hours worked, then this opens many jobs. Not a bad deal for a mature economy like JP, but will be interesting to see what un-forseen dynamics emerge.
If the majority of the economy follows a linear production curve in hours worked, then this opens many jobs. Not a bad deal for a mature economy like JP, but will be interesting to see what un-forseen dynamics emerge.
Our country is wealthy enough
That's really going to depend on the business. Plenty of businesses-- specifically ones with a lot of customer-facing staff-- would not be able to sustain labor cost increases up to 20%.
To take an easy example where I already know the #'s in the US, labor costs at a fast-food restaurant are around 25% of costs. Net profit margins range from 5% up to around 20%, but that top end is for McDonalds, the rest are on that lower end.
Increasing labor costs by 20% means a 5% increase in absolute operating costs. Sure, McDonalds may still run at 15%, but other places that increase for many others would erase profitability.
Even with a McDonalds, those franchises don't go for less than $1million each, often a lot more, and 20% profit on them seems to be about $150,000/year. So an owner is already looking at 7+ years to recoup their investment, and that's before accounting for any additional capex costs McDonalds may require when they roll out mandatory renovations.
Certainly there are many more businesses than fast food, so the above equation won't hold for every thing. But any low margin business with moderate customer-facing labor costs won't be able to manage this without raising prices, and then we're just shifting the money around to different piles. In fact as a result of those increased prices, the lower paid workers, while they may be able to work less hours and may work for a business that didn't cut their pay, they're still paying the price for that decision in their overall increase in cost of living.
That's really going to depend on the business. Plenty of businesses-- specifically ones with a lot of customer-facing staff-- would not be able to sustain labor cost increases up to 20%.
To take an easy example where I already know the #'s in the US, labor costs at a fast-food restaurant are around 25% of costs. Net profit margins range from 5% up to around 20%, but that top end is for McDonalds, the rest are on that lower end.
Increasing labor costs by 20% means a 5% increase in absolute operating costs. Sure, McDonalds may still run at 15%, but other places that increase for many others would erase profitability.
Even with a McDonalds, those franchises don't go for less than $1million each, often a lot more, and 20% profit on them seems to be about $150,000/year. So an owner is already looking at 7+ years to recoup their investment, and that's before accounting for any additional capex costs McDonalds may require when they roll out mandatory renovations.
Certainly there are many more businesses than fast food, so the above equation won't hold for every thing. But any low margin business with moderate customer-facing labor costs won't be able to manage this without raising prices, and then we're just shifting the money around to different piles. In fact as a result of those increased prices, the lower paid workers, while they may be able to work less hours and may work for a business that didn't cut their pay, they're still paying the price for that decision in their overall increase in cost of living.
Low margins are indication of saturated supply. If _everyone_ raise their prices, consumers would likely eat that, in my opinion, because people who really count food money usually don't go to restaurants anyway.
Fast food was what I knew off the top of my head, but this applies to all businesses with low margins and moderate customer-facing labor costs. They can't all just raise their prices to pay higher labor costs, because then the people getting paid more just have to pay more for everything as well, at least partially if not fully cancelling out the benefits.
Then there's the fact that raising prices will still lose fast food places customers: For every person not buying it because it doesn't fit their budget, there's someone who just barely fits it into their budget that will stop buying it when prices rise.
This isn't theoretical: Companies analyze the price elasticity of their customers and understand roughly how raising prices X% will lose them Y% customers, and the amount of revenue Y customers represent, and whether that is higher or lower than the revenue generated by X. I don't work in the food industry or retail, but I have run that analysis myself in my own field.
I'm all for a living wage, but simply paying low paid workers more & raising prices to cover it is by no means a complete solution. Raising minimum wages is a bandaid solution. (And I'm not saying we shouldn't do that-- only that it's short term, and we need more comprehensive answers)
Then there's the fact that raising prices will still lose fast food places customers: For every person not buying it because it doesn't fit their budget, there's someone who just barely fits it into their budget that will stop buying it when prices rise.
This isn't theoretical: Companies analyze the price elasticity of their customers and understand roughly how raising prices X% will lose them Y% customers, and the amount of revenue Y customers represent, and whether that is higher or lower than the revenue generated by X. I don't work in the food industry or retail, but I have run that analysis myself in my own field.
I'm all for a living wage, but simply paying low paid workers more & raising prices to cover it is by no means a complete solution. Raising minimum wages is a bandaid solution. (And I'm not saying we shouldn't do that-- only that it's short term, and we need more comprehensive answers)
Yeah but why not just have literal slaves and not require that people have health insurance.
The reductive "race to the bottom" can go both directions
The reductive "race to the bottom" can go both directions
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this comment. I used a real world example of businesses with high customer-facing labor costs relative to their net profit margins.
If you're getting into the everyone-deserves-a-living-wage side of things, that's a different conversation, one I tend to agree with, but is much more complex than the current discussion about whether current business could manage this if they operate with low margins and moderate customer-facing labor costs.
If you're getting into the everyone-deserves-a-living-wage side of things, that's a different conversation, one I tend to agree with, but is much more complex than the current discussion about whether current business could manage this if they operate with low margins and moderate customer-facing labor costs.
If the business is not sustainable without living wages, it doesn't deserve to exist, just like there's no more chattel slaves picking cotton.
I'm sure the economics of paying for work on plantations also did not add up.
I'm sure the economics of paying for work on plantations also did not add up.
Then roughly 4,500,000 fast food workers lose their jobs and have no income. As relatively low-skilled workers flooding the labor market, their job prospects are not very good. Many go from poorly paid and over worked to penniless and homeless.
I think these are useful conversations to have, but this is not a problem that submits to easy one-size-fits-all solutions. I'm all for a living wage, but simply raising minimum wages without doing anything else is a short term solution that will bring things back to roughly where they are now over a period of time as prices for people with newly increased hourly pay rise to the point where it is, once again, no longer a living wage. Sure, go ahead and do that anyway, but only if you have other plans in the works to stop that cycle.
As a side not, emotional appeals to slavery do not help promote a reasonable conversation either. Having to work two jobs to make ends meet is a far cry from slavery. We don't need to look far in the world to find people living in conditions that are actually identical to or not far different from actual slavery. A person in the US working a low paying job 60 hours a week that can barely pay there rent or afford unexpected expenses is nowhere close to those conditions, especially when "barely getting by" in the US still mostly includes the bare bones amenities of living in a modern western country that are significantly better than conditions in many developing nations. Comparisons of this sort simply inflame tensions instead of conversation.
I think these are useful conversations to have, but this is not a problem that submits to easy one-size-fits-all solutions. I'm all for a living wage, but simply raising minimum wages without doing anything else is a short term solution that will bring things back to roughly where they are now over a period of time as prices for people with newly increased hourly pay rise to the point where it is, once again, no longer a living wage. Sure, go ahead and do that anyway, but only if you have other plans in the works to stop that cycle.
As a side not, emotional appeals to slavery do not help promote a reasonable conversation either. Having to work two jobs to make ends meet is a far cry from slavery. We don't need to look far in the world to find people living in conditions that are actually identical to or not far different from actual slavery. A person in the US working a low paying job 60 hours a week that can barely pay there rent or afford unexpected expenses is nowhere close to those conditions, especially when "barely getting by" in the US still mostly includes the bare bones amenities of living in a modern western country that are significantly better than conditions in many developing nations. Comparisons of this sort simply inflame tensions instead of conversation.
Excellent retort, I didn’t read anything else from your original comment.
The amount of low-effort populistic comments on HN starts to be worrying.
The amount of low-effort populistic comments on HN starts to be worrying.
It doesn't matter as long as all competitors have to do the same. The price of a burger could go up and it wouldn't matter as long as every other burger goes up the same amount.
So consumers end up paying more for goods, while salaries remain the same.
Surely you appreciate how that’s a problem?
Surely you appreciate how that’s a problem?
Don't focus on burgers. That is a specific example. This dynamic would play out with countless other items, raising the cost of living and partially if not fully cancelling out the increased wages of the people we're trying to help.
Keep in mind that if the additional costs are applied to everyone, prices can increase without one restaurant in particular being penalised
Demand is probably slightly elastic, but not that much (there are plenty of restaurants in France, despite very high cost of employment)
Demand is probably slightly elastic, but not that much (there are plenty of restaurants in France, despite very high cost of employment)
If we're just talking about restaurants in France, at least part of the higher employment costs are cancelled out-- relative to the US-- by not having to tip 20%, so the menu prices can be higher without actually passing all of that increase on to the customer.[1]
As for demand, it is always elastic. A lot of people eat fast food, and a lot of those people are going to be in a position where they're just barely fitting it into they're budget. Raise prices, and they're gone. That's not even getting to the actual elastic part where people actually have the money to decide either way if they're willing to pay at one price but not another-- that bottom group is simply gone.
Also you shouldn't focus just on the one example I chose. I happened to choose a discretionary spending activity because I knew fast food #'s off the top of my head, but the same thing applies to every single business with low margins and moderate labor costs. Even if you were right and every single one of them could raise prices without losing customers, that would also mean that the exact people we're trying to pay a living wage then have significant increases in their cost of living as everything around them raises prices.
[1] France may also not be the best example to compare to the US. Despite staggeringly astronomical wealth inequality in the US, it still has a lower poverty rate than France. Canada would probably be a better example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
As for demand, it is always elastic. A lot of people eat fast food, and a lot of those people are going to be in a position where they're just barely fitting it into they're budget. Raise prices, and they're gone. That's not even getting to the actual elastic part where people actually have the money to decide either way if they're willing to pay at one price but not another-- that bottom group is simply gone.
Also you shouldn't focus just on the one example I chose. I happened to choose a discretionary spending activity because I knew fast food #'s off the top of my head, but the same thing applies to every single business with low margins and moderate labor costs. Even if you were right and every single one of them could raise prices without losing customers, that would also mean that the exact people we're trying to pay a living wage then have significant increases in their cost of living as everything around them raises prices.
[1] France may also not be the best example to compare to the US. Despite staggeringly astronomical wealth inequality in the US, it still has a lower poverty rate than France. Canada would probably be a better example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentag...
Careful, that table does not use a unified definition of poverty… so someone making 80USD a day with no health insurance is not considered “poor” in the US
And the French definition of poverty is equally useless, it’s just a percentage of the median income
And the French definition of poverty is equally useless, it’s just a percentage of the median income
On the other hand, if you work fewer days, there's more time for home cooking :P
> Retail workers, factory workers, people who fill in the holes in roads, telephone support people, etc aren't contending with pointless meetings and busy work though. They can't do 40 hours of work in 32 hours by removing some of the hours they're not really working. What they do doesn't compress like that.
It depends.
In China, the tech companies are testing AI telephone support. My banks uses it, JD.com uses it, China UNICOM use it. If you dial to those companies, an AI will take the call and guide you through the process, no human interaction needed. Not only that, some AI will even call you to schedule appointments etc.
Another example is the supermarkets. Almost all supermarket in our city has deployed self-checkout stations, and some of them even laid off almost all but 1 or 2 of their checkout workers.
I assume this trend will eventually expand to other labor types, so the workload of those workers will be lighten as result. (But of course, we can keep the load the same, but laid off unnecessary people instead, which is more likely if the government don't intervene)
It depends.
In China, the tech companies are testing AI telephone support. My banks uses it, JD.com uses it, China UNICOM use it. If you dial to those companies, an AI will take the call and guide you through the process, no human interaction needed. Not only that, some AI will even call you to schedule appointments etc.
Another example is the supermarkets. Almost all supermarket in our city has deployed self-checkout stations, and some of them even laid off almost all but 1 or 2 of their checkout workers.
I assume this trend will eventually expand to other labor types, so the workload of those workers will be lighten as result. (But of course, we can keep the load the same, but laid off unnecessary people instead, which is more likely if the government don't intervene)
That doesn't change the principle though; the actual workers need to do 40 hours or even more; it just means there are less of them.
And really, people need to be wary with automation. What people don't realize is that relying on it utterly paralyzes you when it goes down, because its a higher order fault than most staff need to handle.
If the AI telephone support breaks during an update, you've just sidelined your entire operation. If you only have a few checkout employees, and your POS service needs to connect to the internet, and it goes down, you have virtually no one to reply to it.
By reducing headcount you really run the risk of what were tolerant faults becoming critical. My own job has been running on a skeleton crew, and thank god one of us hasn't become sick or left yet. Eventually relying on automation and minimum staffing may bite you hard. A lot of retail stores would be up the creek if the store manager up and quit or was sick for multiple weeks.
And really, people need to be wary with automation. What people don't realize is that relying on it utterly paralyzes you when it goes down, because its a higher order fault than most staff need to handle.
If the AI telephone support breaks during an update, you've just sidelined your entire operation. If you only have a few checkout employees, and your POS service needs to connect to the internet, and it goes down, you have virtually no one to reply to it.
By reducing headcount you really run the risk of what were tolerant faults becoming critical. My own job has been running on a skeleton crew, and thank god one of us hasn't become sick or left yet. Eventually relying on automation and minimum staffing may bite you hard. A lot of retail stores would be up the creek if the store manager up and quit or was sick for multiple weeks.
If we choose the "Good route", then companies can hire the same amount of people and those people can provide good service to the others while the majority of the service is handled by automated systems.
For example, a road worker can now focus on fixing the part of the road which is more likely to be damaged, while the rest of the road is serviced by machines automatically. 4 hours later, the worker finished fixing the critical/difficult part of the road, then he/she go home to enjoy their life, the machine takes the rest of the routine to finish it off.
But of course, more likely, we will go down the "Bad route". Workers will be fired, just like those in the supermarkets. And if machine fails, people will be re-routed to a "backup" -- a human or another machine, to be queued up for a even slower handling process. Few hours later, the machine is fixed, and the event is marked as one-time incident -- stability still above 99%, everything stay the same, except more workers will be fired due to redundant stability.
For example, a road worker can now focus on fixing the part of the road which is more likely to be damaged, while the rest of the road is serviced by machines automatically. 4 hours later, the worker finished fixing the critical/difficult part of the road, then he/she go home to enjoy their life, the machine takes the rest of the routine to finish it off.
But of course, more likely, we will go down the "Bad route". Workers will be fired, just like those in the supermarkets. And if machine fails, people will be re-routed to a "backup" -- a human or another machine, to be queued up for a even slower handling process. Few hours later, the machine is fixed, and the event is marked as one-time incident -- stability still above 99%, everything stay the same, except more workers will be fired due to redundant stability.
I don't think it's true though. A lot of jobs you simply can't reduce the hours no matter how advanced you are without corresponding loss in service. There's also serious staffing issues in many blue collar jobs which simply won't be able to be filled by enforcing them to work less hours; there isn't a huge supply of people wanting to do menial labor to pop up to work part time and pick up the slack.
Retail and factory work already has low wages and high turnover, forcing them to try and make up a 20% loss in staffing hours is probably not going to happen over just cutting operating hours and shifting to models designed to work with less staff; retail stores for example may just be open 20% less or be constantly understaffed and understocked.
Or eventually a lot of them just close and the bigger ones absorb the surplus workers to keep full hours.
Retail and factory work already has low wages and high turnover, forcing them to try and make up a 20% loss in staffing hours is probably not going to happen over just cutting operating hours and shifting to models designed to work with less staff; retail stores for example may just be open 20% less or be constantly understaffed and understocked.
Or eventually a lot of them just close and the bigger ones absorb the surplus workers to keep full hours.
Grinding everyone done in a 40 hour work week is a bigger problem though. And it's not like you work highly efficiently in a 40 hour work week. Or if management did enforce that all 40 hours are busy time, the people burn out.
I've worked a factory job and have seen it there, I work in white collar now and it's the same.
If you say 40 hours you'll only get around 30 because workers have to bounce between working and getting down a little or else they burn out.
I've worked a factory job and have seen it there, I work in white collar now and it's the same.
If you say 40 hours you'll only get around 30 because workers have to bounce between working and getting down a little or else they burn out.
> In tech it's very likely someone going from 5 days to 4 days could still achieve the same amount of actual work. As other commenters have said, many tech workers don't do productive work all the time they're present. Retail workers, factory workers, people who fill in the holes in roads, telephone support people, etc aren't contending with pointless meetings and busy work though. They can't do 40 hours of work in 32 hours by removing some of the hours they're not really working. What they do doesn't compress like that.
Indeed, but going to 4 day weeks will require employers to hire more people then to fulfill the same work.
It's absurd that even with all the gains in productivity we're still stuck since decades at the 5x8=40 week. Time to redistribute the producitvity profits towards the workers.
Indeed, but going to 4 day weeks will require employers to hire more people then to fulfill the same work.
It's absurd that even with all the gains in productivity we're still stuck since decades at the 5x8=40 week. Time to redistribute the producitvity profits towards the workers.
What I find fascinating is why government should have such an authority to be able to mandate this.
Why shouldn't a government have the authority to mandate the working conditions for its citizens?
"encourage"
That's the title says, but we see similar initiatives in EU as well, and it would basically mean that the employee can choose that he wants to work only 4 days. Of course, even now anyone can also have 4 days workweek, if employer agrees to it. But in this case it is something mandatory.
From the article:
> The government included the promotion of an optional four-day workweek in its annual economic policy guideline finalized Friday
But even if it wasn’t optional, the idea of mandatory labor laws is hardly groundbreaking anyway. The US has many regulations regarding working hours.
> The government included the promotion of an optional four-day workweek in its annual economic policy guideline finalized Friday
But even if it wasn’t optional, the idea of mandatory labor laws is hardly groundbreaking anyway. The US has many regulations regarding working hours.
[deleted]
Another way of looking at it is efficiency hasn't changed and need stays constant, you need 20% more people to do the same work. This is an interesting way of affecting mass employment.
It's an open secret at least in the tech world that absolutely no one is putting in a productive 40 hours of work a week. This was true well before the pandemic and is more pronounced than ever now. Everyone needs to be "present" for 8 hours a day 5 days a week, but spends their time in pointless meetings, preparing documents and powerpoints that no one will read, faux social/teambuilding events, hour long lunches, goofing off on the internet, all to maintain the pretense of office culture.
Companies that shuffle things up to prioritize productivity over simply showing up will be set to succeed over the next generation.
Companies that shuffle things up to prioritize productivity over simply showing up will be set to succeed over the next generation.
We did this at my new company. One 30 minute scheduled standup. That’s the only meeting we have all week. Of course people are free to jump on a video call to work through stuff, but scheduled meetings are generally discouraged, and to date we only have the one.
Since everyone is contract, we’re seeing an average of about 26 hours per week. It’s by far the most productive team I’ve ever been on or have built. We ship new features weekly. It’s truly an incredible pace, but doesn’t feel hectic like you might think.
I think the contract only + no meetings + no HR (no culture bullshit, no “get to know people” social events, no bullshit) company setup is going to be the future. If you give people the opportunity to work on things they like working on, and don’t make work about anything other than work, you get amazing results.
Since everyone is contract, we’re seeing an average of about 26 hours per week. It’s by far the most productive team I’ve ever been on or have built. We ship new features weekly. It’s truly an incredible pace, but doesn’t feel hectic like you might think.
I think the contract only + no meetings + no HR (no culture bullshit, no “get to know people” social events, no bullshit) company setup is going to be the future. If you give people the opportunity to work on things they like working on, and don’t make work about anything other than work, you get amazing results.
> I think the contract only + no meetings + no HR (no culture bullshit, no “get to know people” social events)
So, gig economy. Or, at best, hourly wage at Amazon warehouse, but for developers. I heard those warehouses are super extra no-bullshit efficient.
So, gig economy. Or, at best, hourly wage at Amazon warehouse, but for developers. I heard those warehouses are super extra no-bullshit efficient.
It’s certainly not perfect, but I genuinely think it’s much better than being an FTE anywhere else. Of course I’m biased.
I mentioned benefits in another post, so I wouldn’t say it’s gig economy.
What other environment could give a developer $100+/hr, ability to make their own schedule, and essentially all legal protections to work on side projects, work for other companies, etc. at the same time?
Is it for everyone? No. But we’ve had more quality devs interested than we can employ at this point, so I’d say it’s attractive to a good portion of the market.
I mentioned benefits in another post, so I wouldn’t say it’s gig economy.
What other environment could give a developer $100+/hr, ability to make their own schedule, and essentially all legal protections to work on side projects, work for other companies, etc. at the same time?
Is it for everyone? No. But we’ve had more quality devs interested than we can employ at this point, so I’d say it’s attractive to a good portion of the market.
You've forgotten the core tenet of every engineering discipline is the master-apprentice relationship. The reason why what you describe is really the gig economy is because you've turned contractors into autodidacts to cut costs. You're not only expecting engineers to work for you, you're expecting them to learn their craft without capitalizing that yourself. Someone has to pay for that too; it probably won't be your other contractors -- otherwise you'd be something like a real company again.
Your success in this direction to turn software development into some kind of cattle feedlot is only a mirage. Let me make it clear in economic terms: you're up a few chips at the casino, for now, because the market allows you to be. In the long run it's not sustainable, and won't yield any major feats of engineering with any level of competence.
Your success in this direction to turn software development into some kind of cattle feedlot is only a mirage. Let me make it clear in economic terms: you're up a few chips at the casino, for now, because the market allows you to be. In the long run it's not sustainable, and won't yield any major feats of engineering with any level of competence.
I really don’t understand this comment.
At what point did I say or lead anyone to believe that we 1.) expect developers to be autodidacts? Because we don’t have meetings? Seems an odd way to measure engineering culture and 2.) this had anything to do with cutting cost? Our hourly wages are high enough to where the cost savings is negligible compared to fully loaded salaries. I’d be happy to share the numbers over email.
Your idea of the master-apprentice relationship seems overtly romantic. I never said we don’t train staff, or haven’t brought on younger engineers. I literally onboarded an intern last week. They’ll likely make more working less than any intern at any FAANG is making this summer.
> Your success in this direction to turn software development into some kind of cattle feedlot is only a mirage.
I have to straight up disagree on the premise that it’s a mirage. Nevertheless, this is certainly an experiment, and one where we’ll adapt as needed.
I feel as if you’re focusing too much on the contractor concept. Would you be as opposed to this model if say I hired FTEs at 20 hours per week? So essentially half salary. How is this any different (note my previous comments about benefits).
At what point did I say or lead anyone to believe that we 1.) expect developers to be autodidacts? Because we don’t have meetings? Seems an odd way to measure engineering culture and 2.) this had anything to do with cutting cost? Our hourly wages are high enough to where the cost savings is negligible compared to fully loaded salaries. I’d be happy to share the numbers over email.
Your idea of the master-apprentice relationship seems overtly romantic. I never said we don’t train staff, or haven’t brought on younger engineers. I literally onboarded an intern last week. They’ll likely make more working less than any intern at any FAANG is making this summer.
> Your success in this direction to turn software development into some kind of cattle feedlot is only a mirage.
I have to straight up disagree on the premise that it’s a mirage. Nevertheless, this is certainly an experiment, and one where we’ll adapt as needed.
I feel as if you’re focusing too much on the contractor concept. Would you be as opposed to this model if say I hired FTEs at 20 hours per week? So essentially half salary. How is this any different (note my previous comments about benefits).
You pay for employee training. You don’t pay for contractor training.
What training? I had to pay for my own college degree, my employer didn't pay for that, but they do require it.
College is not job training. I'm not sure why this misconception is so widespread. I have a degree but my employers do pay for relevant training for my job. It's not like the industry stopped evolving 10 years ago.
College is not job training and yet it's training that most jobs require. Hmmmmm....sounds like BS.
I did not imply that your company is an Amazon warehouse, I'm sorry if it sounded like that.
But if this "hourly wage for hourly work and nothing else" becomes a norm, that's what we'll eventually get, I'm afraid.
But if this "hourly wage for hourly work and nothing else" becomes a norm, that's what we'll eventually get, I'm afraid.
[deleted]
It's what we want. I wouldn't work any other way ever again. I don't think FTE jobs are going anywhere (companies always push to have us as FTE, not the other way around), let us be.
If you would treat devs like warehouse workers right now,all devs would run away. I mean force them to be 100% effective all the 8 hours and track every move they make. On the other hand allow warehouse workers flexible schedule and decent pay so they could live decent life by puting in 20 hours a week (even while measuring every move they make) and i bet there would be devs who would convert to warehouse workers.
If you would treat devs like warehouse workers right now,all devs would run away. I mean force them to be 100% effective all the 8 hours and track every move they make.
CleverControl employee monitoring pitch: "This software offers powerful features: keylogging, screen recording, live viewing, remote settings, clipboard control, Skype monitoring, and more. The software records time that was spent on this or that activity and shows you stats in graphs. Besides, the app captures screenshots at all important events like right-clicking and window change, and it can record activity near the device with the help of a webcam and microphone. Moreover, CleverControl records employees’ active and inactive time, letting you detect lazybones and reward hard work."
CleverControl employee monitoring pitch: "This software offers powerful features: keylogging, screen recording, live viewing, remote settings, clipboard control, Skype monitoring, and more. The software records time that was spent on this or that activity and shows you stats in graphs. Besides, the app captures screenshots at all important events like right-clicking and window change, and it can record activity near the device with the help of a webcam and microphone. Moreover, CleverControl records employees’ active and inactive time, letting you detect lazybones and reward hard work."
This would trigger Italian strike in me (as a dev) immediately :)
"Another unconventional tactic is work-to-rule (also known as an Italian strike, in Italian: Sciopero bianco), in which workers perform their tasks exactly as they are required to but no better."
"Another unconventional tactic is work-to-rule (also known as an Italian strike, in Italian: Sciopero bianco), in which workers perform their tasks exactly as they are required to but no better."
I heard about these tracking software and I sincerely hope they won't get any more prevalent. As I see they are somewhat present in the contracting world.
I treat it as a total, humiliating devaluation of creative engineering work (and thus their identity!) to that of unskilled factory workers.
I treat it as a total, humiliating devaluation of creative engineering work (and thus their identity!) to that of unskilled factory workers.
Eventually, maybe developers will realize that they have a lot more in common with those "unskilled" workers they disdain than they do with their capitalist owners.
Unions would be helpful for both, in my view.
Unions would be helpful for both, in my view.
anyone employed anywhere should be unionized, thats just common sense
can they already do this with all the data they have in github? Not that I would endorse it, but that sounds like better data for tracking. Instead of enforcing time you enforce activities.
No this is massively more invasive than checking your commit history. Github doesn't know moment to moment what you're doing while these invasive tracking programs do.
my point is that they can already do this with commit history (and more), while this is an inferior way of tracking, regardless of privacy concerns.
Commit history only tells them when you do commits... these tools tell you what people are doing between commits. There's no way a single tool's history gives more information than logging every keystroke and monitoring the screen... At best it's a less noisy stream but doesn't contain nearly as much information.
Put so much demands that they work for 12 hours per day 6 days per week, while nominal time is 8 hours and 4 days - rest is unpaid overtime.
This is how it works already in many companies, also infamous 996
This is how it works already in many companies, also infamous 996
You missed the OPs point in all your heavily laden snark.
There are (sad, imo) people whose entire lives revolve around work. Their friends are there, and they enjoy social outings with their work colleagues.
To me, social outings are just an unnecessary risk. I do not talk to my coworkers like I talk to my friends, I do not want my coworkers knowing too much about my personal life, and especially when booze is involved it's too easy to find yourself on the receiving end of something awkward, or witness to something awkward.
Meetings are simple: if it's important enough to take an hour of my day it's important enough to count as seat time. When my productivity drops and my manager asks why I tell them that meetings are taking up too much time. It's their job to make sure I have what I need to do my best work. If they tell me to work later I start looking for other jobs. It's so easy to get a senior developer job now, and there's really no long term benefit staying anywhere, that I'm not exactly sorry for leaving in this case.
I have literally zero interest in "culture". I wouldn't even work for a company if I didnt need the money to live. I don't understand how you've derived the dichotomy that you can either have mindless time sink "culture" bullshit OR an amazon warehouse slaveshop.
Call me a pessimist. I think people obsessed with "work culture" are sad. You shouldn't hate the 8 hours of work you do, but you also shouldn't center your entire life on it. Afterall, it could be taken away from you with a penstroke the next time the CEO needs to make room in the budget for their salary.
There are (sad, imo) people whose entire lives revolve around work. Their friends are there, and they enjoy social outings with their work colleagues.
To me, social outings are just an unnecessary risk. I do not talk to my coworkers like I talk to my friends, I do not want my coworkers knowing too much about my personal life, and especially when booze is involved it's too easy to find yourself on the receiving end of something awkward, or witness to something awkward.
Meetings are simple: if it's important enough to take an hour of my day it's important enough to count as seat time. When my productivity drops and my manager asks why I tell them that meetings are taking up too much time. It's their job to make sure I have what I need to do my best work. If they tell me to work later I start looking for other jobs. It's so easy to get a senior developer job now, and there's really no long term benefit staying anywhere, that I'm not exactly sorry for leaving in this case.
I have literally zero interest in "culture". I wouldn't even work for a company if I didnt need the money to live. I don't understand how you've derived the dichotomy that you can either have mindless time sink "culture" bullshit OR an amazon warehouse slaveshop.
Call me a pessimist. I think people obsessed with "work culture" are sad. You shouldn't hate the 8 hours of work you do, but you also shouldn't center your entire life on it. Afterall, it could be taken away from you with a penstroke the next time the CEO needs to make room in the budget for their salary.
> If you give people the opportunity to work on things they like working on, and don’t make work about anything other than work, you get amazing results.
That line started off well, but ended off terrible. I really don't want to be working in a place where I'm treated like a replaceable machine. You do you, man.
That line started off well, but ended off terrible. I really don't want to be working in a place where I'm treated like a replaceable machine. You do you, man.
> I really don't want to be working in a place where I'm treated like a replaceable machine.
This seems like a leap. Where did I insinuate that anyone is a cog in a machine? Just because I said work should be about work? Why does it have to be about anything else? If you need your job to provide a social aspect to your life that’s completely fine. It’s just not a part of the business I’m building. It’s why I think having options is great. Everyone works differently.
This seems like a leap. Where did I insinuate that anyone is a cog in a machine? Just because I said work should be about work? Why does it have to be about anything else? If you need your job to provide a social aspect to your life that’s completely fine. It’s just not a part of the business I’m building. It’s why I think having options is great. Everyone works differently.
You're getting a lot of negative feedback so I just want to say I can relate a lot to the model you're proposing (and practicing).
I interview fairly often with potential employers, sometimes just for the experience and insights. Never once did I consider taking a job for other reasons than the type of work and its pay (commuting time and factors not directly in control of the company aside).
I'm not even the type of person who hates team events and the like, at least at the companies I have been working at these usually were a lot of fun. It's just nothing that keeps me from moving on from or motivates me to take some job.
I interview fairly often with potential employers, sometimes just for the experience and insights. Never once did I consider taking a job for other reasons than the type of work and its pay (commuting time and factors not directly in control of the company aside).
I'm not even the type of person who hates team events and the like, at least at the companies I have been working at these usually were a lot of fun. It's just nothing that keeps me from moving on from or motivates me to take some job.
So not an hourly contract? but a per deliverable contract? How do you figure out what's a deliverable in the time - if thats what you're doing.
> I think the contract only + no meetings + no HR (no culture bullshit, no “get to know people” social events, no bullshit) company setup is going to be the future.
But in the US you see the opposite happening at a lot of large companies. I think what you described would be the future of a company with a homogeneous type of worker. However, we are humans we are not machines ignoring that we are humans can be detrimental. Not to mention worker equality is becoming important to be a stable work environment. It’s important to forget you have other roles and industries that simply cannot function the way you described (doctors, nurses, flight attendants, pilots, plumbers, etc.)
Also, I want I’m not saying the current technology corporate environment doesn’t need optimizing. It certainly does but it seems that we are moving towards that and trying to focus on what matter in HR as well.
But in the US you see the opposite happening at a lot of large companies. I think what you described would be the future of a company with a homogeneous type of worker. However, we are humans we are not machines ignoring that we are humans can be detrimental. Not to mention worker equality is becoming important to be a stable work environment. It’s important to forget you have other roles and industries that simply cannot function the way you described (doctors, nurses, flight attendants, pilots, plumbers, etc.)
Also, I want I’m not saying the current technology corporate environment doesn’t need optimizing. It certainly does but it seems that we are moving towards that and trying to focus on what matter in HR as well.
[deleted]
How about benefits such as health insurance, vacation days, sick days?
I miss vacation so much.
I just fly home from the US. And … I still have to work instead of just spending time with my parents that I haven’t seen in years.
I earn more than 200k. ( not west coast ) it’s a decent salary right? Why can’t I have vacation, too? I asked and putted and asked again…
All that will accomplish one thing: one day in the next 2 years I will wake up, look at my bank account. And quit. To have actual free time.
I told that to my boss in those term, we have a decent relationship. But … he gave me some HR bullshit.
I just fly home from the US. And … I still have to work instead of just spending time with my parents that I haven’t seen in years.
I earn more than 200k. ( not west coast ) it’s a decent salary right? Why can’t I have vacation, too? I asked and putted and asked again…
All that will accomplish one thing: one day in the next 2 years I will wake up, look at my bank account. And quit. To have actual free time.
I told that to my boss in those term, we have a decent relationship. But … he gave me some HR bullshit.
How much were you willing to sacrifice in salary in exchange for additional vacation? Was it a net-positive deal for your counter party (employer)? I ask because I hear this kind of thing all the time who want to make the same money, for less time at work.
Most people need spare time to be happy, productive, not burn out. And as a company or society, you don't want to encourage people to work too hard for money because most people are stupid and will actually work too hard for money, and not be happy, become less productive, and burnout.
That's how it works in Europe. It's common that a boss will ask an employee to work less, because the amount of time they work is not even legal sometimes, or to force people to go on vacation for weeks to use their vacation days. It's also more fair and don't put pressure for other employees that value their life outside work.
That's how it works in Europe. It's common that a boss will ask an employee to work less, because the amount of time they work is not even legal sometimes, or to force people to go on vacation for weeks to use their vacation days. It's also more fair and don't put pressure for other employees that value their life outside work.
Forcing employees to take a holiday is often done purely out of the company's self-interest, as accrued leave is a liability on the books.
Also, at least in finance, they force you to take a couple weeks off once in awhile to make sure you're not up to anything illegal.
Of course I would be willing to reduce my yearly salary for 2 or 3 weeks of extra time. Should not be that hard.
It’s worth more than the proportional time I would take off. It’s very valuable to me. Like 5k / week would be a good price tag. I have no debt and more stuff than I need. Now let’s me enjoy life while I still can ( and keep working on that job that I actually enjoy )
I’m not sure to understand about the net positive. The response I got was that taking time off without pay would 1) set a bad « example » or something of that sort and 2) make it hard to plan for resource availability.
Does that answer your question?
It’s worth more than the proportional time I would take off. It’s very valuable to me. Like 5k / week would be a good price tag. I have no debt and more stuff than I need. Now let’s me enjoy life while I still can ( and keep working on that job that I actually enjoy )
I’m not sure to understand about the net positive. The response I got was that taking time off without pay would 1) set a bad « example » or something of that sort and 2) make it hard to plan for resource availability.
Does that answer your question?
The crux here is, of course, that one week of your time is a lot more valuable than 5k to your employer if they pay you 3.7k per week, and probably a lot more than you would be willing to part with or find reasonable (think 20k+ a week)
It's a pretty infuriating setup. From the employers perspective, the amount of money you lose by having someone not work is so obscene, so quickly, that you have to fight your monkey brain pretty hard to not be a total asshole about it.
Even in this well paying industry, you could give everyone obscene raises, before time off makes any financial sense for the average employer. I don't think enough employees realise this.
It's a pretty infuriating setup. From the employers perspective, the amount of money you lose by having someone not work is so obscene, so quickly, that you have to fight your monkey brain pretty hard to not be a total asshole about it.
Even in this well paying industry, you could give everyone obscene raises, before time off makes any financial sense for the average employer. I don't think enough employees realise this.
Even if their time was 5 times as valuable to the company as their pay, it seems very unfair to pay someone 3.7k per week, but require 20k from them if they want to take a week off? That basically means that if you took 3 months sabbatical, and worked the rest of the year, you would actually pay your employer 100k for working those 9 months...
A system, where other people make more off your work than you do has pretty intrinsic problems.
Customers and clients of all sorts obtain consumer surpluses; if they were indifferent, they would not make purchases... Employers are just a different sort of customer.
Honest question: why does it “cost” the employer so much to have you on leave?
I heard this argument in North America but not here in Australia. I mean, small businesses might require critical people at critical times, but generally in larger orgs this shouldn’t be too hard.
I heard this argument in North America but not here in Australia. I mean, small businesses might require critical people at critical times, but generally in larger orgs this shouldn’t be too hard.
Say your employer makes 20k a week of the produce of your work. This means you having a single, unpaid week off will directly cost your employer 20k. Even if you would willingly take a (from your perspective) pretty hefty pay cut of 4k for that week off, the employer would still be down 16k compared to before.
This is the weird and intuitively wrong stuff that happens, when employers make more through their employees work than their employees do, even after factoring in their salary.
This is the weird and intuitively wrong stuff that happens, when employers make more through their employees work than their employees do, even after factoring in their salary.
Is your employer going to write down a loss of $20k on the books when you take a week off work? Probably not, because opportunity cost isn't actually an expense.
I would love to understand that better to negotiate my next job better on that specific issue.
There is something that make me think something is fishy in that approach : why are more and more places switch to unlimited PTO if it’s that costly to give folks time off?
I had unlimited PTO a couple of times, it can sucks ( pressure NOT to take any PTO for the company sake ) Or he just fine.
There is something that make me think something is fishy in that approach : why are more and more places switch to unlimited PTO if it’s that costly to give folks time off?
I had unlimited PTO a couple of times, it can sucks ( pressure NOT to take any PTO for the company sake ) Or he just fine.
> There is something that make me think something is fishy in that approach : why are more and more places switch to unlimited PTO if it’s that costly to give folks time off
"Why do people get more time off now than ever before in human history (which they do)?"
There are now more forces than ever, that work against unlimited exploitation of human labor. For example, human beings in most countries have enforceable rights and they want time off, and the market that has to compete for those people. Humans are shitty machines. If you piss them off, they do shitty work. If you treat them poorly they leave. (In reality, "treating them poorly" translates to "treating them slightly less good then someone else") Since having someone quit working for you is pretty fucking expensive (assuming, of course, that they are actually being productive), you better make sure they do want to continue working for you and so you make it worth their while.
Another important example would be worker protection laws, that simply dictate certain amenities.
"Why is everyone doing unlimited PTO, specifically?"
Less clear on that one. Part of it is certainly it being a trend. If other people do it and employees want it, then you might have to go along, again, to not get pushed out of the market.
But since it clearly does not ever actually mean "unlimited PTO" (you'd be out of a job pretty quickly if you tried), an interesting followup question might be what the fuck it actually means and who benefits? Maybe employees are a little confused about how much time off to take and take less than before? Or maybe they feel pressured to underbid each other? Maybe it's also just that the flexibility it adds to the job leads to more loyal employers, which is pretty nifty in a market starved for workers.
"Why do people get more time off now than ever before in human history (which they do)?"
There are now more forces than ever, that work against unlimited exploitation of human labor. For example, human beings in most countries have enforceable rights and they want time off, and the market that has to compete for those people. Humans are shitty machines. If you piss them off, they do shitty work. If you treat them poorly they leave. (In reality, "treating them poorly" translates to "treating them slightly less good then someone else") Since having someone quit working for you is pretty fucking expensive (assuming, of course, that they are actually being productive), you better make sure they do want to continue working for you and so you make it worth their while.
Another important example would be worker protection laws, that simply dictate certain amenities.
"Why is everyone doing unlimited PTO, specifically?"
Less clear on that one. Part of it is certainly it being a trend. If other people do it and employees want it, then you might have to go along, again, to not get pushed out of the market.
But since it clearly does not ever actually mean "unlimited PTO" (you'd be out of a job pretty quickly if you tried), an interesting followup question might be what the fuck it actually means and who benefits? Maybe employees are a little confused about how much time off to take and take less than before? Or maybe they feel pressured to underbid each other? Maybe it's also just that the flexibility it adds to the job leads to more loyal employers, which is pretty nifty in a market starved for workers.
By ‘net positive’ I mean willing to take a cut larger than is directly proportional to the reduction in hours worked. The reality is that reducing each person’s annual work will increase costs for the company overall, as it needs to pay additional overhead and benefits, which are related to employee count, rather than hours worked.
I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.
I think that everyone is a bit wary of setting difficult precedents in employment situations, as well as the possibility of creating rifts between people with different ‘deals’. That said, I think we should all place a higher priority on coming up with mutually beneficial arrangements.
I see : yes, I’m compensated roughly $3000 / week. I don’t know how much I do cost per week but probably around $4000 ? Idk.
As I stated it’s easily worth 5k for me. ( 7 days, 5 days would be $3500 )
That négociation did not go well. I got 2 extra day off and was told to stop making noise.
Oh. well.
As I stated it’s easily worth 5k for me. ( 7 days, 5 days would be $3500 )
That négociation did not go well. I got 2 extra day off and was told to stop making noise.
Oh. well.
Except that it increases employees morale and motivation and thus productivity, and reduces chances of burnout. There are benefits for the company too.
Exactly. I stay longer in a previous company with unlimited PTO ( real one ) for that reason.
It’s crazy how they don’t realize it’s just alienate workers.
It’s crazy how they don’t realize it’s just alienate workers.
This blows my mind. Throwing your prime (or prime-st remaining years) at an office. Can you put your foot down and take unpaid leave whether they like it or not? Come up with an excuse if you have to. They will always try to push you to follow their line but will you regret that later in life?
Yeah if a boss said I couldn't have 4 weeks off per year I'd probably tell them they're functionally incompetant.
Its always interesting to see how other people live.
Its always interesting to see how other people live.
I've rejected some jobs that offered less than 30 days (in a 5 day workweek) vacation per year.
Good for you!
I will cash a few years more of that sweat US money and go back retire at home. Where every gas station attendant has 5 weeks of PTO.
Don't forget to live your life now as well. All fine and dandy to save for 'later', but if you keep going until you burn out you won't be enjoying your later that much. That or if you get run over by a bus tomorrow it was all for nothing.
You be you. May you have interesting times in early retirement.
If your job is getting in the way of your life goals, why don’t you find one that doesn’t?
Oh. Thanks, never thought about it that way.
Sarcasm aside yes: I’m not gonna keep working in the US for that specific reason.
I could be wrong, but it seems that there's no great shortage of companies offering 4+ weeks of PTO per year in the US. Or are you expecting more vacation than that? (Or are perhaps otherwise constrained as to the choice of employers?)
I've got 4 weeks paid vacation. It really doesn't feel like much. That's only 1/13th of your weeks being work-free per year. I personally would like more. I think something like a 20-25 hour workweek plus 8-12 weeks of vacation would be good enough that I would stay in the workforce long term. As it stands today, it seems more feasible to continue working full time, hit FI in a few years and retire early rather than find such a good work-life balance.
We offer equity comp, health stipend, and equipment stipend for anyone contracted on a 20 hour per week minimum.
Sick/vacation days are harder because we pay for whatever I get an invoice for. Since we don’t track what people do on a day by day basis (I often don’t even know if someone is working that day until I reach out to them or slack, or vice versa), there’s nothing stopping them for billing me for extra hours. And to be honest I really wouldn’t care. I just care about output and quality of that output.
Sick/vacation days are harder because we pay for whatever I get an invoice for. Since we don’t track what people do on a day by day basis (I often don’t even know if someone is working that day until I reach out to them or slack, or vice versa), there’s nothing stopping them for billing me for extra hours. And to be honest I really wouldn’t care. I just care about output and quality of that output.
> I often don’t even know if someone is working that day until I reach out to them or slack
If you don't know if they're working, don't fucking slack them. How about you check their calendar or send an email.
Slack is not for asynchronous communication.
It's amazing how high and mighty people can be and then they ping people for non-emergencies while they're on vacation.
If you don't know if they're working, don't fucking slack them. How about you check their calendar or send an email.
Slack is not for asynchronous communication.
It's amazing how high and mighty people can be and then they ping people for non-emergencies while they're on vacation.
> Slack is not for asynchronous communication.
Depends on the organisation.
Where I'm currently working, we use Discord. Discord is similar to Slack.
It is explicitly for asynchronous communication. We are supposed to not expect immediate replies to questions and comments on Discord, especially as other teammates are in different timezones. Sometimes there's real time chat, but it depends who is on at the time.
I posted some comments yesterday. There was one reply within a few hours, and two more this morning.
Email is pretty much deprecated. Nobody uses it, except to set up calendar entries for meetings, and formal things like HR and invoices.
Depends on the organisation.
Where I'm currently working, we use Discord. Discord is similar to Slack.
It is explicitly for asynchronous communication. We are supposed to not expect immediate replies to questions and comments on Discord, especially as other teammates are in different timezones. Sometimes there's real time chat, but it depends who is on at the time.
I posted some comments yesterday. There was one reply within a few hours, and two more this morning.
Email is pretty much deprecated. Nobody uses it, except to set up calendar entries for meetings, and formal things like HR and invoices.
Why don't you just not check your Slack messages when you're on holiday?
This sounds great. I don't want to have to pretend to care about my company or it's "culture". I just want to do some work and get paid for it.
Well the point isn’t to not care. We want devs that care about the quality of their code and genuinely want to focus on _just_ that. I get some people want more out of a job, and that’s totally fine. But I think there’s a good portion of people that just want to do work and spend the rest of their time with their family, or hobbies or whatever.
Why is contract important to this?
Contract means no perf eval, no 'culture' events participation, no leadership trainings etc., what OP classified as HR bullshit (true).
At this point is mostly a filtering mechanism for me. The types of people that want contract are typically more used to (and want) an environment without the HR bullshit.
Some, not all, but certainly some people use work as their only form of social life and interaction. Which leads to a lot of time not working. I’m not saying this is inherently bad. It’s just not the type of company we’re building. Filtering for contract work has taken care of this so far. Will continue to evaluate as we scale up.
Some, not all, but certainly some people use work as their only form of social life and interaction. Which leads to a lot of time not working. I’m not saying this is inherently bad. It’s just not the type of company we’re building. Filtering for contract work has taken care of this so far. Will continue to evaluate as we scale up.
I think it’s a confusing way to say “hourly and work as many or few hours as they feel like”.
do employees get equity?
I work at a company where it is encouraged to use the fitness facilities during work hours. 15 minutes walking to one of the gyms, 5 minutes changing, an hour working out, 10 minutes in the sauna, 10 minute shower, 5 minutes getting dressed, 15 minutes walking back. That is 2 hours of my work day right there ;-)
Very smart company. May I know the name?
For intellectual work like we what we do, the brain doesn't just stop "working". I tend to be able to come up with good solution while driving/working out/taking a walk/drinking tea...
Only at low levels that I see time-at-keyboard important. Now it's all ambiguous/large scale problems that spending time at the keyboard is a very small portion of my time. It's more productive to keep the problems in mind, then let my mind wandering and arrive at the solutions later. After you design/test/run the solutions in your mind, it only takes a small amount of time to write it out (design doc or code).
For intellectual work like we what we do, the brain doesn't just stop "working". I tend to be able to come up with good solution while driving/working out/taking a walk/drinking tea...
Only at low levels that I see time-at-keyboard important. Now it's all ambiguous/large scale problems that spending time at the keyboard is a very small portion of my time. It's more productive to keep the problems in mind, then let my mind wandering and arrive at the solutions later. After you design/test/run the solutions in your mind, it only takes a small amount of time to write it out (design doc or code).
They are smart, the employees are likely to be more productive if they are healthy. Many companies squeeze up employees like tubes of toothpaste then discard them and hire a younger gen. It is sometimes not intentional, just create a stresful environment and dont allow enough time to employees to catch their breath so to speak
I felt pretty wrecked when I, mostly because of lack of affordable housing, moved to a team in a location near my home town, and found out every single employee aged <35 had ended up on sick leave. Didn't have any choise but I wish I could have just gotten out of there as fast as I ended up in it.
Why? It'd be helpful to get some idea what workplace factors led to such a negative outcome.
Thinking is work too, and you can think from anywhere
Name and promote them. They deserve the extra labour supply.
That sounds marvelous! I'm looking at a job at the moment that is mostly WFH and working out during the day is something I'm looking forward to most of all.
This has changed me - I WFH, but every 2 days I take a 2 hour walk, I walk about 7.5KM to the beach and back and while I’m tired at the end of the walk, it’s hugely invigorating and I often end up coding until well after midnight on my own projects with all the extra energy I have.
Have lost quite a lot of weight too … and it’s only been a couple of months. Go for it! Can’t recommend it enough.
Have lost quite a lot of weight too … and it’s only been a couple of months. Go for it! Can’t recommend it enough.
Living close enough to the beach to be able to walk is one of my life goals!
I think it makes sense to have people available for regular hours, just so that if I ask someone a question I can expect a response today-ish. But, I agree that a lot of meetings should be emails, teambuilding events are usually poorly done, and procrastination is hard to avoid when you've got access to the internet.
Minor nitpick: Is an hour long lunch really that bad?
Minor nitpick: Is an hour long lunch really that bad?
I think the point is not that there’s something wrong with hour long lunches, but that people have to find ways to fill up their day if they’re expected to be “at work” for 8 hours a day and can only be productive for a fraction of that.
As a “productive” software engineer, in the sense that I have gotten positive feedback in my career and never had a problem “getting enough done” to satisfy my superiors, it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that I cannot productively apply myself to work for 40 hours a week. When I have to be in the office for that long, I end up slacking off for hours and hours (like reading HN). I thought for a long time that maybe I was just flying under the radar and I would eventually “get caught” but at this point I’ve made peace with the fact that my productivity comes in bursts and as long as my employer is happy with my output I don’t sweat it too much.
As a “productive” software engineer, in the sense that I have gotten positive feedback in my career and never had a problem “getting enough done” to satisfy my superiors, it took me a long time to come to terms with the fact that I cannot productively apply myself to work for 40 hours a week. When I have to be in the office for that long, I end up slacking off for hours and hours (like reading HN). I thought for a long time that maybe I was just flying under the radar and I would eventually “get caught” but at this point I’ve made peace with the fact that my productivity comes in bursts and as long as my employer is happy with my output I don’t sweat it too much.
Over here lunch time is not part of worktime. Per law we need to have at least half an hour for lunch, but we can take however long (if the company allows). Dunno how it is in other countries. (I am from austria, europe)
Yeah, and hour long lunch is pretty long. Most people I know take less time than that to eat at a restaurant, let alone just grabbing your sandwich from the fridge.
> grabbing your sandwich from the fridge
Get out of the building, take the bicycle to a park to eat, take a small nap and read a book, come back to the office fresh and mind reset.
This was my routine before I switched to WFH. Official hours where 9h to 12h, then 14h to 18h. 35h workweek, 2h lunch break, (France).
Get out of the building, take the bicycle to a park to eat, take a small nap and read a book, come back to the office fresh and mind reset.
This was my routine before I switched to WFH. Official hours where 9h to 12h, then 14h to 18h. 35h workweek, 2h lunch break, (France).
35h workweek is absolutely great, but I personally wouldn't fancy a two-hour lunch break. Would _much_ rather take a shorter lunch and get out of the office earlier.
(Just highlighting that different people have different preferences. :))
(Just highlighting that different people have different preferences. :))
Lunch isn't just about refuelling, I can eat at my desk and keep working if that was the case. It's about taking a break.
Also, for some of us it's normal to go to a restaurant or to the pub for lunch. It's been years since I've eaten a packed lunch.
Also, for some of us it's normal to go to a restaurant or to the pub for lunch. It's been years since I've eaten a packed lunch.
Have you ever been to Central/South America or Europe? ;-)
When I started, my team took two hour lunches
Most developed countries have enforced hour long lunch breaks. Grabbing your sandwich from the fridge and eating at your desk is shunned.
I can't speak for other developed countries but here in the UK it is very much company- and industry-dependent. At my first 4-5 jobs (mostly in the finance sector), everyone ate at their desks. At my current employer (FAANG), no one does.
> absolutely no one is putting in a productive 40 hours of work a week
You are being a little broad with this statement. One can easily put in 60+ hours for weeks on end and be incredibly productive while doing it. Its all circumstantial. If you have no family, are the sole founder in the company, and really enjoy what you are doing, why the fuck would you stop at a 40 hour work week?
Not all of us loathe the thing we do for the majority of our waking hours.
You are being a little broad with this statement. One can easily put in 60+ hours for weeks on end and be incredibly productive while doing it. Its all circumstantial. If you have no family, are the sole founder in the company, and really enjoy what you are doing, why the fuck would you stop at a 40 hour work week?
Not all of us loathe the thing we do for the majority of our waking hours.
Yes, if you're starting your own business then it could help you to work as much as you can.
However, most people do not run their own business. Most people are low-level code monkeys in large firms where individual efforts aren't business critical. When your project gets cancelled for the 3rd time and you still get a raise, it finally clicks that your work doesn't really matter. This takes a psychological toll. As a result, most people I know in FAANG who are 28+ years old will sheepishly admit that they do very little actual work (30 hours max per week). That's the whole point of hiring people straight out of college: you get ~5 years out of them before they realize what the game is. The ones who are happy with the "truth" become managers, and the ones who aren't opt to keep their head down and coast, or just quit from "burnout".
However, most people do not run their own business. Most people are low-level code monkeys in large firms where individual efforts aren't business critical. When your project gets cancelled for the 3rd time and you still get a raise, it finally clicks that your work doesn't really matter. This takes a psychological toll. As a result, most people I know in FAANG who are 28+ years old will sheepishly admit that they do very little actual work (30 hours max per week). That's the whole point of hiring people straight out of college: you get ~5 years out of them before they realize what the game is. The ones who are happy with the "truth" become managers, and the ones who aren't opt to keep their head down and coast, or just quit from "burnout".
Yeah, or you can avoid all that by going to startups.
Working 60hr/week for a startup is completely illogical. It's the sort of thing you only do drunk on kool-aid.
> It's the sort of thing you only do drunk on kool-aid
Did not realise believing in a mission is akin to joining a suicide cult.
Work doesn’t have to suck. It doesn’t have to be everyone’s calling. But it is for some of us, and sixty+ hours a week can be time well spent. My time at start-ups has been time around colleagues I love, work I enjoy and a mission I believe in. (I was also decently compensated while there and exorbitantly so on the upside.)
There are countless public servants, non-profit employees, artists and public-company workers putting in those hours and more finding reward in their work. No need to deem everyone who doesn’t fit your lifestyle an idiot.
Did not realise believing in a mission is akin to joining a suicide cult.
Work doesn’t have to suck. It doesn’t have to be everyone’s calling. But it is for some of us, and sixty+ hours a week can be time well spent. My time at start-ups has been time around colleagues I love, work I enjoy and a mission I believe in. (I was also decently compensated while there and exorbitantly so on the upside.)
There are countless public servants, non-profit employees, artists and public-company workers putting in those hours and more finding reward in their work. No need to deem everyone who doesn’t fit your lifestyle an idiot.
I mean - feel free if you actually think your job is aligned with your life's goal.
Me? I'd rather do what I can to make Art. So it's nice that I can get a software company to subsidize it thoroughly.
I'm just glad I can get paid effectively for being Skilled instead of laboring with my Skill. Availability is the best ability after all.
Me? I'd rather do what I can to make Art. So it's nice that I can get a software company to subsidize it thoroughly.
I'm just glad I can get paid effectively for being Skilled instead of laboring with my Skill. Availability is the best ability after all.
There's a balance between passionate hustle and diving into burnout. Some people can do more than others. etc etc. It's more sustainable for mental health to not make every waking minute about work, and take breaks and vacations. If you don't have a life, there's no point to working.
It doesn't have to, but the most likely outcome in a startup is it goes bankrupt, what you did disappears into the dark hole of failed ideas, and no one sees it.
It's a suckers game: the default behavior needs to be "when the founders get greedy and kick me out...what will I do then? How will I feel about that time?"
It's a suckers game: the default behavior needs to be "when the founders get greedy and kick me out...what will I do then? How will I feel about that time?"
> what you did disappears into the dark hole of failed ideas
If the work is for financing a life outside it, yes. But if the work is rewarding in itself, then said failure is—while highly disappointing—balanced by the relationships, stories and skills gained therefrom.
This is absolutely a risk tolerance and personality matrix thing. I just want to push back against this recently-popular philosophy which idealises the Western European work ethic and lifestyle. It is one among many local optima.
If the work is for financing a life outside it, yes. But if the work is rewarding in itself, then said failure is—while highly disappointing—balanced by the relationships, stories and skills gained therefrom.
This is absolutely a risk tolerance and personality matrix thing. I just want to push back against this recently-popular philosophy which idealises the Western European work ethic and lifestyle. It is one among many local optima.
Working 60 hours a week probably leaves you with less relationships+stories+skills than working 40 hours a week.
I would say the opposite - the only job I can imagine (outside of the first two years of investment banking) working 60+ hours/week would be a startup - where each and every hour in those first 2-3 years can make the difference between building a Billion dollar company or just getting left behind.
The only time id do that is if I was the founder.
Employees are too likely to be screwed over, even if the company is successful
Employees are too likely to be screwed over, even if the company is successful
I mean, a lot depends on your level of seniority, what type of equity you negotiate, how likely it will be diluted, whether you are likely to have a $100mm/$500mm/$1B exit. A lot depends on the integrity of the CEO in the event of an acquhire (probably the most common exit) and how well the Principle engineers will be compensated (Retention Bonuses usually).
I will agree with you - it's probably batshit insane for a working stiff without a good chance of a $2mm+ payout to be working 60+ hours/week for years on end.
I will agree with you - it's probably batshit insane for a working stiff without a good chance of a $2mm+ payout to be working 60+ hours/week for years on end.
Define screwed over? Because in my view getting screwed over is joining the industry on promise of working on deep tech and ending up a tiny cog in a machine.
Most startups aren't engineering-bound though
Amdahl's Law
Amdahl's Law
And do a lot more work for way less money? Your work will have more impact, that's for sure. But at some point you'll have a higher-level realization that you're still working in a capitalist hellhole and you're not being fairly compensated for the risk compared to the VCs or the founders. If I was going to work in a startup or FAANG from 22-30, I'd pick FAANG for the guaranteed million dollars in the bank.
The only exception I'd personally make is to found a startup with people I enjoy on a problem that I'm personally motivated by. This is basically a band for capitalistic nerds. Even then, you still have to allow VCs to suck out your soul.
The only exception I'd personally make is to found a startup with people I enjoy on a problem that I'm personally motivated by. This is basically a band for capitalistic nerds. Even then, you still have to allow VCs to suck out your soul.
And given what kinds of products and services the vast majority of startups out there provide, even "impact" is questionable.
very little work - 30 hours a week?
I think "older" people at FAANGlikes put max 15 hours a week.
I read it more as "no one is having 40 hours per week of productive work continuously".
Even in your example, being productive for 60+ hours is possible, but for how long? There might be extreme (extreme!) outliers, but I think it's fair to say that at some point you will increase your productivity by putting in less hours.
Even in your example, being productive for 60+ hours is possible, but for how long? There might be extreme (extreme!) outliers, but I think it's fair to say that at some point you will increase your productivity by putting in less hours.
In the marketing agency world 50-60 hour weeks are the norm and 70 hour weeks occur once a month or so. It isn’t really sustainable. Most people burn out and leave the agency world within three years. Those that stay often make work their life or have a way where they can set their own schedules, which is usually because they have reached marketing executive level and the work becomes different.
It is a very unhealthy industry. I am not sure if it can be sustained in it’s current form, but I don’t ever see the hours being reduced either. 4 day work weeks would just mean 12+ hour days and you would have to hope your clients aren’t open on Fridays or whatever day you decided to make your company day off. Staggering days wouldn’t work that well as most agencies have little to no redundancy by design.
It is a very unhealthy industry. I am not sure if it can be sustained in it’s current form, but I don’t ever see the hours being reduced either. 4 day work weeks would just mean 12+ hour days and you would have to hope your clients aren’t open on Fridays or whatever day you decided to make your company day off. Staggering days wouldn’t work that well as most agencies have little to no redundancy by design.
How much of that is working time, and how much of it is sitting in a room not being productive? Every productivity study I've read finds that per-week productivity drops off tremendously with that level of overwork.
Productivity per hour drops, but it doesn't matter to the agency because all of their employees are salaried. It is not people sitting in a room not being productive per se, but it is a bunch of burned out employees not being as efficient as they could be.
Again, this leads to burnout and employees that are sufficiently burned out either quit or are fired for no longer being able to meet the productivity requirement and/or making mistakes. The agency does not care because the supply of recent college graduates in marketing and communications is never ending (it is one of the most popular majors at almost any college/university).
Interestingly, slower work to a point is better for the agency since they bill the client per hour. That reverses when the quality of work suffers or the employee is no longer able to get everything done that was promised to the client. The agency gets more value out of a single employee when they work longer hours. Bonuses are common in the agency world, but they are typically meager compared to the extra hours worked. Burning out their junior employees is then to the advantage of an agency that bills by the hour.
Again, this leads to burnout and employees that are sufficiently burned out either quit or are fired for no longer being able to meet the productivity requirement and/or making mistakes. The agency does not care because the supply of recent college graduates in marketing and communications is never ending (it is one of the most popular majors at almost any college/university).
Interestingly, slower work to a point is better for the agency since they bill the client per hour. That reverses when the quality of work suffers or the employee is no longer able to get everything done that was promised to the client. The agency gets more value out of a single employee when they work longer hours. Bonuses are common in the agency world, but they are typically meager compared to the extra hours worked. Burning out their junior employees is then to the advantage of an agency that bills by the hour.
I can work 55 hours a week in perpetuity as a founder, with the exception of four off grid, week long vacations a year. Even two weeks over 60 hours (e.g. fundraising across timezones) and I rapidly lose it.
But is your overall productivity higher with 55 hours than it would be with less hours?
It's the kind of question where I wouldn't really believe your answer, unless you've actually tried to experiment yourself where is the cutoff (for your specific situation) between hours / productivity.
Not because I think you would answer in bad faith, but because it's a really complex question. What if working less hours over multiple years would let you pursue some hobby, turn you more sociable and thus a better leader/CEO?
Or maybe it would make you just very slightly better at decision making. You would have less time to manage your company, maybe relying more on others, but in exchange you would have more energy for the really crucial decisions. Or enough energy for extending that 2-weeks international crowdfunding effort into a 3-weeks.
It's the kind of question where I wouldn't really believe your answer, unless you've actually tried to experiment yourself where is the cutoff (for your specific situation) between hours / productivity.
Not because I think you would answer in bad faith, but because it's a really complex question. What if working less hours over multiple years would let you pursue some hobby, turn you more sociable and thus a better leader/CEO?
Or maybe it would make you just very slightly better at decision making. You would have less time to manage your company, maybe relying more on others, but in exchange you would have more energy for the really crucial decisions. Or enough energy for extending that 2-weeks international crowdfunding effort into a 3-weeks.
Yes, over the course of a 12 year full time career, if I go above 55 it gets worse, but I can sustain 55. In terms of trade offs, there's something to be said for parkinson's law. If I have way more than 55 hours a week of stuff, I know I have to fit it into 55 or I'll burn out. If I aim for less, I find I never end up working less than 40, even if the absolute amount is much lower.
I would just say that choosing to work more than 40 hrs per week is very different to being forced to work 40 hrs per week. Simply because someone can happily choose more work hours does not mean that the de facto standard should be that high or even at 40 hrs.
> are the sole founder in the company
yeah in this case, if its really your dream, go right ahead.
most workers aren't the founders of the company.
yeah in this case, if its really your dream, go right ahead.
most workers aren't the founders of the company.
> One can easily put in 60+ hours for weeks on end and be incredibly productive while doing it.
Do you have an objective measure of that? I've worked with plenty of people who thought they were being productive for 60+ hours/week, but none of their productivity actually stacked up. Founder/CTO types were the worst, they'd bypass process and cause outages but because of their position everyone had to coddle their ego and pretend that they were doing good work and the trouble wasn't their fault.
Do you have an objective measure of that? I've worked with plenty of people who thought they were being productive for 60+ hours/week, but none of their productivity actually stacked up. Founder/CTO types were the worst, they'd bypass process and cause outages but because of their position everyone had to coddle their ego and pretend that they were doing good work and the trouble wasn't their fault.
I can do 60s in bursts, and the bursts have lasted as long as 2 months before. I usually burn out as soon as we hit the finish line, and work 10-20 hour weeks for a while until all the comp-time is used up. But I can really do a fantastic amount of programming when I dedicate my entire brain to the project and completely exclude all other thoughts. OTOH I have to admit that both of the biggest production screwups I ever made happened in those crunch times. But seeing myself hit those levels of productivity actually gives me a ton of satisfaction. Some of my normal 40 hour weeks when my head isn’t in the game are so un-productive that it depresses me.
You asked about objective measures, but I’m not sure how programming can really be quantified. All I can say is my “hyper-mode” has caused projects to reach deadlines that others on the team thought were unlikely.
You asked about objective measures, but I’m not sure how programming can really be quantified. All I can say is my “hyper-mode” has caused projects to reach deadlines that others on the team thought were unlikely.
Can you give us some advice on how you recharge effectively between such bursts? Since starting receiving salaries I am staying within 40+ hours work weeks but it does depress me because indeed my head is not always in the game. I thought about only doing the necessary busywork for some weeks because I want to get difficult projects done that just won’t work out if I’m not full-in. But I get feelings of guilt whenever I do that, and that prohibits recharging.
> If you have no family
So that's... maybe 20% of the workforce?
> are the sole founder in the company
And with this we narrow it down to maybe 1% or less of the workforce.
He can be broad because your conditions don't apply to the overwhelming majority of workers. Statistically, your conditions cover an insignificant group.
So that's... maybe 20% of the workforce?
> are the sole founder in the company
And with this we narrow it down to maybe 1% or less of the workforce.
He can be broad because your conditions don't apply to the overwhelming majority of workers. Statistically, your conditions cover an insignificant group.
"Absolutely no one" and "1%" have entirely different meanings to me. I thought it important to highlight the "insignificant" case (of which I am a member) to avoid some notion that this applies to 100% of people in reality. The way we usually go on about work around here concerns me, and I fear we risk alienating a very energetic and well-meaning segment of the community.
HN comments (and in general, forum comments) are not PhD theses, they're generic, casual comments that in many cases try to tell a story.
Hyperbole is to be expected.
Hyperbole is to be expected.
Hyperbole or not it has an impact when repeated like some religion. This comment thread is making me not want to participate on hackernews.
I think (I don't know you) that I wouldn't want you to do that, but to each their own.
You sound like you're having a bad day outside of HN, as this has been just a regular and might I say, civil, chat, otherwise.
A temporary break from HN (or social media in general), might not be a bad idea :-)
You sound like you're having a bad day outside of HN, as this has been just a regular and might I say, civil, chat, otherwise.
A temporary break from HN (or social media in general), might not be a bad idea :-)
[deleted]
What’s wrong with an hour long lunch? Isn’t that normal?
It is normal, but if you think about it, it doesn't really take an hour to eat lunch - and sometimes it would be preferable to eat in 5 minutes and leave at 4:05 instead of taking an hour to sit around the office. Every reasonable employer would permit this but I have learned from reading HN comments that not every employer is reasonable.
Break times also tend to be regulated in most countries I believe. I.e. here in Japan 60 minutes break time is required if you work for more than I think about 6ish hours.
When I used to work in Japan I hated that rule. One day I feeling not so great, so I took the morning off. But we had an important release, so I still went to the office in the afternoon. The release ran into few issues, so I had to stay past the regular finish time of 6pm. I started to feel no so great again, so I wanted to finish the release and head home as soon as possible. But at 7pm, my boss came running towards me and forced me to take one hour break. I tried to explained to them (unsuccessfully) I only have about 5-10mins to finish the release. So I spent another one hour with watering eyes, massive headache, and chills, just to finish 5mins of work.
I mean, it's a sensible regulation but there should be some leeway for edge case situations like yours (if there aren't already - since you were actually sick that should make it OK for you to leave ASAP one would hope)
it easily does- 20-30 min to walk/bike/drive back and forth to cafe / restaurant- 5-10 min to order/get food, 15-20 min to eat.
If and when companies stop treating employees like children and more like adults who can decide for themselves when to take breaks, work, and take vacations, they might just watch productivity and morale soar. Netflix generally has the right idea on this.
Can also highly recommend Google (from first-hand experience). While there are pockets where this isn't 100% true, internal mobility is first-class so it's easy to improve things if you don't land well.
These kinds of rules are usually put in place because without them, companies treat their employees like slaves.
Yea, I haven't heard of a job that wouldn't have an hour long lunch. It's a part of labor laws at least in Illinois.
This appears to be incorrect. Illinois only requires a 20+ minute lunch at or before 5 hours into a shift of 7 and 1/2 hours or more: https://www2.illinois.gov/idol/FAQs/Pages/meals-breaks-faq.a...
No, you're expected to eat at your desk and type while chewing.
Once upon a time, I worked at a nuclear engineering consultancy. One engineer ate a hamburger and french fries over his keyboard, using it as a placemat, and never cleaned it up. In order to fix his computer, I first used a bottle of alcohol to clean the brown and black muck and hunks from the keycaps. It honestly smelled like a dumpster.
I would just toss that
It was his favorite keyboard. He would've cried, TBH.
Consider it was a place where one guy hoarded 15 years of WSJ in his office.
When staff are excellent professionals in the field, they get to do all sort of weird things.
Consider it was a place where one guy hoarded 15 years of WSJ in his office.
When staff are excellent professionals in the field, they get to do all sort of weird things.
Weekly Shounen Jump or Wall Street Journal?
This question comes to my mind as well everytime I see that abbreviation.
In that case whenever I need to do anything on his machine I would just bring my own keyboard. Regardless that’s gross and unsanitary, probably attracted all sorts of pests.
No lie my first job out of college expected you to eat at your desk and not leave for your lunch break.
An insurance company I did some work for had a bell go off for your two coffee breaks and lunchtime. You spent half of your lunchtime waiting for elevators.
Whaaaat? What year, country, and/or location was this? Call center?
I saw something similar in Tokyo. It was at a telco office. A bell would ring (at 1pm IIRC) and an entire skyscraper's worth of office workers would get up and try to get to street level. Every day.
I was visiting a Western company that was renting a small space in the same building. Their routine was to never get caught up in the great migration (in either direction).
I was visiting a Western company that was renting a small space in the same building. Their routine was to never get caught up in the great migration (in either direction).
That was the routine at Safeco in Seattle well into the 90s. My wife temped there over summers during grad school. Although she says they played Muzak instead of bells. So, in fact, it was much worse.
D: What slave-drivers.
If I ate lunch I was expected to stay from 9 to 6.
Get a new job? Do they actually pay attention to when you show up and leave, or do they treat you like an adult?
I have never ever worked a job where 9-6 was not the standard, and I don't really know anyone who took an entire hour for lunch either, at least not as a regular thing. This is in NYC. Do 9-5 jobs really exist these days?
[deleted]
From what I have seen 30 mins is standard but some companies have an hour lunch and ask you to start 30 minutes sooner.
I like one hour lunches.
My biggest issue is, that in an office environment I can't use it as effectively as I would like to. At home I tend to spend 20-30 minutes taking a short nap and it really pays off as it boosts my productivity for the afternoon. At the office, I don't have that opportunity :-/
My biggest issue is, that in an office environment I can't use it as effectively as I would like to. At home I tend to spend 20-30 minutes taking a short nap and it really pays off as it boosts my productivity for the afternoon. At the office, I don't have that opportunity :-/
In my state 30 minutes has been the standard for a long time. Usually in the service industry they don't even give you a lunch break.
It's too short is what's wrong!
At least in the states most places require you to "make up" your lunch. So normally you'd show up at 8 and work until 5 to make up for an hour lunch. This is true for both hourly and salary.
That’s insane. I’m in the states, but my company treats us like adults. I roll in when I want, work out in the gym for 2 hours during the day, leave whenever I want. I can’t imagine working for a place that tracked my hours.
You've never worked at a job where you had to submit time sheets at the end of each week? Lots of "professional" gigs where people have to do that in order to accurately track time to customers - particularly when they are billing you out at $500/hour on the contract.
"Billable hours" != "Working hours". A lawyer may work 70 hours/week to produce 40 billable hours/week. That doesn't mean that they aren't working for 70 hours per week. It just means that the "8 for what we will" and "8 for sleep" have been shaved thin and added to the "8 for work" by shady accounting of time.
Yup - I stumbled into consulting in my first job and carried on doing it in my second, timesheets are the main source of misery/annoyance for me. Non-consultant, non-sales roles are hard to find for people who are technically focused but not actual software developers.
Nope. Never. I guess I've been lucky, but now that I know how pleasant work can be, I don't think I'd ever stay with a job that was that way.
Most software employers I’ve worked for had us fill out time sheets, and they didn’t do hourly consulting so no need to calculate hours for clients. I only recently found an employer who does not require a time sheet. I thought this was pretty standard, at least in the USA. There will definitely be someone who replies to this comment and says “I’ve been working 20 years and never had to fill out a time sheet.” So it’s probably not universal.
Lucky for me, I’ve had the same experience at multiple jobs. I’ve kept these kinds of “lax” habits at places where other people spend 9+ hours at their desks every day. I always thought it was a waste for other people to work long hours when it wasn’t even a company policy and I never got flak for my hours. Maybe more people at bigcorps can do this if they explain it and show they can still be productive.
True in a lot of places, e.g. even in pretty labor-friendly Denmark, most union agreements in the private sector call for a 37-hour work week, but with lunch not counted as working time. So workers typically take short 30-minute lunches to avoid extending the day more. The public-sector unions have managed to get 37 hours with a 30-minute lunch counted though.
I think the question is whether that "make up" time is always 1 hour or can be adjusted. At my previous job I would regularly take 15 minute lunch breaks and leave 45 minutes early (compared to a 1 hour lunch).
Where I work now local laws require taking at least 1 hours of breaktime per day so I can technically not do that.
Where I work now local laws require taking at least 1 hours of breaktime per day so I can technically not do that.
> Companies that shuffle things up to prioritize productivity over simply showing up will be set to succeed over the next generation.
I tend to disagree, but don't argue either way for four or five day weeks, but because it seems success and productivity are only loosely coupled.
Company financial success, and / or long term viability, I believe, is largely random. Large, already successful companies will, largely, continue to be so, small to medium enterprises will survive the next five years at about the same rate they historically have. Small business will continue to fail all over the place.
People will continue to be super intelligent, flawed and incompetent, easily distracted, lack focus, and easily corrupted by power and vice.
And start ups, to anyone who's been paying attention, is almost entirely a branch of gambling for a specific type of whale.
I predict that on the whole the next decade will be largely like the last ten years, and there's approximately nothing to be gained from chasing tiny productivity gains.
I tend to disagree, but don't argue either way for four or five day weeks, but because it seems success and productivity are only loosely coupled.
Company financial success, and / or long term viability, I believe, is largely random. Large, already successful companies will, largely, continue to be so, small to medium enterprises will survive the next five years at about the same rate they historically have. Small business will continue to fail all over the place.
People will continue to be super intelligent, flawed and incompetent, easily distracted, lack focus, and easily corrupted by power and vice.
And start ups, to anyone who's been paying attention, is almost entirely a branch of gambling for a specific type of whale.
I predict that on the whole the next decade will be largely like the last ten years, and there's approximately nothing to be gained from chasing tiny productivity gains.
At least WFH would be normalized which is a big win
It's not just tech, it's office jobs in general. People doing 40 hours of actual, necessary work in that environment are the exception.
It is an open secret that people who are productive only 2/3 of the time in 40 hours/week would be productive only 2/3 of the time in 32 hours/week as well.
I hear what you're saying, but anecdotally I just cut my days back and find myself a lot more energised and engaged when actually at work. I haven't really compared my degree of output yet, but I can at least say I'm a lot more emotionally invested in the results of my work and my job satisfaction is higher. One's mileage may vary.
That's patently untrue: most of my colleague working 3 or 4 days a week are more focused their days in.
The invert is true though: a task will evolve to take the time alloted to it, I see that regularly with "unconstrained" project running amok. Those with fixed time are way more efficient and finish with a minimum of overtime.
The invert is true though: a task will evolve to take the time alloted to it, I see that regularly with "unconstrained" project running amok. Those with fixed time are way more efficient and finish with a minimum of overtime.
I work as a lawyer. When I do brain work such as research, contracts or court meetings, I believe 3-4 hours a day is the max I do continuously. If I have more phone calls, client meetings etc., it's easier to do the 8 hours.
I spend 2-3 hours working, and 3-4 hours commuting, and other time in staring each other and rumbling in some meeting, and have a rather relaxed lunch with friends talking nonsense...
This was when I was in Google
This was when I was in Google
I wonder if it's also an open secret that 99% of office jobs today are typewriter jobs of a few decades ago - soon to be gone.
Good riddance if people with a working brain were given any power, we'd all be at 2-3 hours of work per day with robots doing the rest by now.
Good riddance if people with a working brain were given any power, we'd all be at 2-3 hours of work per day with robots doing the rest by now.
meanwhile, China is doing 996 - 9am to 9pm, 6 days a week.
Obviously people hated it. But it is happening and no wonder China tech is catching up fast / winning in some areas already.
Obviously people hated it. But it is happening and no wonder China tech is catching up fast / winning in some areas already.
From my experience with Chinese working culture, half of that time is most definitely spent not working.
I’d bet the factors are much more political in nature than productivity on the individual level.
I’d bet the factors are much more political in nature than productivity on the individual level.
It is normal for Chinese to sleep/take a nap by the desk during the day.. Pretty sure they are catching up because of other reasons than being most of their waking hours at work..
As someone who has worked in a dev office in Beijing for a bit - no. Devs routinely took up to 2 hours for lunch breaks, and took numerous breaks in a day. I didn't blame them, mind, because the reason was obvious - for most people, it's just not possible to be completely engaged and invested for 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, forever. I'd estimate there was about 4-5 hours a day of properly productive work going on.
Winning what? A totalitarian government where the people are all treated like shit? They may be winning the GDP game but that's not translating to any improvements for their citizens or the world.
The only people winning in China are the people at the top of the communist party.
The only people winning in China are the people at the top of the communist party.
or maybe they are faking their gdp numbers with reckless real estate ponzi schemes
Australia calling: 37.5hr week please. It be law.
It's law, but it still gets abused quite frequently (outside of tech, at least).
Anecdotally speaking, all my mates who work in private construction office jobs regularly do quite a bit of unpaid overtime. It's very much a combined cultural and managerial issue, clocking off at the correct hours gets you the stink-eye, and the volume of work assigned necessitates overtime.
Anecdotally speaking, all my mates who work in private construction office jobs regularly do quite a bit of unpaid overtime. It's very much a combined cultural and managerial issue, clocking off at the correct hours gets you the stink-eye, and the volume of work assigned necessitates overtime.
One of the things I love most about Australia (New South Wales at least) is the mandatory 2 months long service leave after 10 years of service
https://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/employers/nsw-emp...
https://www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/employers/nsw-emp...
Still way too long.
I feel like I generally am reasonably productive for 40 hours. Of course I'm not constantly super focused, but if I were to work fewer hours I would get less done. Every once in a while you have a meeting that isn't totally necessary, but reducing working hours wouldn't get rid of those.
> It's an open secret at least in the tech world that absolutely no one is putting in a productive 40 hours of work a week.
Is this true only in the US? What percentage of companies is this true for? How many jobs will tolerate this reality?
Is this true only in the US? What percentage of companies is this true for? How many jobs will tolerate this reality?
Yep, I've had full time six figure jobs where I was literally working 5 hours per week including meetings. I've never had a job where I worked more than 20 hours a week, including a hectic 7-employee startup.
> It's an open secret at least in the tech world that absolutely no one is putting in a productive 40 hours of work a week.
Be grateful for your privilege. Most employees aren't tech.
The workers at companies that schlep things around are working a real, non-stop 8 hours. This is why Amazon warehouse jobs are so shitty.
Teachers are pretty much non-stop as well. This is why so many of them have medical issues with their bladders.
The vast majority of workers are in positions that really do put in 40 hours of hard work a week--and they don't get paid anywhere near as much as tech.
Be grateful for your privilege. Most employees aren't tech.
The workers at companies that schlep things around are working a real, non-stop 8 hours. This is why Amazon warehouse jobs are so shitty.
Teachers are pretty much non-stop as well. This is why so many of them have medical issues with their bladders.
The vast majority of workers are in positions that really do put in 40 hours of hard work a week--and they don't get paid anywhere near as much as tech.
I wonder if this is related to the fact that my computer seems to have more bugs in it than a hive of angry bees.
Indeed, there’s a sort of Moneyball aspect here. Companies that can accurately pay out only for productive time instead of assuming all 40 hours of a work week are spent producing will make huge savings in payroll, increasing cost efficiency and making it feasible to hire larger cross functional teams. A software engineer probably only really works about 20 hours a week. That’s a 50% savings right there.
What’s the definition of “really working?”
I once told a freelance client (hourly) that I solved most of the tough problems while I thought about things in the shower. On that project, very little of my time was spent coding. Client then said I ought to pad my hours by 5 per week. He “got it.”
If simply “coding” is what constitutes “really working,” that seems problematic.
I once told a freelance client (hourly) that I solved most of the tough problems while I thought about things in the shower. On that project, very little of my time was spent coding. Client then said I ought to pad my hours by 5 per week. He “got it.”
If simply “coding” is what constitutes “really working,” that seems problematic.
Why would any software engineer take an equivalent paying job that micromanages their every minute to make sure the company gets a full 40 hrs out of them, unless the pay were much better than what they'd get otherwise (eating in to that 50%) or they were desperate?
This would be a huge mis-optimization IMO. Good luck attracting "top" workers and retaining them with this model. It's just "butts in seats" taken to an extreme.
This would be a huge mis-optimization IMO. Good luck attracting "top" workers and retaining them with this model. It's just "butts in seats" taken to an extreme.
I mean what you’re basically saying is you want to work at inefficient companies that pay more than they actually need to.
If you’re not working, you shouldn’t be paid. Fair is fair.
Perhaps instead of paying per hour a company should offer pay per week, and it’s up to the developer to decide how many hours they will end up actually working that week and if the offered pay is worth it.
If you’re not working, you shouldn’t be paid. Fair is fair.
Perhaps instead of paying per hour a company should offer pay per week, and it’s up to the developer to decide how many hours they will end up actually working that week and if the offered pay is worth it.
I would take a paycut to have much less work hours. Could be a win-win but maybe a lot of people prefer to earn more.
Equally speaking, if I realise how to fix that bug when I'm out with friends one night, should I present my employer with an extra bill for those hours spent drinking and relaxing, putting my mind in a state where it could fix the issue?
Should a factory worker be paid for resting their body to get ready for the next day of work?
They're not assuming/under the impression that all 40 hours are spent working. This wouldn't work because this type of tacit admission works for everyone when they need it, even if that happens to be continuously.
You can't actually enforce that. The standard is salaried, at-will employment. The savvy, skilled remote worker is going to be able to put 20-30 hours in - literally just take off 1-2 days a week. But get paid for the "40hrs."
Basically, the rules of the game mean a salaried, remote employee can easily work half time at full pay - gg
Basically, the rules of the game mean a salaried, remote employee can easily work half time at full pay - gg
> hour long lunches
Are one hour lunches not the norm? I've always worked 0900-1730, with an hour long lunch.
Are one hour lunches not the norm? I've always worked 0900-1730, with an hour long lunch.
what's wrong with hour long lunches?
You are subtly implying incorrectly that people are working lesser number of hours while working from home. This is farther from the truth. If anything all the time saved in commute is spent in coding
The social contract in Japan was that you’d give your life to your employer in exchange for a fair wage and stable employment until you retired. Neither of those things are true now. Wages are low and companies either ignore their legal obligations or hire people as contractors, who have less rights than full time “employees”.
Now, many people, especially women* and young people are finding that it’s possible to run a small business for 3-4 days a week and make more money than an entry or even mid-level full time office job.
So, I think Japan finally enforcing rules against abusive behavior at the workplace and pushing for a 4-day week, if it really happens, is a reflection of where society is at right now.
*Women have a low wage ceiling because they are expected to quit and have children at any time.
Now, many people, especially women* and young people are finding that it’s possible to run a small business for 3-4 days a week and make more money than an entry or even mid-level full time office job.
So, I think Japan finally enforcing rules against abusive behavior at the workplace and pushing for a 4-day week, if it really happens, is a reflection of where society is at right now.
*Women have a low wage ceiling because they are expected to quit and have children at any time.
I think it says a lot about Japanese workplace pay if a small business at 3-4 days per week can outperform it. Not that I doubt it in any way: I've just started my own sideline and I'm already at 25% of my job income yet only putting in 5 hours of effort to do so.
Yes, but for how long though.
Many of these Japanese firms are many hundreds of years old, and will probably stick around for some hundred more years.
Being able to run a small business for 5-10 years is very possible, but there's no guarantee you'll be able to do that for 20-30-40 years.
We often hear about the success stories, when it comes to small businesses and startups, but there are unfortunately those that will fail after N years, even if they had some pretty good years.
Many of these Japanese firms are many hundreds of years old, and will probably stick around for some hundred more years.
Being able to run a small business for 5-10 years is very possible, but there's no guarantee you'll be able to do that for 20-30-40 years.
We often hear about the success stories, when it comes to small businesses and startups, but there are unfortunately those that will fail after N years, even if they had some pretty good years.
It doesn’t have to be the same small business across all those years, right? I don’t think anyone is saying these small businesses are trying to become hundred-year firms.
This erosion of the collective belief in this social contract is true for much of the western world as well, where wages have been flat for 40+ years while productivity skyrocketed.
Entry-level to mid-level is about 15-35万円/month. I am really curious what sort of SMEs you are talking about. Mind giving some examples?
Of all places, that this is coming from Japan is astounding. The culture of "company man" in Japan is notorious for essentially absorbing and erasing the line between family life and company life for an employee.
There are horror stories floating around on the internet that explain how many stay in office, often later than their boss, just to look like they are working hard.
And I have experienced it first hand. Went to Mitsubishi factory in Takasago on a company visit. I asked the employees there, why do you stay late, and they answered, everyone has to stay late.
I genuinely believe that an alternative to the 4-day week, is to allow employees to switch off their work emails and phone calls on Friday evening. No use in having a 4 day week, when your mind-share is extended to a 6 day week.
There are horror stories floating around on the internet that explain how many stay in office, often later than their boss, just to look like they are working hard.
And I have experienced it first hand. Went to Mitsubishi factory in Takasago on a company visit. I asked the employees there, why do you stay late, and they answered, everyone has to stay late.
I genuinely believe that an alternative to the 4-day week, is to allow employees to switch off their work emails and phone calls on Friday evening. No use in having a 4 day week, when your mind-share is extended to a 6 day week.
> There are horror stories floating around on the internet that explain how many stay in office, often later than their boss, just to look like they are working hard.
The horror story there is in how late that takes them to in many cases. A friend spent a year in Japan. Leaving by 8 was apparently a good day.
The horror story there is in how late that takes them to in many cases. A friend spent a year in Japan. Leaving by 8 was apparently a good day.
It does seem like Japan starts their day a bit later than the US. Perhaps more similar to some businesses in New York where you might roll into the office between 10 and 11, but then stay until 8 or 9 pm. Still a very long day. It is so ingrained in their work culture that closing the office one additional day a week may be the only way to give some time back to employees.
I have heard that this is somewhat offset by rolling up a lot of social/etc time in to work. So they will have dinner at work with the other employees. Still horrible but it helps to understand how they even manage to live while working that long.
There was a recent study at Microsoft Japan if I recall correctly. There have been rigorous studies throughout the works for some time before that.
I think more companies should (and probably will consider) 4-day maybe even 3-day workweeks as technology makes us more productive. Especially in industries that require deep thinking, the output doesn't necessarily scale with # of hours a worker puts in, not every hour is the same. I think 10 hours of highly productive work is much better than 40 hours of busy work.
Anecdotally, I managed to accumulate almost 300 hours of vacation time and now switched over to 3-day weeks at a big tech company for a while and even though I really enjoy my work, I feel much better this way and roughly at the same productivity, but a lot happier.
Anecdotally, I managed to accumulate almost 300 hours of vacation time and now switched over to 3-day weeks at a big tech company for a while and even though I really enjoy my work, I feel much better this way and roughly at the same productivity, but a lot happier.
> Especially in industries that require deep thinking, the output doesn't necessarily scale with # of hours a worker puts in, not every hour is the same.
Its not about the number of days per week, it's also about the frequency of the thinking you put into it. If you do a 4 days break between two work days, I'd be very surprised if you remember anything in detail of your previous work period.
Its not about the number of days per week, it's also about the frequency of the thinking you put into it. If you do a 4 days break between two work days, I'd be very surprised if you remember anything in detail of your previous work period.
This is part of why I prefer the opposite of the 4-day workweek trend. I typically do some work 6 or 7 days a week, but a workday might be only 2 or 3 hours, on some of those days. I don't feel like a workaholic, and am not doing 60-hour weeks or anything. I average maybe 30-35 hours depending on the week, but those hours are spread over more days. Outside of the occasional "in the zone" hacking session or paper deadline a handful of times a year, there's no way I can work 8 hours in a single day on a regular basis! But working on a problem for a few hours a day in a regular cadence, not long enough each day to get burned out, but frequently enough that I still remember what I'm doing – that I like.
I think this could be a very effective use of your time. I always find the break from Friday to Monday very disruptive if I've got to carry work across, especially if I've had a busy/fun weekend. Being able to do 3-4 hours per day for a 7 or 8 day week, then taking 4 -5 days off would make for very effective work focus.
Not all "weekends" have to be at the end of the week. You can have a weekend Wednesday and be able to recharge every 2 days without having to wait for 4 full days before your next weekend.
This is the way. I did this for a few months to burn through some of my leave budget. It was great Wednesday became my chores day. Get the house in order, go to the bank whatever. Then the weekend was entirely spent on luxury and entertainment.
My overall output was reasonably similar to that of a 5 day week because I came at work with a waay better attitude. It also made it easier to plan 2 days of work instead of 5. I also spent a chunk of my Wednesday thinking about work and how to tackle the next two days.
That meant I could without guilt take the weekend entirely off and not even think about work at all.
My overall output was reasonably similar to that of a 5 day week because I came at work with a waay better attitude. It also made it easier to plan 2 days of work instead of 5. I also spent a chunk of my Wednesday thinking about work and how to tackle the next two days.
That meant I could without guilt take the weekend entirely off and not even think about work at all.
I get what you are saying.
Just want to point out that Ideally you shouldn't feel the need to think about work on either of your free days. Wednesday or weekend.
Just want to point out that Ideally you shouldn't feel the need to think about work on either of your free days. Wednesday or weekend.
Then it should not be called a 4-days week in the first place. It's confusing.
Many companies would agree if you offered them to work 3 days a week for 60% of your salary. I've done it.
> Many companies would agree if you offered them to work 3 days a week for 60% of your salary. I've done it.
My last employer refused to even accept 4 days a week for 80%. Manager brought up how much the company had invested in training me as a grad (which, to be fair, they did), and that cutting my hours would have meant that investment had gone to waste.
I now work for them 0 days a week. Funny how that works.
My last employer refused to even accept 4 days a week for 80%. Manager brought up how much the company had invested in training me as a grad (which, to be fair, they did), and that cutting my hours would have meant that investment had gone to waste.
I now work for them 0 days a week. Funny how that works.
I'll never understand that concept that certain management types think they can keep you perpetually under a feeling of obligation alone.
Knowing the manager, he was extremely devoted to his work, the company and the craft. He was just holding holding me to his own standards.
I'm assuming this is a problem in a lot of organisations; the people who rise to the top are the ones who lean more towards work on the work-life balance scale.
I'm assuming this is a problem in a lot of organisations; the people who rise to the top are the ones who lean more towards work on the work-life balance scale.
> Knowing the manager, he was extremely devoted to his work, the company and the craft. He was just holding holding me to his own standards.
He doesn't seem to have attained a high level of proficiency in the craft of people management and employee retention, though :)
He doesn't seem to have attained a high level of proficiency in the craft of people management and employee retention, though :)
It can also just be an HR challenge in some organizations. It shouldn’t be, but sometimes organizations can get pretty rigid on how they define jobs and roles.
It is weird sometimes. Took me about ten recruiters reaching out before I finally found a company that was even willing to negotiate on vacation days. I have 23 vacation days a year, no thanks, I’m not going back to 15 until I work at your company for five years. Just accepted a new position with a 15% pay raise and 20 days, which when I do the math 23x=20x*1.15, which is funny because I came up with the number right on the spot and somehow did the math so I’d be getting equivalent monetary value benefits for my PTO.
And I am here complaining about my 30 vacation days. Good to get some perspective sometimes.
I'm quoting the GP:
> Especially in industries that require deep thinking, the output doesn't necessarily scale with # of hours a worker puts in, not every hour is the same. I think 10 hours of highly productive work is much better than 40 hours of busy work.
I absolutely agree with this, but I'm skeptical of a model that allows someone to come to work for only 10 hours and have those hours be the productive time. Especially for deep thinking work. My experience is that to push forward in work that requires creativity and deep thought, one needs to be immersed in it, while at the same time not pressured to come up with something on the spot. The immersion (often) requires a full time commitment to the work, even if some of that time is actually spent chatting with colleagues or wasting time on HN or whatever. Providing the needed freedom from pressure, but still enough pressure to get results, is a question of management, either personal or from good manager.
> Especially in industries that require deep thinking, the output doesn't necessarily scale with # of hours a worker puts in, not every hour is the same. I think 10 hours of highly productive work is much better than 40 hours of busy work.
I absolutely agree with this, but I'm skeptical of a model that allows someone to come to work for only 10 hours and have those hours be the productive time. Especially for deep thinking work. My experience is that to push forward in work that requires creativity and deep thought, one needs to be immersed in it, while at the same time not pressured to come up with something on the spot. The immersion (often) requires a full time commitment to the work, even if some of that time is actually spent chatting with colleagues or wasting time on HN or whatever. Providing the needed freedom from pressure, but still enough pressure to get results, is a question of management, either personal or from good manager.
I so agree with your point but I don’t see this ever happening in a corp type of employment. Maybe in a tightknit smallish company, working alongside likeminded people that could be the norm.
You're getting shafted
Heh. I did it too, as 'transition to retirement'. Liked it so much the transition bit didn't last too long.
I'm sure mine would too but whenever I think about the trade, I'd rather have more money and work the full time. Then I can buy an investment property and relax on the gains on the land.
Just remember: having a “later” is not guaranteed. Too much can happen between now and then.
My advice is to also enjoy the time you know you have: now. Even if it postpones the “later” for a bit.
My advice is to also enjoy the time you know you have: now. Even if it postpones the “later” for a bit.
Will they let/make people to leave the office at "5PM"? and force them to take earned holidays?
Might as well do something about nomikai[1] while they are at it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomikai
Might as well do something about nomikai[1] while they are at it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomikai
They're trying; they already punish employers whose reported timesheets show employees working above 40 hours/month overtime, and/or whose employees don't report taking off at least 5 days/year. This has certainly reduced reported overtime; the extent to which it has reduced actual overtime is disputed.
If not these are great ideas! And compliance can be measured and actioned (turn off lights automatically, lock out logins and emails on holidays).
I feel like anything the Japanese government does that only disincentivizes employees from overwork, without disincentivizing employers from expecting overwork, will only result in employees finding new and creative ways to overwork to appease their employers.
I worked in a couple of Japanese tech offices. Contracts and salary included prepaid overtime, to get around the government saying ALL overtime should be paid. But they must have also allowed up to 40 hours per month to be considered "reasonable", so that number was in the contract, and I'd only get overtime if I went over it. Felt like a shitty loophole to agree to, but luckily both companies were super cool and overtime was uncommon, but happened sometimes. So it felt like they'd just put it in as a convenience, like saying "there might be some overtime, but let's not deal with paperwork unless it gets out of hand". And the "40 hours" was paid regardless.
It would definitely be a convenient loophole for companies to continue shitty practices, so I think I just lucked out with the places I worked at.
It would definitely be a convenient loophole for companies to continue shitty practices, so I think I just lucked out with the places I worked at.
At the end of the day all that matters is how much one makes for when working full-time. I find it insulting that the employer acts like it is already paying you for a 2 hour per day overtime schedule on a salary that is already bad. To be clear Japanese salaries, in my experience, are bad. Slicing out some of the already low salary and claiming it is there just in case one does work overtime is not ok.
I think people might be a little confused about what the government is telegraphing here.
Japanese labour regulations are very strict, in particular around hours worked. Basically all employees (yes, including engineers) need to clock in and out, the concept of a "salaried worker" doesn't really exist, although normally engineers are paid for a certain number of hours regardless if they are actually worked. Primarily it is to make sure that overtime is paid and not excessive, but I believe there are also some related to the definition of what a "full time" job is.
So, it sounds to me like the government is considering relaxing those definitions on minimum hours worked to make it easier for firms to adopt 4 day work week if they so choose.
Japanese labour regulations are very strict, in particular around hours worked. Basically all employees (yes, including engineers) need to clock in and out, the concept of a "salaried worker" doesn't really exist, although normally engineers are paid for a certain number of hours regardless if they are actually worked. Primarily it is to make sure that overtime is paid and not excessive, but I believe there are also some related to the definition of what a "full time" job is.
So, it sounds to me like the government is considering relaxing those definitions on minimum hours worked to make it easier for firms to adopt 4 day work week if they so choose.
> Basically all employees (yes, including engineers) need to clock in and out, the concept of a "salaried worker" doesn't really exist
裁量労働制 certainly meets the spirit of "salaried worker" if not the letter ("need" to clock in for at least 1 minute to be counted as working for the day).
裁量労働制 certainly meets the spirit of "salaried worker" if not the letter ("need" to clock in for at least 1 minute to be counted as working for the day).
[deleted]
> the concept of a "salaried worker" doesn't really exist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaryman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaryman
I wonder what this will mean for all those teaching contracts that come in at 30mins short of a "full time" job, for the purposes of the company not having to pay benefits..
Tangential, but how many of us need a dedicated work time period at all?
I have a 15 minute standup every day, an hour long 1 on 1 once every two weeks, and the occasional meeting where I am genuinely needed and maybe 3 hours talking to another developer.
I would love to convert my job into a purely objectives driven thing with the only requirement being that I am online/in the office for those specific 5 or so hours a week.
I will take the risk that what I think takes a week of work runs over (forcing me to work on weekends) in exchange for that kind of flexibility.
I have a 15 minute standup every day, an hour long 1 on 1 once every two weeks, and the occasional meeting where I am genuinely needed and maybe 3 hours talking to another developer.
I would love to convert my job into a purely objectives driven thing with the only requirement being that I am online/in the office for those specific 5 or so hours a week.
I will take the risk that what I think takes a week of work runs over (forcing me to work on weekends) in exchange for that kind of flexibility.
That’s basically my life and it’s fantastic. I work 12 timezones away from my colleagues. Get real work done while they are asleep, stay up for occasional meetings, scheduled in advance.
I usually take two tickets at once, so if I get stuck and need help, I can switch to the other ticket until someone who can help me is awake.
I admittedly did this a few weeks during the pandemic. Worked through the night, attended standup, and then slept and went about my day, answering Slack stuff in the late afternoon. So productive.
On the other hand, I have 4-5 hours of meetings a day, often in scarce overlap hours between timezones. Having to take 10 different random schedules into account would be hell.
Sure, people could just work flexibly to accommodate the necessary meetings, but I'm my experience, that just leads to people being on call for 10-12 hours a day with no regular schedule.
In every company I have been part of, workers who didn't need dedicated work times simply didn't keep them. It is only becomes an issue if it doesn't work.
Sure, people could just work flexibly to accommodate the necessary meetings, but I'm my experience, that just leads to people being on call for 10-12 hours a day with no regular schedule.
In every company I have been part of, workers who didn't need dedicated work times simply didn't keep them. It is only becomes an issue if it doesn't work.
Will this be one of those Japanese quirks just like 5pm, where they say 4 day work week, but then still work 5-6 work weeks? Like sure, you can leave at 5, but do you want to be the person to leave at 5?
I worked in Japan for a while. My contract was saying 28.5 hours per week, but I was expected to work 40 hours+. This is where I went into discussions with my boss who was very angry at me and fired me on the same say I told him that I was expecting to work the hours that were mentioned in the contract. I had to clean up the desk and leave immediatly after that meeting.
Then I got in touch with the officials and lawyers. Labor law IS already strong in Japan, but it is the employees who do not demand it and the employers who do not follow it. The officials are running many campaigns to advertise equality and proper working hours. Just nobody cares.
Long story short - I got my salary paid ouf for a couple of months and could stay in Japan. Best time of my life and this is the way you should experience Japan: live there, DO NOT work, have enough money to support a certain lifestyle.
Now I am back to Germany and I am happy that I have a decently paid, low stress 40 hours work week, 100% home office, many perks, I am practially unfireable, 32 holidays per year and a worker friendly corporate culture.
Then I got in touch with the officials and lawyers. Labor law IS already strong in Japan, but it is the employees who do not demand it and the employers who do not follow it. The officials are running many campaigns to advertise equality and proper working hours. Just nobody cares.
Long story short - I got my salary paid ouf for a couple of months and could stay in Japan. Best time of my life and this is the way you should experience Japan: live there, DO NOT work, have enough money to support a certain lifestyle.
Now I am back to Germany and I am happy that I have a decently paid, low stress 40 hours work week, 100% home office, many perks, I am practially unfireable, 32 holidays per year and a worker friendly corporate culture.
How about they first do away with the culture of "have to show your face in the office until 7pm and then go drinking with your colleagues until midnight, or your wife will ask why you're home so early"?
How would the government of Japan do away with this? If it was more important than backing the 4 day work week, why don't you think it happened first?
It was kind of a snarky joke/commentary, I guess it was hard to convey the sentiment over text.
My impression is that the men are abandoning their wives to manage the ids, their own careers, and housework, not pressuring the men to stay away.
Would this have something to do with improving natality rates?
Well surely that is the only reason why they are pushing for it. And yet most of the discussions seems to be missing the point. ( Discussing Work hours without Japanese in the context )
I am not entirely sure if this will help though. Birth Rate in Japan, ( or in any nation ) is a complex issues. Both cultural and economics. Why would anyone want a baby when they can barely afford themselves decent standard of living? ( Standard being different from person to person )
I am not entirely sure if this will help though. Birth Rate in Japan, ( or in any nation ) is a complex issues. Both cultural and economics. Why would anyone want a baby when they can barely afford themselves decent standard of living? ( Standard being different from person to person )
> when they can barely afford themselves decent standard of living
Rent and food even in Tokyo is much cheaper than even medium sized cities in the states.
People might not be able to afford a luxurious lifestyle in Japan, and economists standard of living models may tell you otherwise, but the standard of living for a typical person in Japan is high
Rent and food even in Tokyo is much cheaper than even medium sized cities in the states.
People might not be able to afford a luxurious lifestyle in Japan, and economists standard of living models may tell you otherwise, but the standard of living for a typical person in Japan is high
Which is why I said ( Standard being different from person to person ).
Once it becomes a norm, people want more.
Once it becomes a norm, people want more.
You originally argued Japan has low birthrate because people can’t afford it.
There are macro and microeconomic reasons , but not being able to afford to raise a child is not one of them. Most of the reasons are social.
There are macro and microeconomic reasons , but not being able to afford to raise a child is not one of them. Most of the reasons are social.
I have been working 4 days a week or less for about a decade by now. It's been the single best improvement to my quality of life. I've got to spend more time with my family, hobby projects, learning new things and simply chilling out. I will never ever ever ever work 5 days again.
I read hopeful and idealistic (I’ve the same wish and hope, by the way) comments on HN and contrast it by thinking of CEOs and CTOs not even giving this news another second; laughing at it would mean it affected them in unimaginable ways.
Most of these “leaders”, especially in “startups”, have very short term goals - exit, acquisition, insane funding and valuations etc.
It’s not that they don’t think about employees burning out or lack of their well-being. They count on it. They know exactly what’s happening and they know that that 2<x> year old burning out (literally falling ill mentally and physically) after 7 month of hell, but wrote y number of functioning APIs, was a great success!
And that’s just software.
Most of these “leaders”, especially in “startups”, have very short term goals - exit, acquisition, insane funding and valuations etc.
It’s not that they don’t think about employees burning out or lack of their well-being. They count on it. They know exactly what’s happening and they know that that 2<x> year old burning out (literally falling ill mentally and physically) after 7 month of hell, but wrote y number of functioning APIs, was a great success!
And that’s just software.
I strongly suspect this has to do with Japan's low birth rate. But I would love a society where you only need to work three or four days a week. As they always say no one says on their deathbed I wish I spent more time at the office
Amazon supports the 8-day workweek for its warehouse workers.
Wouldn't it be cool if in addition to a 4 day work week, that those days could be flexible. It could actually benefit the both society and the company, as in the company is operating in some form 7 days a week for customers. And for society the 'weekend' is more flexible which improves traffic during the week and the overcrowding you typically find on saturday/sunday.
It is important to note that this announcement means that employers can opt to work for 4 days a week, with the corresponding reduction in salary. It is not reducing work week to 32h with the same salary! A similar scheme exists in the Netherlands, you are allowed to work 4 days a week AND you get paid for 4 days of work, so 80% salary.
[deleted]
I'm skeptical this will actually see wide adoption.
I don't mean to suggest this is a universal trend, but I remember being surprised to see that Tora no Ana, a comic book shop with tech company aspirations, advertised "super engineer" positions that let you work four days a week. But it turned out this was a position with higher qualifications than a normal engineer that just gave you the option of working four ten hour days instead of five eight hour ones.
https://www.toranoana.jp/recruit/super-engineer/
While the suggested four day work week here sounds like a real four days and not longer hours, I do think that managing company expectations will be difficult.
I don't mean to suggest this is a universal trend, but I remember being surprised to see that Tora no Ana, a comic book shop with tech company aspirations, advertised "super engineer" positions that let you work four days a week. But it turned out this was a position with higher qualifications than a normal engineer that just gave you the option of working four ten hour days instead of five eight hour ones.
https://www.toranoana.jp/recruit/super-engineer/
While the suggested four day work week here sounds like a real four days and not longer hours, I do think that managing company expectations will be difficult.
Shouldn’t the benefit of all our technology be the gaining of time for leisure and non-work pursuits?
Do they get paid the same though? I mean where I live, as an employee you have the RIGHT to work part-time if you want to - 40 hours is the norm, 36 is common (either one day off every two weeks or some manage to work 10h 4 days/week), some work 32 hours. But they get paid, vacation time, bonuses etc accordingly.
I went to 36 hours when I started my new job, but went back to 40 this year because I can manage with working from home, and because of the pandemic there were no pay raises last year - while cost of living is spiraling upwards because of rapidly increasing housing prices.
I went to 36 hours when I started my new job, but went back to 40 this year because I can manage with working from home, and because of the pandemic there were no pay raises last year - while cost of living is spiraling upwards because of rapidly increasing housing prices.
While I would like it, unfortunately it wouldn't work for things like customer-facing positions. If the business is open from 9am to 9pm then it still needs the same level of staff coverage. The company could either reduce pay proportionately, or keep paying the same salaries (and increase hourly workers' pay proportionately) and hire more people, incurring a 20% increase in labor costs.
> Takuya Hoshino, an economist at the Dai-ichi Life Research Institute, says simply introducing a four-day workweek may not necessarily encourage employees to use their time off in a way that benefits their careers or contributes to the economy.
The idea shouldn't be how this benefits their career and contributes to the economy, but how the individual can live a more balanced and healthy life.
The idea shouldn't be how this benefits their career and contributes to the economy, but how the individual can live a more balanced and healthy life.
The main driver for this may be Japan's demographic implosion, as stated in the first paragraph:
"...improve the balance between work and life...family care".
A three day weekend would give the salaryman/person some time with family.
Other countries are making policy changes as well. China is also planning to remove all caps on births to combat what they see as problematic demographics.
"...improve the balance between work and life...family care".
A three day weekend would give the salaryman/person some time with family.
Other countries are making policy changes as well. China is also planning to remove all caps on births to combat what they see as problematic demographics.
"Those who want more days off for such purposes as acquiring new skills and taking side jobs are not eligible for the program, he said."
Of course - why would a company want their employees to learn new skills on the side that could potentially lead to greater personal fulfillment -.-
Of course - why would a company want their employees to learn new skills on the side that could potentially lead to greater personal fulfillment -.-
This could make it a little more difficult to keep track of companies that have a 4 day week[0], but a good problem to have I guess!
[0] https://thelistofcompanies.com
[0] https://thelistofcompanies.com
I wonder if it would boost productivity
- to move to a 5-day week, instead of 7 by
- abolishing saturday and sunday
- We can have 3 days of work
- thursday & friday as weekend
4 Days but 18 hours work each day to "Keep productivity"
Obviously being facetious but the Japanese work ethic expectations are terrifying
Obviously being facetious but the Japanese work ethic expectations are terrifying
Correct me, but they want to cheapen the labor by adding more people do to the same job on a week timeline?
Start by giving them holidays. Even US companies give more holidays to their employees.
Uruguay they tried that: people ended up working two jobs and feeling/looking tired on both! People will find a way, always. Just keep 40h - at least they won't try to find a 2nd job elsewhere...
I think we eventually have to move to a 4 day work week because of employment. Switching to a 4 day work week creates jobs. The work will not be less when you switch to 4 days and to compensate you have to hire more people.
Even in Europe we have countries with a high rate of unemployment among young people.
Even in Europe we have countries with a high rate of unemployment among young people.
I kept wondering that when we are child it's almost impossible to study 8 hours a day all the time. Why should/could we work 8 hours as adult?
Maybe they should start with 8-hour days, then do a 4-day workweek XD
This is a genius move. The problem with japan's work culture is that its very hard to change the longer work hours. The alternative is to reduce the number of working days. This becomes level playing field for everyone and so there is good chance this will work, if it becomes law.
[deleted]
My guess is they’ll ask employees to work 4 10 hour days, and ask them to come in for extra work on Friday and Saturday as a ‘special exception’. Of course, now the 10 hour workday is normalized, so you can extract extra time on the other days too.
> For employers, while people working four days a week may become more motivated, this may not improve their productivity enough to compensate for the lost workday.
But why do we have to "compensate for the lost workday"? Let's just say that at this point in history we appreciate work-life balance more than before and we'll switch to 4-day weeks with the same paycheck.
But why do we have to "compensate for the lost workday"? Let's just say that at this point in history we appreciate work-life balance more than before and we'll switch to 4-day weeks with the same paycheck.
Why does the government need to be involved if employers actually get better productivity in the first place? Let employers experiment by themselves and see what works best. Another typical example of top-to-bottom leadership in Japan.
If the government doesn't make laws that define broad principles, capitalism will eat you alive.
Employers are greedy and evil. Their focus is profit maximization. Not employee well being.
Given the chance, do you really think employers will even give vacation days to employees? No way. They will want you to work 24/7 if the govt. is ok with it.
Employers are greedy and evil. Their focus is profit maximization. Not employee well being.
Given the chance, do you really think employers will even give vacation days to employees? No way. They will want you to work 24/7 if the govt. is ok with it.
ford & Westinghouse disagree with you, but that is possible only in non-feudalistic sectors and benevolent masters
> If the government doesn't make laws that define broad principles, capitalism will eat you alive.
Has it? Levels of life of the whole world are on the rise for the past 20 years at least - if you want to make that argument the current data does not support that at all.
Has it? Levels of life of the whole world are on the rise for the past 20 years at least - if you want to make that argument the current data does not support that at all.
Look up the industrial revolution and labor laws. Y'know, when things like child labor were outlawed. Good things, I hope you will agree.
Where do you think the salary comes from in the beginning?
At the beginning of civilized society? From the government itself. Then it slowly evolves into capital flow to people closely connected to the government (aristocrats, royalty, etc) and then to common people through banks.
You seem to imply that for any entrepreneurship, you need to have no worker protections at all. But that is simply false.
You seem to imply that for any entrepreneurship, you need to have no worker protections at all. But that is simply false.
> At the beginning of civilized society? From the government itself.
You seem to have no understanding that powerful states is a VERY recent invention in History.
You seem to have no understanding that powerful states is a VERY recent invention in History.
> From the government itself
There is no government possible without incomes that support it. You got this exactly the other way around.
There is no government possible without incomes that support it. You got this exactly the other way around.
[deleted]
Then you end up with 996 system that is good for employers but not for employees or society.
Same government that runs a debt to GDP ratio of 266%
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/spain-to-launc... (Spain to launch trial of four-day working week) 120% debt to GDP
For fun, the US is at 127%. Equity, debt, fiat, just rows in a database. If it doesn’t work out, what’s the worst that happens? We go back to few more hours a week? But if it does work, it’s time work evolves further.
For fun, the US is at 127%. Equity, debt, fiat, just rows in a database. If it doesn’t work out, what’s the worst that happens? We go back to few more hours a week? But if it does work, it’s time work evolves further.
Say you loan someone some money, and they just… don’t pay it back. Well, who cares right? After all, it’s just a number in your bank account.
Nation state finances are not the same as household finances.
This meme is just foolish and overly repeated. If we just printed money forever we’d be like Germany or Venezuela.
Do you really think that at large scales the need to watch spending just dissolves? Why do you think nations have budgets? Do you think it’s all a fun game?
If what you’re suggesting doesn’t work, people don’t just go back to work longer hours.
Some people die, some people lose their homes. Incredible.
But hey, just rows in a database. Tell that to families scraping by.
Do you really think that at large scales the need to watch spending just dissolves? Why do you think nations have budgets? Do you think it’s all a fun game?
If what you’re suggesting doesn’t work, people don’t just go back to work longer hours.
Some people die, some people lose their homes. Incredible.
But hey, just rows in a database. Tell that to families scraping by.
I think it’s reasonable to iterate and experiment with policy without devolving to extreme positions such as your comment.
We’ve forgiven $3 billion in student loan debt in the US, for various legitimate reasons, without consequence for example. Yes, the US has more power to do this because it’s a reserve currency, and no you can’t do it forever, but there is room to experiment when you’re a nation state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/06/16/biden-h...
We’ve forgiven $3 billion in student loan debt in the US, for various legitimate reasons, without consequence for example. Yes, the US has more power to do this because it’s a reserve currency, and no you can’t do it forever, but there is room to experiment when you’re a nation state.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/06/16/biden-h...
There really isn't a consequence here, it's just taxpayers paying off other people's student loans.
Big mistake.
It was the 5-6 day week that built modern Japan.
A lot of people are talking about cutting back on days everywhere.
But now, more than ever, is when we need to be working harder to get back to where we were before.
(Of course, my attitude to these things is shaped by being a business owner -- not an employee. So take with that point of view)
A lot of people are talking about cutting back on days everywhere.
But now, more than ever, is when we need to be working harder to get back to where we were before.
(Of course, my attitude to these things is shaped by being a business owner -- not an employee. So take with that point of view)
What's with this obsession to 'get back to where we were before'?
Where we were before was broken, and the pandemic helped reveal that. Poor work/life balance, income inequality, industries built on JIT processes which fail spectacularly when the unexpected happens (see lumber, shipping containers, semiconductors, etc), an unfortunate wake-up call that even with entire industries shut down and almost no flights and cars on the road we only reduced emissions by 13% so we're going to need to make incredible sacrifices and green-tech investments if we even want to hope at our promised 50% reduction by 2030.
We shouldn't hope to get to where we were before. We should try to be better, and perhaps learn to live with less, because on a global scale we're not going to have a choice before too long whether we do it consciously or have it forced on us.
Where we were before was broken, and the pandemic helped reveal that. Poor work/life balance, income inequality, industries built on JIT processes which fail spectacularly when the unexpected happens (see lumber, shipping containers, semiconductors, etc), an unfortunate wake-up call that even with entire industries shut down and almost no flights and cars on the road we only reduced emissions by 13% so we're going to need to make incredible sacrifices and green-tech investments if we even want to hope at our promised 50% reduction by 2030.
We shouldn't hope to get to where we were before. We should try to be better, and perhaps learn to live with less, because on a global scale we're not going to have a choice before too long whether we do it consciously or have it forced on us.
Green Tech isn't the savior we need. Flat out there needs to be a consumption revolution worldwide. Even if say we were all driving electric cars, on top of the energy required for normal everyday life now, you're also adding powering those cars. The necessary "reliable" green energy generation for that to happen is nothing short of trillions of dollars (when I say reliable, I mean exactly as you use it today). Yes I'm pulling that number out of my butt, although I'm in major power company in the country. Over 85% of our power generation is from non-renewables like natural gas and coal. Why? Well for one thing Natural resource departments don't like us damming up rivers as well as Joe "Second Home" Schmoe. On top of that, wind is unreliable or if it's too windy we can't use them so the turbine doesn't obliterate from too much torque. Sun? Where is the sun in winter?
I get so upset about people who think green energy is the answer when they don't realize it's not feasible if you want your current lifestyle. People altogether need to stop driving so much, spending so much, and living more modestly. I guarantee you without even switching to green energy we'd see a higher drop in non-renewable usage.
I get so upset about people who think green energy is the answer when they don't realize it's not feasible if you want your current lifestyle. People altogether need to stop driving so much, spending so much, and living more modestly. I guarantee you without even switching to green energy we'd see a higher drop in non-renewable usage.
> People altogether need to stop driving so much, spending so much, and living more modestly.
Yeah I believe I said that when I said we need to make large sacrifices, I just didn't specify what those sacrifices were exactly.
I don't think green tech is the end-all be-all. I honestly think we're kind of fucked either way (if anything I was holding back, I've been reading some pretty bleak shit about how impossible this task will be and how bad things can get, but this is Hacker News and most people here don't seem to be receptive to that). Clean tech is just part of reducing the degree of how fucked we are, at least slightly.
And I also think nuclear energy needs to be part of that solution to bring down emissions as well, at least for now. I haven't been against nuclear power for a long time, and was disappointed how people shunned it again after Fukushima.
Yeah I believe I said that when I said we need to make large sacrifices, I just didn't specify what those sacrifices were exactly.
I don't think green tech is the end-all be-all. I honestly think we're kind of fucked either way (if anything I was holding back, I've been reading some pretty bleak shit about how impossible this task will be and how bad things can get, but this is Hacker News and most people here don't seem to be receptive to that). Clean tech is just part of reducing the degree of how fucked we are, at least slightly.
And I also think nuclear energy needs to be part of that solution to bring down emissions as well, at least for now. I haven't been against nuclear power for a long time, and was disappointed how people shunned it again after Fukushima.
One reason we don't do nuclear is not enough people are skilled in it, we don't want to invest in building them after just having decommissioned two, and they are the ultimate NIMBY powerplant. Tell people there's a coal plant and they may get upset. Tell them there's a nuclear power plant after just having seen the HBO series Chernobyl and guess how fast they'll be knocking down the city governments door to not allow it. You're spot on really. People just don't trust it and there's nothing we can do about it.
I think what gets people so stuck on this problem is that nothing solves it. Everything is only x% of the problem, everyone is only a tiny contributor. We need to solve everything and all the percents add up to solving it.
Green energy is not the end of the solution but it is part of it. It's also quite a big part of it.
Green energy is not the end of the solution but it is part of it. It's also quite a big part of it.
It is not unless we can reliably store energy, which we still can't. If there was some way we could store megawatts of power on reserve, it would offset the unreliability. But when you have 7 billion + people in the world, you can't stop what's already in motion.
> What's with this obsession to 'get back to where we were before'?
> Where we were before was broken,
Not for the people with dominant power over society, including over the media organizations that write the narratives fed to the masses.
And that's the answer to your question.
> Where we were before was broken,
Not for the people with dominant power over society, including over the media organizations that write the narratives fed to the masses.
And that's the answer to your question.
Good point, fair enough. We should push back against that narrative, then, I guess is my point.
Honestly, I can only imagine this is informed by a relatively privileged place in society.
First of all, your focus on this boogeyman of work/life balance assumes that all but a small percent of the global population even has enough autonomy in their employment to enjoy any balance whatsoever. Most everyone in the world is at sustenance levels of labor, "work/life balance" is the work of being alive. Secondly, JIT everything worked for the past 100 years, failed during an unprecedented in history event (we've had pandemics, but we've never "shut down" society) and will probably recover to do well until the next once-in-a-century event. Solving the global emissions crises isn't going to occur via the wealthiest working remotely or "learning to live with less". Population growth is far and away the biggest contributor to global climate change. Not your commute to the office, but growing enough food, building enough homes and providing for nearly 10 billion people and counting. Again, most of these people don't have anywhere near the luxury of bemoaning a poor work/life balance.
It is so telling that the answer you see to solve the woes of modern society -- which as you are commenting on HN, you and me and the rest of us are beneficiaries of -- is to work less and remotely. What sacrifice you make for the good of the world!
I am sorry I just am beyond over the sanctimony and self-importance of everyone. Now that _you_ have _yours_ and can relax in relative comfort, lets call it a day and cut off the engine that rose you and yours out of poverty for those poor schmucks still dreaming of the comfort of a 40-hour work week.
First of all, your focus on this boogeyman of work/life balance assumes that all but a small percent of the global population even has enough autonomy in their employment to enjoy any balance whatsoever. Most everyone in the world is at sustenance levels of labor, "work/life balance" is the work of being alive. Secondly, JIT everything worked for the past 100 years, failed during an unprecedented in history event (we've had pandemics, but we've never "shut down" society) and will probably recover to do well until the next once-in-a-century event. Solving the global emissions crises isn't going to occur via the wealthiest working remotely or "learning to live with less". Population growth is far and away the biggest contributor to global climate change. Not your commute to the office, but growing enough food, building enough homes and providing for nearly 10 billion people and counting. Again, most of these people don't have anywhere near the luxury of bemoaning a poor work/life balance.
It is so telling that the answer you see to solve the woes of modern society -- which as you are commenting on HN, you and me and the rest of us are beneficiaries of -- is to work less and remotely. What sacrifice you make for the good of the world!
I am sorry I just am beyond over the sanctimony and self-importance of everyone. Now that _you_ have _yours_ and can relax in relative comfort, lets call it a day and cut off the engine that rose you and yours out of poverty for those poor schmucks still dreaming of the comfort of a 40-hour work week.
I mean, this is Hacker News, most people here are in a privileged place compared to the rest of the world. That's kind of the audience.
I'm fully aware not everyone is in this position to request or push for work/life balance. I've worked a decent amount of shitty jobs in my day, in fast food, retail, shipping/receiving, warehouse work. I've gone through periods where I was so physically exhausted after work I didn't do much more than go home and pass out and wake up and go back to work again. It sucks. And I don't know what they can do exactly, I'm too far removed from that now.
I believe I did say that shutting down and working remotely brought our emissions down only 13%, not "solving the global emissions crisis". I said it was a painful wake-up call that even with all that happened last year, it wasn't anywhere near enough. So we need to try to do as much of that as possible and a lot, lot more if we are to get anywhere close.
I don't know what that might be. I was listening to Bill Gates' 'How to Avoid a Climate Catastrophe' and he thinks there's several technologies that can possibly get our emissions to zero in the next decade or two. But after listening to that book I'm more dubious than he is. It sounded like even with his optimism he just inadvertently kept making a case for how fucking hard it is, how every piece of the solution has downsides and problems to overcome to work at scale, and how there's no way we're going to change enough hearts and minds or provide enough incentives to do enough to get us to 50% reduction in the next decade, or all the way down to zero by 2050.
I don't think just staying home means we solved it, not by a long shot. We (and I mean corporations in this too, they're the bigger culprits than individuals) need to be doing all the things and a whole lot more, if possible, and even then I don't see it being enough totally avert catastrophe. I'm just hoping instead of like, 4-8 degrees warming (and likely human extinction or near extinction), maybe we'll somehow bring it down to only 2-3 degrees of warming. And that will still lead to terrible things.
And it'll be hard to give up creature comforts. I'm failing pretty hard at this more than I'd like to myself right now. I'm trying to get better, though, but even if I do, it's going to make such a tiny, unnoticeable difference by itself.
We can expect things to get fucking bad regardless, I think, I'm just hoping we can make things slightly less bad instead of everyone just shrugging our shoulders and accelerating and steering directly into the iceberg.
I'm fully aware not everyone is in this position to request or push for work/life balance. I've worked a decent amount of shitty jobs in my day, in fast food, retail, shipping/receiving, warehouse work. I've gone through periods where I was so physically exhausted after work I didn't do much more than go home and pass out and wake up and go back to work again. It sucks. And I don't know what they can do exactly, I'm too far removed from that now.
I believe I did say that shutting down and working remotely brought our emissions down only 13%, not "solving the global emissions crisis". I said it was a painful wake-up call that even with all that happened last year, it wasn't anywhere near enough. So we need to try to do as much of that as possible and a lot, lot more if we are to get anywhere close.
I don't know what that might be. I was listening to Bill Gates' 'How to Avoid a Climate Catastrophe' and he thinks there's several technologies that can possibly get our emissions to zero in the next decade or two. But after listening to that book I'm more dubious than he is. It sounded like even with his optimism he just inadvertently kept making a case for how fucking hard it is, how every piece of the solution has downsides and problems to overcome to work at scale, and how there's no way we're going to change enough hearts and minds or provide enough incentives to do enough to get us to 50% reduction in the next decade, or all the way down to zero by 2050.
I don't think just staying home means we solved it, not by a long shot. We (and I mean corporations in this too, they're the bigger culprits than individuals) need to be doing all the things and a whole lot more, if possible, and even then I don't see it being enough totally avert catastrophe. I'm just hoping instead of like, 4-8 degrees warming (and likely human extinction or near extinction), maybe we'll somehow bring it down to only 2-3 degrees of warming. And that will still lead to terrible things.
And it'll be hard to give up creature comforts. I'm failing pretty hard at this more than I'd like to myself right now. I'm trying to get better, though, but even if I do, it's going to make such a tiny, unnoticeable difference by itself.
We can expect things to get fucking bad regardless, I think, I'm just hoping we can make things slightly less bad instead of everyone just shrugging our shoulders and accelerating and steering directly into the iceberg.
My main thesis is that this is almost purely a population problem. The developed world can give up all their creature comforts and it would still not nearly be enough to even put a dent in anything.
We are already dealing with famine and disease in many places of the world. Independent of whether or not this is climate caused, we can't solve it without expending large resources and using the industrial might that we've built.
The conundrum is that the place with massive population growth aren't really the places with the resources to implement green energy solutions. Coal is easier, coal is cheaper. Yes, the developed world's love of meat is a major source of deforestation, but so is the need to grow the food to feed 10 billion people.
Retarding population growth is _the_ single biggest thing we can do as a species to reduce climate damage. This is one of the reasons I am not planning to have kids, when I die the relative population to my existence drops by one. Even if my kid rode their bike their whole life, lived in a climate friendly passive heating/cooling house and ate locally sourced food, their existence would produce more climate gasses than my ICE could ever dream of producing.
We are already dealing with famine and disease in many places of the world. Independent of whether or not this is climate caused, we can't solve it without expending large resources and using the industrial might that we've built.
The conundrum is that the place with massive population growth aren't really the places with the resources to implement green energy solutions. Coal is easier, coal is cheaper. Yes, the developed world's love of meat is a major source of deforestation, but so is the need to grow the food to feed 10 billion people.
Retarding population growth is _the_ single biggest thing we can do as a species to reduce climate damage. This is one of the reasons I am not planning to have kids, when I die the relative population to my existence drops by one. Even if my kid rode their bike their whole life, lived in a climate friendly passive heating/cooling house and ate locally sourced food, their existence would produce more climate gasses than my ICE could ever dream of producing.
> Retarding population growth is _the_ single biggest thing we can do as a species to reduce climate damage
Retarding economic growth is, a better candidate, if you limit it to “retarding growth”; you’d need substantial and rapid population reduction (not just “retarding growth”) to offset the expected effects of near term economic development outside of the West.
Obviously, the biggest thing we could do to end anthropogenic clomate change is species-scale mass suicide. No anthropos, no anthropogenic climate change.
OTOH, most people who want to address that problem don’t actually think that doing the most we can on that unconditionally overrides all other concerns.
Retarding economic growth is, a better candidate, if you limit it to “retarding growth”; you’d need substantial and rapid population reduction (not just “retarding growth”) to offset the expected effects of near term economic development outside of the West.
Obviously, the biggest thing we could do to end anthropogenic clomate change is species-scale mass suicide. No anthropos, no anthropogenic climate change.
OTOH, most people who want to address that problem don’t actually think that doing the most we can on that unconditionally overrides all other concerns.
That is sort-of the subtext of my thinking on this whole thing. Want to limit famine? You will warm the globe. Want to cool the planet? Production and industrialization needs to halt which will increase famine.
It is all a balancing act and I am not convinced any balance we find won't result in massive suffering and loss of life somewhere.
It is all a balancing act and I am not convinced any balance we find won't result in massive suffering and loss of life somewhere.
Different times. There was a time you needed hands on deck; you needed many many people doing hard, mechanic work.
This is a time where you need minds on deck. The "knowledge worker" as some places call it. You stretch them too thin and you get less for you money and time.
Is a 4 day week better? I don't know. But I know it's not the same context as it was too years ago.
This is a time where you need minds on deck. The "knowledge worker" as some places call it. You stretch them too thin and you get less for you money and time.
Is a 4 day week better? I don't know. But I know it's not the same context as it was too years ago.
The objective of work is not "to work", its to be productive. If a 4 day week is more productive than a 5 day, why wouldn't you support it as a business owner?
> The objective of work is not "to work", its to be productive.
Exactly. Which is why of all governments the Japanese one is pushing the 4 day week is really surprising. Here the mentality is really to work for the show, even if resulting in no increase of production whatsoever.
Exactly. Which is why of all governments the Japanese one is pushing the 4 day week is really surprising. Here the mentality is really to work for the show, even if resulting in no increase of production whatsoever.
Not a business owner, but I have a household.
There's always more stuff to be done and it needs to be done faster to keep up.
However I can't just expect everyone to keep "working harder" without sacrificing the household itself.
Just letting things lapse, optimizing for speed through technology, and lowering expectations (un)surprisingly end up with a healthy household.
Business can be run the same way.
There's always more stuff to be done and it needs to be done faster to keep up.
However I can't just expect everyone to keep "working harder" without sacrificing the household itself.
Just letting things lapse, optimizing for speed through technology, and lowering expectations (un)surprisingly end up with a healthy household.
Business can be run the same way.
In the short-term, overwork provides a productivity boost. But in the long-term, makes people less productive, people waste their time more... and the worst part: they neglect activities outside work. Like being with their families, or starting a family, or looking for a partner.
Only an owner would feel that way. Without significant equity, what's the point?
The worker gets nothing except less life and more stress. The owner sucks up all the benefit.
The worker gets nothing except less life and more stress. The owner sucks up all the benefit.
I find the whole balance rather interesting.
The worker thinks 'without my work, the owner would have nothing!'
The owner thinks 'without my business, the worker would have nothing.'
The truth is, both are right, to different degrees depending on the circumstances. A good owner should make workers feel they have a stake, whether by salary or ownership. A good worker should make the owner believe they are making a good decision by paying them.
I have no answer to the debate in the title, I just find this little sub-argument fascinating.
The worker thinks 'without my work, the owner would have nothing!'
The owner thinks 'without my business, the worker would have nothing.'
The truth is, both are right, to different degrees depending on the circumstances. A good owner should make workers feel they have a stake, whether by salary or ownership. A good worker should make the owner believe they are making a good decision by paying them.
I have no answer to the debate in the title, I just find this little sub-argument fascinating.
Perhaps society would be better off if more of us were owners?
You need a healthy mix of workers and owners. Those owners need incentives, and workers need protection.
Money is a powerful drug and society needs to tame the habit. Otherwise, you will end up with conditions equal to slavery for the workers and royalty for the capital owners.
All this will lead to is revolutions and bloodshed.
Its ok to sacrifice rapid growth, in cycles, to steady but slower growth that has none.
Money is a powerful drug and society needs to tame the habit. Otherwise, you will end up with conditions equal to slavery for the workers and royalty for the capital owners.
All this will lead to is revolutions and bloodshed.
Its ok to sacrifice rapid growth, in cycles, to steady but slower growth that has none.
It would definitely be better off if more people felt they were participating in economic growth. Over the last few decades most growth has gone to a small number of people and the rest didn't really benefit. This leads to a very cynical and resigned attitude.
[deleted]
Not really possible. If everyone is an owner, no one is an owner. You can try completely abolishing the worker/owner dichotomy though, which is very difficult but probably possible.
That's what the creator economy is!
> It was the 5-6 day week that built modern Japan
Are you sure that is because of employees slogging in factories?
Productive people outside of work will develop and nurture their passions. That is a net positive effect on the economy. This leads to new innovations, companies and benefit to the economy.
Are you sure that is because of employees slogging in factories?
Productive people outside of work will develop and nurture their passions. That is a net positive effect on the economy. This leads to new innovations, companies and benefit to the economy.
"But now, more than ever, is when we need to be working harder to get back to where we were before."
the question is whether working more really leads to working harder and more output. From what I see most people just go through the motion after a certain amount of work per week. They look busy and feel busy but I am not sure the output is there. I personally I am most productive if I work around 32 hours per week with some spurts of much more work in between.
the question is whether working more really leads to working harder and more output. From what I see most people just go through the motion after a certain amount of work per week. They look busy and feel busy but I am not sure the output is there. I personally I am most productive if I work around 32 hours per week with some spurts of much more work in between.
So how do you explain the last thirty years in Japan? Was there a decrease in work ethic?
Furthermore, people are so worked to the bone that they forgot about having kids and raising families.
human labour is becoming less and less relevant in production of goods & services, society must find a balance between an everdominant capital and diminuishing labour value (as a whole), keeping busy all hours in bullshit jobs is not the same as 50 years ago (from a global perspective)
Only given highly parallelizable tasks wherein input linearly maps to output, e.g. picking corn, laying train tracks, chopping trees, etc.
Technology increases leverage allowing exponential outputs given the right inputs.
Overworking employees ceases to be a viable strategy for high tech industries.
Technology increases leverage allowing exponential outputs given the right inputs.
Overworking employees ceases to be a viable strategy for high tech industries.
In tech it's very likely someone going from 5 days to 4 days could still achieve the same amount of actual work. As other commenters have said, many tech workers don't do productive work all the time they're present. Retail workers, factory workers, people who fill in the holes in roads, telephone support people, etc aren't contending with pointless meetings and busy work though. They can't do 40 hours of work in 32 hours by removing some of the hours they're not really working. What they do doesn't compress like that.
Consequently looking at this from the context of tech workers is far less interesting. The Japanese government isn't saying "Let's get rid of pointless meetings and busy work!" In tech removing the pointless nonsense isn't actually reducing the amount of real work people do. Instead, Japan is saying "Our country is wealthy enough and advanced enough that our people can actually do less work." That's fascinating.
If you see this as "removing the wasteful time spent on things that aren't useful like meetinga" then you've missed the point. It is that, but it's much, much more than that too.