Study Discovers Workers Maintained the Same Productivity With Shorter Work Weeks (msn.com) 172
Bloomberg reports:
Even as the Covid-19 pandemic forced companies around the world to reimagine the workplace, researchers in Iceland were already conducting two trials of a shorter work week that involved about 2,500 workers — more than 1% of the country's working population. They found that the experiment was an "overwhelming success" — workers were able to work less, get paid the same, while maintaining productivity and improving personal well-being.
The Iceland research has been one of the few large, formal studies on the subject...
[Workers] were helped by their organizations which took concerted steps like introducing formal training programs on time-management to teach them how to reduce their hours while maintaining productivity. The trials also worked because both employees and employers were flexible, willing to experiment and make changes when something didn't work. In some cases, employers had to add a few hours back after cutting them too much...
Participants in the Iceland study reduced their hours by three to five hours per week without losing pay.
The Iceland research has been one of the few large, formal studies on the subject...
[Workers] were helped by their organizations which took concerted steps like introducing formal training programs on time-management to teach them how to reduce their hours while maintaining productivity. The trials also worked because both employees and employers were flexible, willing to experiment and make changes when something didn't work. In some cases, employers had to add a few hours back after cutting them too much...
Participants in the Iceland study reduced their hours by three to five hours per week without losing pay.
There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:5, Informative)
In short, the stuff you keep hearing from pro-corporate media is all provably nonsense. But they own the media so we keep hearing it again and again. Just like how trickle down economics comes back every few years with folks talking about tax cuts "energizing the economy".
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:5, Funny)
higher minimum wages shrinks the wealth gap, you're stealing from the rich when you do this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
higher minimum wages shrinks the wealth gap
The problem with using Denmark as an example of a higher minimum wage is that Denmark doesn't have a minimum wage.
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:4, Interesting)
Denmark doesn't need a minimum wage because the government acts as a union for everyone.. The government negotiates on behalf of everyone in all industries, and part of those negotiations is per industry minimums.
For all intents and purposes they do (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That would really only work as a comparison if the US brought in universal union membership.
Which I would not be opposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be a lot more useful than paying extra to the pimply faced teenager who always manages to screw up my order.
So just to be clear you're angry that your order's always wrong and the last thing you want to do is make sure someone besides an uncaring teenager can do the task.
kay.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with giving the uncaring teenager a minimum wage pay raise is: it does not incentivize the teenager to do the job any better.
Read my post again, this time ALL the words.
Re: (Score:2)
Google it (Score:3)
Re: Google it (Score:2)
For balance, do you venture to right wing press, I mean the sites of fools like Alex Jones?
Re: (Score:2)
So you've "done your own research" but you're also careful to avoid selection bias?
I totally believe you.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment suggests strongly that worker pay is a trivially small expense for the business.
Or that Danish fast-food workers are more productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that Danish fast food workers share the productivity gains of the last few decades, unlike those on many other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that Danish fast food workers share the productivity gains of the last few decades, unlike those on many other countries.
That is probably the real reason. In some set-ups, only the rich get richer and everybody else actually gets poorer. In others, everybody at least gets a part of the increased wealth of society. Guess which of the two models has a long-term future...
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:5, Informative)
Cost gets passed onto the customer, the actual market rate cost for a Big Mac is 75c higher in Denmark.
Not true. The latest Big Mac Index [globalprice.info] shows that Big Macs are cheaper in Denmark: $4.68 vs $5.67 in America.
Re: (Score:2)
cite your own source next time, or don't bother posting
Re: (Score:2)
> whatever you think you gained just goes right back to the government.
Try getting kids and getting sick in USA vs. Denmark. The money you give to government in Denmark comes back to you.
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't America. What goes to the government goes back to the people. Taxes are evil as declared by Americans who are then perplexed and dumbfounded that Denmark's infrastructure isn't falling down, education is cheap and high quality, a trip to the hospital won't bankrupt you, and your potential unemployment isn't an issue due to social security.
But yeah fuck that good shit, I need 30% more pay to replace the damaged shock absorbers in my car so I can go off-roading through the inner city.
Re: There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:3)
Citation please. Thanks. Also, why should the business owner who is hiring unskilled labor take the burden? It seems the best way to fund minimum wage is via universal basic income. If a small store owner hires someone as an extra hand or whatever, why is it he has to take the burden of paying above market rate? Meanwhile, the store across the street that automated and didnâ(TM)t hire anyone will make more profit. How is that fair? Think about it, and similar scenarios carefully.
By the way, in general
Re: (Score:2)
"Market rate" is the rate at which people can be hired. If someone has to pay "above market rate", they are not actually offering market rate. They are offering below market rate, and the increase required is to GET TO market rate.
The business owner should take the burden because it is the business owner who needs the work done. If the business owner doesn't make enough from the business to cover ACTUAL market rates (as opposed to your imaginary "market rate" which is lower than what people will work for),
Re: There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:2)
So automation, then? And what happens to the worker?
Re: (Score:3)
What happens to the worker is whatever happens to the worker. The only choice available if you want to keep people working unskilled labor for sub-market pay is forcing them to do so against their will.
We used to call that "slavery". It appears to be something a fair chunk of people want to bring back, for some reason. Presumably people who feel certain they will not be the slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
The market rate isn't minimum wage. Market rate is below minimum wage. If market rate was minimum wage, minimum wage wouldn't need to exist. As for against their will, nobody is being forced to work. Slaves were forced to work by the slave holder. What company is forcing anyone to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Give me Denmark's income tax rate of 12.11% (15% on incomes over about $85,000), together with 8% Labor Market Contributions Rate, 2% Healthcare Contribution Rate, 24.954% Denmark Municipal Tax and 25% VAT!
Important to note that all these taxes together are essential a flat tax, i.e. hardly progressive at all. With the benefits evenly distributed as well, rich Americans could only dream of such a system. In the USA, "the rich" are paying more (federal, state, local and others) and getting less in return (
Re: (Score:2)
I haven’t even bothered looking at your links, because that information is bullshit.
I live here. My wife earns an average salary, I’m up at the top of tax brackets. Tax rate is progressive up to about 50%. My wife pays around 30-35% of her paycheck. There’s also a scheme to import foreign workers where you can get a special flat tax that totals out around 34% (called 48e taxation) for a few years.
Definitely not flat; very far from it. Not that I mind; I get good value here, kids are safe,
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of living in Denmark is quite high compared to the states.
You can see it in smaller houses, property, appliances, fuel, energy, etc.
Personally I think it's a great country but I recognize the reality that the cost of living in the U.S. is lower.
But in Denmark, you have better protection from bad luck and hard times with a bit more reliance on the rest of society and a bit higher taxes. And I know people say taxes are much higher but when you include social security, many U.S. citizens pay about 5
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, those high taxes fully cover healthcare. Can you imagine the premiums you'd pay in the U.S. for full healthcare coverage with no co-pay, no deductible, and no cap?
Re: (Score:2)
Not a bad FP, though I have to agree with a comment about how it's unfair to compare anything in America to anything in Denmark.
But I was actually looking for (or hoping for) something about corporations whining "But since they're working fewer hours, why can't we cut their salaries, too?" (Now focused on the searches for "fewer" and "salar", but didn't find any good matches for this angle in the discussion.)
Re: (Score:2)
Without actual experiments, it comes down to common sense, which is often wrong. Economics has very little experimentation in it, just people who know the obvious, even when the obvious proves itself wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and it's a trivial matter to find well-credentialed economics who'll make convincing arguments in the other direction. A Nobel Prize for a study doesn't close the debate.
First, Denmark doe
Re: (Score:2)
... with only a small handful of outsiders allowing massively reduced social and economic enforcement costs
Are you suggesting the $2 billion in damage is actually passed down to consumers! /s
https://nypost.com/2020/09/16/... [nypost.com]
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Business Insider is a bunch of liars?
Do you know why it's called "Business Insider"? That's a middle finger at the SEC. The founder of Business Insider, Henry Blodget [wikipedia.org], was convicted of insider trading on Wall Street and banned from the financial industry. Don't bother reading anything from that site.
So when they link to well researched studies (Score:2)
Re: There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:2)
Yes. Business insider is a joke. Almost every headline they post is wrong. Their articles are filled with factual errors and logical fallacies. For example, this article is citing the pay rate for employees over the age of 20. Do you think McDonalds might employ some people under 20? Strangeâ¦
Re: (Score:2)
Chinabot trying to spread misinformation is as usual failing to read contents of his own link:
>This is the average monthly salary including housing, transport, and other benefits. Salaries vary drastically between different Food / Hospitality / Tourism / Catering careers.
Re:There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:5, Informative)
The higher minimum wages do cause issues, lower qualified workers such as high school students, people with lower mental capabilities and women have lower participation rates in those countries.
I looked up the rates for ages 15-24, as that's the closest easily discoverable statistic for high school students, lower qualified (young) workers, although confounded a bit by university rates, but they are pretty much identical USA and Denmark as far as I can tell. Participation rate for 15-24 is 61% in Denmark, 52% in the USA.
Even a McDonald’s worker will be paying roughly 30% in income taxes, which takes the effective wage rate closer to $12 an hour
So I checked that too. At $22/hr it works about at about 250,000 Krone per year, assuming I got that right, and then I hopped onto tax calculators. The actual income tax on that is 27000 Krone. It's a little hard to map it 100% onto US wages and deductions, though. Denmark: Personal exemption 46,700.00. Labour Market Contributions 20,000.00. Church Tax 1,685.00. Healthcare Contribution 5,000.00. Municipal Tax 55,726.03. Income Tax Due 27,043.45. Take home, 104k Krone, or about $17k.
A US example would give you $31,400 take home on the same wage, but not include property taxes or healthcare. A typical healthcare plan for 18-24 is going to run $250 a month, so the take home then becomes $28,500. So let's assuming $3600 per year, split four ways, so now effective take home becomes $27,600 if the person ends up paying it (e.g. a house share).
So the disparity isn't 2.2:1 (what $12/hr gross would imply), but more like 1.6.1. However, the Dane probably gets more in services for that, although you can argue to what extent it is worth. Danes seem to be quite happy, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: There's also a Nobel prize winning study (Score:2)
If by cheaper you mean fully paid by shares taxes, then yes. ;-)
That excludes cosmetic things, of course, but health-related issues, doctor visits, all covered for everyone here.
Re: (Score:2)
Note: I used "low oay" instead of minimum wage to avoid the " we don 't gave a minumum wage in x" response
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but I'd wager healthcare is quire a bit cheaper in Denmark than in NY
There was a good article in the Washington Post some time ago, showing that the US health system manages to deliver inferior health outcomes for much higher costs, when compared to other developed nations. I can't find the link now. Scandinavian countries scored the best on the public health versus cost metric, with most of Europe not far behind. The US was way off. What I got from the article is that healthcare facilities in the US are world-leading, but the costs are so high that many people can't afford
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Denmark scores pretty good on the happiness spectrum, something that I'd argue is more important then other things.
This, https://www.gfmag.com/global-d... [gfmag.com] puts them at number 2 and this, https://ourworldindata.org/hap... [ourworldindata.org] number 3. America is about number 19.
Now some people don't think a happy live is something to strive for and it is better to be a Scrooge with lots of money and no fun. It's all personal preference.
Re: (Score:2)
And, of course, only McDonald's workers pay 30% in taxes, not everyone making that same income.
Americans, on the other hand pay no taxes.
Yes, for office workers (Score:5, Insightful)
If all you're doing is pushing paper then yes, you can get your work done in a shorter work week. Now try that as IT admin keeping those servers running, or the IT staff keeping the hardware the users are using running.
Truck driver? Mechanic? Wastewater treatment plant operator? Store clerk? Mortician? (Ok, maybe the last one if you're draining multiple bodies at a time)
Almost any non-office job will not be able to do this because those are the jobs keeping everyone else running. You can't shorten your work week if your presence is needed every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If your servers need 40 hours a week of maintenance then you are doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
When I did manual labour, often I'd spend the mornings fixing the stuff I fucked up due to tiredness the evening before. For me, after about 6-7 hours, I started making mistakes.
I wouldn't be surprised that a lot of jobs are similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You don't need to have one person cover all the days. And you shouldn't. If you are risking your business on the hopes that your IT guy never gets sick you deserve to go out of business.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't shorten your work week if your presence is needed every day.
OK, most people can't just go home when they don't feel like working, because they more than likely have an employment contract that stipulates hours to be worked. But who writes the employment contract? Not the employee, that's for sure.
The thing is, an employer generally needs to make working for them attractive, so offering poor wages and conditions would mean that the only people prepared to work for you are useless plonkers. There is some basic economics going on here. You could seek to increase profit
Re: (Score:2)
You're supposed to hire more people so each one has a lighter load.
Tell that to government. Any time they want to hire people whine about their tax dollars being wasted. So they don't hire enough people to spread out the workload so people are there every day without respite.
And businesses don't want to hire more people because that costs them more money and might cut into the CEO's bonus.
Re: (Score:3)
The government isn't using the argument of "wasted tax dollars". Politicians and political pundits are the ones that use that sort of language. The government will do what is necessary if the budget is there. The people who we elect to run the government and make the budgets are bad at their job but they are just really good at making excuses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you need to hire more people, without reducing salary for existing people. Which means that getting same work done... costs more.
Which means you competitor who didn't do that wins every future contract and you go bankrupt.
The point above was that a lot of paper pusher work is of the kind where productivity is hard to measure. You can't effectively police people working slowly or taking breaks at their computer, like you can with drivers for example. There are no exact metrics for former like there are fo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The world is not zero sum. The inherent corruption of economics (the love of money) is the only thing slowing us down.
Re: (Score:2)
Mathematics are zero sum. And so are mathematically calculatable specific tasks. If you need to service a certain amount of locations in certain amount of time with certain amount of vehicles, certain times they need per stop and speed limits, you can calculate how many drivers you need for the task and how long they need to work.
Unless you believe that 2+2 can equal 5 if you want it to equal that.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are a believer in 2+2=5. Got it. I will cease attempting to use basic math and logic to convince you.
Re: (Score:3)
So you need to hire more people, without reducing salary for existing people. Which means that getting same work done... costs more.
Which means you competitor who didn't do that wins every future contract and you go bankrupt
I'd just continue doing my regular workweek, and then the 3 day a week wonders will be left in productivity dust.
Side note - that bit about "Introducing formal training programs on time-management to teach them how to reduce their hours while maintaining productivity." sounds suspicious. Because that is the idea that everyone wastes 2 days out of a 5 day workweek, and they're going to get the same amount of work out in 3 days?
Hot damn! if these folk are stressed out by working 5 days a week, just imag
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried reading the rest of the post beyond the part you quoted? Because I remember enough of your prior posting history to conclude you're not trying to claim that drivers driving routes can just drive past the speed limit so they can get the same job done with one day less of working in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried reading the rest of the post beyond the part you quoted? Because I remember enough of your prior posting history to conclude you're not trying to claim that drivers driving routes can just drive past the speed limit so they can get the same job done with one day less of working in a week.
You appear to be thinking I am disagreeing with you. My point that if a 3 day workweek was implemented that I would just continue doing what I normally do is actually quite related. You're right about the added expense of hiring multiple drivers to run the same routes is a money gobbler. Having an employee who isn't planning on playing that game is a cost savings.
I was adding that I was going to be more productive, because I wouldn't adhere to the 3 day week. I'll be cheaper because while others are enjoyi
Re: (Score:2)
But I do make a point above that in fields where measuring productivity is difficult or impossible, it is in the realm of possibility that shorter work weeks, or work days would help productivity.
For example, the norm in Japanese and Korean companies, the long work hours for office workers "because you can't leave the office before the boss leaves" principle caused by face culture... destroys a lot of productivity. Those long workdays? A lot of them are spent socializing, browsing the internet for fun, eati
Re: (Score:2)
Which gets me back to the point of "how do we measure productivity for office workers?"-problem. Frankly, if I had am easy solution as to how to answer that question, I'd probably be in top1000 richest people on the planet.
And darned if I know. The closest I could come to measurement of my own would be when I was selling auto parts a gazillion years ago. Simple parts sold versus my pay.
But there's no productivity metric in research. A lot of research just shows that what was being researched won't work. Sometimes it does work. And my present occupation involves a lot of mental work, dictation, and then it works. It's either it works or it fails.100 percent, or 0 percent. A lot of the work is double and triple checking th
Re: (Score:2)
>The professional culture I've worked with since the late 70's is one where you are tasked, have a deadline, and you figure out how to make that deadline. It allows for unforeseen delays, because as they say - shit happens - but other than that, meeting the deadline is the goal.
But even here, you see the same problem. How do you set the correct deadline without proper metrics of performance per time?
Let me give you a time critical, highly developed from metrics example. Automotive assembly line. Every st
Re: (Score:2)
"Introducing formal training programs on time-management to teach them how to reduce their hours while maintaining productivity." sounds suspicious.
What is suspicious about it? It looks like a way to employ human resources more efficiently. A win-win. Everybody happy. I like that kind of economics.
A point worth noting is that, until fairly recently, a family could be supported by the income of the man of the household alone. Before any feminists get steamed up, what I am saying is that we appear to be working more than we used to, and possibly, home life is harmed by this.
Re: (Score:2)
"Introducing formal training programs on time-management to teach them how to reduce their hours while maintaining productivity." sounds suspicious.
What is suspicious about it? It looks like a way to employ human resources more efficiently. A win-win. Everybody happy. I like that kind of economics.
Productivity is of course, getting more done for a given time, or in this case, getting the same amount done in less time. Assuming a 5 day original workweek, every day lopped off that is 20 percent. So if we work for 40 percent less time, that is an amazing increase in productivity. Businesses are ecstatic if they can get a couple precent better productivity.
What is more, any increases these people have come up with will be a real blockbuster when applied to a 40 hour week.
If you make 100 widgets a wee
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I know how to achieve that sort of increase is to not have any lapses in the work. The stress that might come in is related in how they are going to implement and enforce that serious increase in output.
I recall trying to improve quality and productivity in an electronic assembly factory in Northern Ireland. There were some women on the production line, who were experienced in the type of work, and were supposed to be "mother hens" mentoring the less experienced workers. What these women were actually skilled at was making the job look more difficult than it really was, so they would do as little as possible to meet quotas. Labour saving devices were bought, but never used.
These women worked really hard at
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how much time is wasted fixing the problems caused by over tiredness the day before. After about 6 hours of hard work, most people start making mistakes and those mistakes get worse the longer they work and need to be fixed.
Remember, not every job gives you the leisure to post on slashdot about what a hard worker you are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point. There are many jobs where measuring performance is nearly impossible, because metrics for measuring it are very hard to define accurately.
But for a lot of jobs, likely most jobs if you look across the world rather than just developed countries with their outsized service sectors are easily and objectively measurable. Amount of stops driver can service in a specific amount of time. Amount of actions an assembly worker can perform in a specific amount of time. Amount of specific type
Re: (Score:2)
Even some of those can depend on pacing, if the assembly line worker knows he is only working 6 hours, will he work faster then knowing he is working 8 hours? I really don't know but there were studies a hundred odd years back that showed reducing the assembly workers day downward from 12 hours increased productivity.
Mechanics do have book time but can often be creative and do a job much faster. Last time I needed a mechanic, replacing the oil pan gasket, he did it in about a 3rd of the book time by not rem
Re: (Score:2)
Can you think of something besides truck drivers? They have an overtime exception carved out for them, so apparently they are a special case that can work over 40 hours per week with no ill effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Assembly line workers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't shorten your work week if your presence is needed every day.
You're supposed to hire more people so each one has a lighter load. We should have 4 six hour shifts instead 3 eight hour ones. Anybody who actually has to work for their money (including the desk jockeys) will appreciate the difference.
It is all very strange to me. There is an assumption that working is bad for mental health. Let's not forget that after a 3 day workweek becomes a new norm, there will be agitation to reduce that. We've seen that in the reduction from 12 hour days to 8 hours with 6 days to shortening that Saturday work to 4 hours to the 40 hour week.
The other assumption is the concept of the plug in person. The idea that you can take an employee, and another can do the exact same job the exact same way with the exact sa
Re:Yes, for office workers (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's not forget that after a 3 day workweek becomes a new norm, there will be agitation to reduce that.
Not at all clear. The 40 hour work week in the US started with The Ford Motor Company in 1914, and was put into law in 1940. It did not lead to a gradual shift to 30 hour weeks; it stayed at 40 hours for the next 80 years (and shows no sign of changing, at least in the US, despite information like this.)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that after a 3 day workweek becomes a new norm, there will be agitation to reduce that.
Not at all clear. The 40 hour work week in the US started with The Ford Motor Company in 1914, and was put into law in 1940. It did not lead to a gradual shift to 30 hour weeks; it stayed at 40 hours for the next 80 years (and shows no sign of changing, at least in the US, despite information like this.)
Then again, we are having an agitation for a lesser workweek, with the assumption that 40 hours is harmful to the mental state of people. After all, if working 3 days makes people happier - working even less might eliminate all mental illness 8^/
Re: (Score:3)
Not assumption, observation. Calling the result of lots of studies all reaching the same result an "assumption" is propaganda.
Such studies also show that NO work is also bad for mental health. So no, it "might" not eliminate all mental illness.
If you stop assuming and instead actually look at what this is all based on, you will do a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
Not assumption, observation. Calling the result of lots of studies all reaching the same result an "assumption" is propaganda.
Such studies also show that NO work is also bad for mental health. So no, it "might" not eliminate all mental illness.
If you stop assuming and instead actually look at what this is all based on, you will do a lot better.
A lot better than what? People who have mental health problems because they are working 40 houers a week?
I read the comments in here. People absolutely hate the people they work for. They loathe people with money.
So what is the story - Am I a weirdo or mentally ill because I enjoy working? Or is there perhaps something going on with people who find work something that makes them miserable?
One of the insights I've gained from working with people over a long career is that if you are miserable and d
Re: (Score:2)
You know that each cut in the work week happened due to studies showing the benefits for most people. Now maybe you're the type of person who thrives on 80 hour weeks and never takes any time during the day to do personal stuff like post on slashdot, but not everyone is. I start getting non-productive at about the 6-7 hour mark of steady work.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that each cut in the work week happened due to studies showing the benefits for most people. Now maybe you're the type of person who thrives on 80 hour weeks and never takes any time during the day to do personal stuff like post on slashdot, but not everyone is. I start getting non-productive at about the 6-7 hour mark of steady work.
Bummer indeed. What that tells me is that most people are at a competitive disadvantage. And yeah - life is competitive. Occasionally I wonder if the visceral reactions I get are a form of crab-potting.
I do understand that people have different drive levels, I do understand that "drive" spans a spectrum from Thomas Edisonesque, to people who have none at all - think the people who fake disability in order to collect meager SSI benefits. So little drive that they are willing to live in poverty rather than
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, life is competitive and humanity has evolved to work together as a group (well groups) to out compete most other life.
It's great that you lucked out on the energy thing, at least if you're happy being that way and not running from some inner demons.
As for hiring, if hiring one person, then the super worker is ideal. If hiring a group, that super worker can screw up the group, for example if the other workers try to keep up and make mistakes. It is something that needs thought and depends on the job but
Re: (Score:2)
Nice analysis. I wish I had mod points.
There is an assumption that working is bad for mental health.
My experience the exact opposite. I spent two months in hospital, being treated for cancer. I would say one of the most effective therapies was my laptop, that my boss got me. Before that, I was bored shitless. What I am working on now is semi-retirement. I am pretty sure that if there were more people over retirement age doing productive work. without being knackered out, the world would be a happier and more prosperous place.
The other assumption is the concept of the plug in person.
For some management types, the plug in per
Re: (Score:2)
Nice analysis. I wish I had mod points.
There is an assumption that working is bad for mental health.
My experience the exact opposite. I spent two months in hospital, being treated for cancer. I would say one of the most effective therapies was my laptop, that my boss got me. Before that, I was bored shitless. What I am working on now is semi-retirement. I am pretty sure that if there were more people over retirement age doing productive work. without being knackered out, the world would be a happier and more prosperous place.
I hope you're doing better now!
I've always been pretty good at keeping busy, and in your situation I would have been bored to distraction. Props to your boss.
I retired early - and certainly the hobbies keep me busy. But my new part time work is great. Keeps the mind and even the body active. Ironically, under the terms of the experiment, it would be considered over full time.
There were 3 people I worked with that had no idea what they would do after retirement, so did nothing. two of them didn't m
Re: (Score:2)
There were 3 people I worked with that had no idea what they would do after retirement, so did nothing. two of them didn't make it to their first retirement check, the other was gone in a year.
I have heard this kind of story before. Part of the problem is not having any life outside of work, so when that goes, you lose all sense of purpose. I am a great believer in Doing Useful Things, as something that improves health, and also contributes to society. Hobbies are all very well, but you maybe don't get the same fulfilment as you do from a job well done.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to have a six hour day because human performance degrades rapidly after that. When you work 12 hour days, you end up spending more time debugging, pulling the wrong cable, shutting down the wrong engine. Fatigue is a little like hypoxia, you just get slow, until you stop
So I'm told - yet I've never ever had a problem being much more productive than the people who won't work past 40.
Now I have had a number of weeks when I've worked around 100 hours. I do get a bit off my game at that point. Usually by too many "data points" running around in my head. But a 70 hour work week doesn't bother me. I'd have more trouble handling a forced 30 hour workweek, because I'd be getting ideas and concepts, but couldn't work on them.
In the end though, I do suspect that the concept th
Re: (Score:2)
This explains why you're unable to take in information properly. 8^)
Re: (Score:2)
This explains why you're unable to take in information properly. 8^)
Dropping to insults already? Have a nice day, and may your life have few hours of work.
Re: (Score:2)
No insult. It's an observation. And your reply on the other thread was equally absent any basis in fact. Only pure conjecture based on your biases and prejudices.
If reality is an insult to you, perhaps where you should look is not at the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The result is also often that people will just use the extra hours to find another job on the side, decreasing focus and quality of their initial role. The assumption that work makes people unhappy is so often based on people that are working for money, instead of working at something they enjoy and value.
Yes,the enjoyment factor is the good counter example for my argument. If you hate what you are doing, you won't be happy. Maybe we can put a happy spin on the Great Resignation. Maybe people will get jobs they like better?
And let us not forget that another reason that some folks want a shorter work week is that they don't really want to work at all.
Part of what you said (enjoyment and value of the work) reminded me of something I noted in miners. People on the other end of the spectrum who know how to
Re: (Score:3)
Now try that as IT admin keeping those servers running, or the IT staff keeping the hardware the users are using running.
If your IT infrastructure needs constant attention like that, you have already failed.
I know, but we are forced to use Windows.
It kind of complicates shifts. (Score:2)
Otherwise it's fine. I still forget to take the time off a lot.
Anything to cut yer pay (Score:3)
Here in the U.S., it would the rare company that didn't cut one's paycheck down to 60% of the five-work-day amount. There has been little to no correlation between productivity and pay in the U.S. since the '70s. (chart here [epi.org])
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the U.S., it would the rare company that didn't cut one's paycheck down to 60% of the five-work-day amount. There has been little to no correlation between productivity and pay in the U.S. since the '70s. (chart here [epi.org])
We're talking about 35 hours to 30 hours, maybe, not a reduction of 40% of hours.
In a completely unrelated study (Score:2)
if you cut management hours by 50%, worker productivity increases massively. /s
Wait for it ... (Score:2)
Cue employers making fewer employees work the same/more, for the same pay to increase profits (and their bonuses) in 3... 2... 1...
Short term study (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't change the fact that most people get less productive after 6-7 hours
Re: (Score:2)
Has been known for a long time now. I think Ford did the original study and not in order to be nice to his employees. But the "slave owner" type of "management" routinely ignores these well-established facts, because they believe that employees get paid for suffering not for productivity.
Close the markets then (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
Productivity is units per hour. Production is units. Of course the workers had the same or better productivity. But most of us work long hours to get better PRODUCTION.
Productivity, or unneeded jobs? (Score:2)
Left Unsaid By The Headline: (Score:3)
So what? (Score:2)
Population of Iceland: 366,425, and every single one of them is blond. What happens in Iceland is 100% irrelevant for the rest of the world.