The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
80 hours a week is not that much. More than I want to work, sure. But I've done that many hours before and it wasn't the end of the world. If someone is really, really motivated by cash or the job, I understand why they would do it.
More importantly, I wouldn't want to live in country that tells me I'm not allowed to work as much as I want to. Obvious exceptions being the underage and the mentally disabled.
Yeah, I had to work hours like that back in the day when I just got out of law school. But, I was 25, unmarried and making $200K a year as a result. I might not have enjoyed the long hours, but it was a good trade off at that age to make some bucks.
Working 80 hour weeks isn't for everyone, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about working hard.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Well the big problem I see is that all of the real, literal, needs have already been filled. What do you need, exactly? You need food, shelter, medicine, and some clothes to stay warm. That's it. You don't need anything else. All of those things are produced by huge, multi-national organisations, which an independant startup can't possibly compete with. And the same problem exists with the indirect needs- stuff like cars, and computers, stuff which isn't strictly necessary but helps a lot with everything in modern society- you can't do that yourself. There's a small number of people who produce enough to go around, for everyone. We don't need anyone else producing those things.
When people go in to business for themselves, what they do is produce luxuries. Stuff like handmade crafts, or paintings, or computer games, or a coffee shop, or a restaurant- all that stuff is fun, and I enjoy it, but we don't really need it. And they're all competing with each other- people only have a small amount of excess income to spend on luxuries like that. In order for a new startup like that to succeed, another small business has to lose money. Those small businesses would be more pleasant if they weren't trying to cut each others' throat to stay alive.
edit- there is another way to run the economy. There's a small group of people with effectively infinite income to spend on luxuries- the super rich. We can all start small businesses that service their every desire. That's pretty much the way the US economy is headed right now - a small group of oligarchs, and their servants. I just really don't want to go down that road.
is amazingly straight out of 1920s Progressivism, right down to the proclamations of the ascendancy of the faceless assembly line, the desire to rationalize competition, and the confidence that all material wants had been satisfied by the technology of the day. Unfortunately, there is a good reason 1940s Progressivism replaced 1920s Progressivism, and that is because the latter was a terrible idea, and mostly wrong about its empirical predictions.
Do you have any sources that address this? Because this is still the argument most convincing to me personally, and I don't think anyone has directly addressed this yet.
That your view is similar to early progressivism, or that it was hopelessly wrong on how things turned out?
Because huge multinationals rise and fall fairly regularly, and compete directly with startups. Because competition would certainly be more pleasant if all those niggling competitors went away, at least for the incumbent businesses, because now they get to charge monopoly prices. Because it is clear that people want more than food, shelter, medicine, and warm clothes; people in the slums of El Salvador might not have enough food or safe shelter but you can see the satellite dishes sprouting on the aluminum roofs anyway. In the actual third world, the poor have cell phones more than they have shoes.
Characterizing some business output as necessities produced solely by huge businesses immune to competition and all other output as unnecessary luxuries produced by small businesses is incredibly bizarre; it made a degree of sense a century ago when a majority of GDP was manufacturing and agriculture, both of which were undergoing a process of consolidation into the oligopolies of the 60s. But it is obviously not true today. Healthcare and education are not services dedicated solely to the super rich, but they occupy increasingly large shares of GDP.
I just want to pop in and say this.
Ronya, that last paragraph there is kind of what I was concerned about in my PM to you. A lot of my argument hinges on a characterization of some services as needs and others as wants, and my position is that the government should supply as much of the "needs" to its citizens as is possible.
I just woke up and am doing lots of things right now, but I will come back to this later.
Oh, it is very easy for a first-world government to afford to guarantee the essential needs of all its citizens. Including the US federal government. Unfortunately, you won't like it, since it would entail treating the people who do resort to the essential-needs safety net in a fairly brutal fashion, just to deter reliance on it - tiny public-housing apartments, somewhat unpleasant universal healthcare, government-backed debt collection so that government-provided student loans and so on can be recovered, etc. It doesn't have to be inefficient or bureaucratic; just... not very attractive.
Controlling costs just entails imposing alternate costs, like waiting periods, but there are plenty of other costs that one can impose - albeit ones which strike most people in the first world as unappealing. You don't need your dignity to live, do you? Nor any form of non-essential wealth? We could send a debt collector to seize all that. What about your geographical loyalties - you don't need to stay in the neighborhood, city, or even state where all your friends and family are to live, right? If the state jobs agency decides they've found something for you a couple hundred miles away? We could even occasionally harass people you relate with if you go on the essential-needs dole, in the name of preventing slackers from declaring all their wealth in the names of their friends. Or attempt to embarrass you by printing your name and address in public, and perhaps the names of your family members as well.
I could really go on here, but I trust the point is made clear - "needs" is a misleadingly optimistic way of describing what we would find acceptable here. We actually want people to have a decent amount of things which are, strictly speaking, not necessary for staying alive and physically healthy. All that implies a somewhat more expensive program than "needs".
(I should note that the US does pretty much end up doing all the above anyway, albeit in a non-state-driven and relatively arbitrary way; people in poverty do want to live and so often end up making similar decisions in order to do so. Bad individual decision-making does mean that people sacrifice their long-term health, etc. on the way down instead of some state-designed sequence of Things You've Got To Lose, but such as it is)
So the error rate is 4%, if I am reading that right?
Meaning only 4% of medicaid/medicare spending is fraudulent?
I mean 23.7 billion in improper payments looks like a lot, but unless it is a huge percentage of the total spending I would hardly state that it is a perfect example of loopholes and debt.
Um, that's people that are caught. Meaning we're excluding those that "use" medicaid when they have the income to purchase regular insurance. I'm making anecdotes, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing so. At this point, though, I've stopped caring. And we're derailing the thread right now, so I'm going to stop discussing it.
Most doctors rotate on-call. How long have you worked 80 hours a week and what do you do outside of those 80 hours? How are they spread out?
Huge part of it, but, it is a detriment to your health in the long run. Granted you still have 32 hours to do whatevs, but after housework, eating, cooking, you've pretty much got 0 free time to yourself. Maybe an hour a day but that's hardly healthy.
Ha. Talk to med students and residents. Actually, just talk to residents.
Residents are now limited by regulation to a maximum of 80 hours a week and a lot of people think that's still too much because sleep deprivation and burnout causes medical errors. There's a pretty substantial body of work that shows a huge laundry list of health issues from cardiovascular to gastrointestinal to psychiatric from being overworked.
There are a few possibilities here:
1) You're one of the rare people who can work an 80 hour week and not get burned out.
2) You don't actually work 80 hours a week and you're just blowing smoke up our asses.
3) You clock 80 hours a week but you work positions that are low-stress with sufficient breaks and flexibility to make up for the long hours.
I've worked 80 hour weeks before that felt like 40. And I've worked 40 hour weeks that felt like 80. It just depends on the job. Even small changes to a job can have that effect. I had a job for a while where I was doing secondary research for pharma companies - basically, I was looking up journal articles on medicine. When I started the job, I took it over for somebody else so I was basically doing two peoples' jobs, and the last guy who had it burned out because he couldn't manage deadlines. When I started, the job was going to burn me out too so I talked to my managers about my coworkers' expectations - basically told them that they needed to let me have a 2-3 day turnaround time rather than same/next-day. That made all the world of difference and I willingly spent an extra 10 or 12 hours a week at work without clocking it in because I loved the work.
So, yeah, I'd say that being able to work 80 hours a week without it plowing you into the dirt is relatively rare and depends as much on the job as the people.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Most doctors rotate on-call. How long have you worked 80 hours a week and what do you do outside of those 80 hours? How are they spread out?
Huge part of it, but, it is a detriment to your health in the long run. Granted you still have 32 hours to do whatevs, but after housework, eating, cooking, you've pretty much got 0 free time to yourself. Maybe an hour a day but that's hardly healthy.
Ha. Talk to med students and residents. Actually, just talk to residents.
Residents are now limited by regulation to a maximum of 80 hours a week and a lot of people think that's still too much because sleep deprivation and burnout causes medical errors. There's a pretty substantial body of work that shows a huge laundry list of health issues from cardiovascular to gastrointestinal to psychiatric from being overworked.
There are a few possibilities here:
1) You're one of the rare people who can work an 80 hour week and not get burned out.
2) You don't actually work 80 hours a week and you're just blowing smoke up our asses.
3) You clock 80 hours a week but you work positions that are low-stress with sufficient breaks and flexibility to make up for the long hours.
I've worked 80 hour weeks before that felt like 40. And I've worked 40 hour weeks that felt like 80. It just depends on the job. Even small changes to a job can have that effect. I had a job for a while where I was doing secondary research for pharma companies - basically, I was looking up journal articles on medicine. When I started the job, I took it over for somebody else so I was basically doing two peoples' jobs, and the last guy who had it burned out because he couldn't manage deadlines. When I started, the job was going to burn me out too so I talked to my managers about my coworkers' expectations - basically told them that they needed to let me have a 2-3 day turnaround time rather than same/next-day. That made all the world of difference and I willingly spent an extra 10 or 12 hours a week at work without clocking it in because I loved the work.
So, yeah, I'd say that being able to work 80 hours a week without it plowing you into the dirt is relatively rare and depends as much on the job as the people.
Wow. Or maybe we've become a bunch of lazy people accustomed to the 40 hour work week? I mean, if you're going to be skeptical of my position and outright call me a liar, then I'm not going to continue discussing it. And yes, they're trying to say maximum of 80 hours, but you've obviously not talked to residents/doctors/attendings to realize how full of shit that cap is. They're tired, yes. But considering the amount of residents they pump out into doctors each year, I'd say your argument is pretty much proven incorrectly. Especially tied with the fact taht physicians lead a high life expectancy and have one of the most stressful jobs on the planet, I'd pretty much say that you fall into a demographic that can't handle the heat. I get tired, yes, I never said I didn't. But I can handle it. Research isn't low-stress and it involves a lot of thinking and reading. I did a full masters while working full time and I lived. I'm fine with it and I know that other people have done it and lived. That over glorified statement about "you're gonna' die early' or 'you're not really working 80 hours' or whatever is ridiculous and I don't even know why you're cynical of people that can do this. If you can't handle it, fine, but it's ludicrous to assume that just because you couldn't do it, I can't.
I mean, I think that anyone trying to argue that an 80 hour work week is healthy in any way and that, say, a 40 hour work week is for "lazy people" will be readily disproved by a simple search through medical literature.
There are numerous studies that cite a positive correlation between increased work and ill health.
That is not to say it is universally the case, but in most cases working longer hours has a negative impact on health.
Again, the statistics are not really on your side, but this is again a tangential point.
I mean, I think that anyone trying to argue that an 80 hour work week is healthy in any way and that, say, a 40 hour work week is for "lazy people" will be readily disproved by a simple search through medical literature.
There are numerous studies that cite a positive correlation between increased work and ill health.
That is not to say it is universally the case, but in most cases working longer hours has a negative impact on health.
Again, the statistics are not really on your side, but this is again a tangential point.
Yeah, I'm sure that you can find papers that say that. But I can easily argue that part of the reason is that we're not conditioned for that lifestyle and that's why. And I still stand by lawyers/doctors/investors that live to their 80s pretty much refutes that argument. The thing that bothers me are people saying
"you're a silly goose"
or
"you'll die early"
or
"I really doubt you're doing 80 hours of work because I couldn't do it"
I mean, really? Say that it can be unhealthy, but I can point the finger back and say working less than 40 hours is unhealthy or whatever.
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
btw, i worked full time during my undergrad while earning 2 majors in 4 years. i'm currently pre-med and will likely enroll next fall. *high five*
to clarify though i'm not trying to say that the 40hr work week is too short or for lazy people, just that we as a whole have evolved into a society of lazy people.
I mean, I think that anyone trying to argue that an 80 hour work week is healthy in any way and that, say, a 40 hour work week is for "lazy people" will be readily disproved by a simple search through medical literature.
There are numerous studies that cite a positive correlation between increased work and ill health.
That is not to say it is universally the case, but in most cases working longer hours has a negative impact on health.
Again, the statistics are not really on your side, but this is again a tangential point.
Yeah, I'm sure that you can find papers that say that. But I can easily argue that part of the reason is that we're not conditioned for that lifestyle and that's why. And I still stand by lawyers/doctors/investors that live to their 80s pretty much refutes that argument. The thing that bothers me are people saying
"you're a silly goose"
or
"you'll die early"
or
"I really doubt you're doing 80 hours of work because I couldn't do it"
I mean, really? Say that it can be unhealthy, but I can point the finger back and say working less than 40 hours is unhealthy or whatever.
"Smoking will give you cancer."
"Nuh uh, not smoking will give you cancer!"
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
I would love to see studies that link not working with being unhealthy after controlling for psychological stress put on them by the drive to work in society, not to mention the possibility of being unable to provide form themselves or their family.
My point is that I am fairly certain given a life of leisure, people would live longer. Do not cite gout as a historical counter example to this claim, as I said "leisure" not "opulence".
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
Medical students, physicians, and lawyers are all populations specifically identified in research as having elevated suicide risk compared to the general population.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
Americans work way more than Europeans.
that doesn't really refute what i'm saying
I edited in a link. We also work more than the Japanese.
I would love to see studies that link not working with being unhealthy after controlling for psychological stress put on them by the drive to work in society, not to mention the possibility of being unable to provide form themselves or their family.
Depression rates tend to spike around retirement age. But that's not a question of "working more" vs. "working less," that's a question of "working" vs. "not working."
That's why a lot of retirees are encouraged to do volunteer work or get a low-stress part-time job. We need something to do, but that doesn't necessarily imply that something should take 80 hours a week.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I would love to see studies that link not working with being unhealthy after controlling for psychological stress put on them by the drive to work in society, not to mention the possibility of being unable to provide form themselves or their family.
Depression rates tend to spike around retirement age. But that's not a question of "working more" vs. "working less," that's a question of "working" vs. "not working."
That's why a lot of retirees are encouraged to do volunteer work or get a low-stress part-time job. We need something to do, but that doesn't necessarily imply that something should take 80 hours a week.
I wonder what the correlation between retired people with hobbies they actively engage in and depression rates is?
My point is does that "something" even have to be "work" in the sense of employment? What about an elderly painter, for instance?
Have these studies not been done yet?
Is this tangent getting out of control? (I think not, as it relates to the overall theme of work/non work and the connection between that and shades of welfare states)
Anyway, one of the major reasons I chose not to apply to med school was because of the huge body of literature showing increased rates of burnout, depression, major stress, and suicide among medical students and practicing physicians. If anybody doubts me I can scrounge up some links later, but honestly just type "physician burnout" or "physician suicide" into Google Scholar and you'll see what I'm talking about.
This whole business that 'physicians can do it!' where "it" is working 80 hours a week is complete hogwash.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Medical students, physicians, and lawyers are all populations specifically identified in research as having elevated suicide risk compared to the general population.
Yeah, because the percentage of suicide rate is astoundingly high. Oh, wait
The overall physician suicide rate cited by most studies has been between 28 and 40 per 100,000, compared with the overall rate in the general population of 12.3 per 100,000
This whole business that 'physicians can do it!' where "it" is working 80 hours a week is complete hogwash.
You're being a silly goose here. Becuase you can't do it, doesn't give you the right to unjustifiebly make that statement. You're depressed, yes, but you're in training. People are depressed during military training, law school, grad school. But they get over it and they even admit it's because of the schooling/education.
My point is does that "something" even have to be "work" in the sense of employment? What about an elderly painter, for instance?
It has to give the person a sense of purpose and a sense of connectedness with people outside of their home. So painting might work, but the important thing is to get out of the house and talking to people and having shared goals. Teaching a painting class or taking a painting class would be better.
But, no, it doesn't have to be classic employment.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My point is does that "something" even have to be "work" in the sense of employment? What about an elderly painter, for instance?
It has to give the person a sense of purpose and a sense of connectedness with people outside of their home. So painting might work, but the important thing is to get out of the house and talking to people and having shared goals. Teaching a painting class or taking a painting class would be better.
But, no, it doesn't have to be classic employment.
That's more than double the original numbers. Suicide is, obviously, unnaturally low in society but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't alarming just from the sheer fact that it seems working as a resident increases your chance at committing suicide by more than 100%.
I bet those numbers are eerily similar to other high hour jobs.
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
Americans work way more than Europeans.
that doesn't really refute what i'm saying
I edited in a link. We also work more than the Japanese.
while i do think that article is interesting, i still remain highly skeptical. I don't mean to make light of it but I don't have a lot of faith in news outlets accurately reporting the results of a study, especially a single study that may have been ended up being flawed. i'd like to read the study myself.
besides, there are other factors aside from pure hours put into a job that i was referring to, and i was more making a comment on the current generation that is just now entering the work force rather than the likes of the baby boomers or other earlier generations that grew up in a considerably different cultural landscape.
that said, i think i'm just gonna shut up now for good. i probably shouldn't have said anything in the first place anyway. no offense to you guys, but i don't think it's a good time for me to get entrenched in an online debate.
Oh and even though we work more than Europeans our worker productivity is much lower. This is due to several reasons, but there is sort of a Laffer Curve of time spent working and productivity.
That's more than double the original numbers. Suicide is, obviously, unnaturally low in society but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't alarming just from the sheer fact that it seems working as a resident increases your chance at committing suicide by more than 100%.
I bet those numbers are eerily similar to other high hour jobs.
It's also a highly visible marker for less visible circumstances - for everybody who successfully commits suicide, we can extrapolate that there are other people who have attempted it unsuccessfully, and even more people who struggle with suicidal thoughts without actually following through with it, and even more people who suffer from depression and burnout without dealing explicitly with suicidality.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
Medical students, physicians, and lawyers are all populations specifically identified in research as having elevated suicide risk compared to the general population.
Yeah, because the percentage of suicide rate is astoundingly high. Oh, wait
The overall physician suicide rate cited by most studies has been between 28 and 40 per 100,000, compared with the overall rate in the general population of 12.3 per 100,000
0.034%? Hmm... Watch out world!
Well given that number is more than double the normal suicide rate I wouldn't outright dismiss it as a minor increase, especially considering that it matches the suicide rate on Indian Reservations which have massive unemployment, high crime rates, and are some of the poorest locations in America.
That's more than double the original numbers. Suicide is, obviously, unnaturally low in society but that doesn't mean those numbers aren't alarming just from the sheer fact that it seems working as a resident increases your chance at committing suicide by more than 100%.
I bet those numbers are eerily similar to other high hour jobs.
It's also a highly visible marker for less visible circumstances - for everybody who successfully commits suicide, we can extrapolate that there are other people who have attempted it unsuccessfully, and even more people who struggle with suicidal thoughts without actually following through with it, and even more people who suffer from depression and burnout without dealing explicitly with suicidality.
Yeah, and the "average" might be skewed by the same logic for people who aren't pursuing long hour careers. I could assume that people who are physicians are too focused on their jobs/tired to convince themselves of suicide/etc. Not to mention they probably know damn well how to commit suicide correctly. I mean...they're doctors. They know what helps and hurts the body. Then you take jane doe who thinks drinking tons of diphenhydramine thinking it'll hurt her, but it's a failed attempt. I'd actually bet that actual attempts at suicide are far higher for those working lower hours.
And wow, to the quoted. Way to over exaggerate that statistic. It's double, but there are sooo many factors that go into that. People that thought they wanted to be doctors but were wrong, people that were miserable to begin wtih, people that only want to be doctors for prestige, idiots, etc. You don't have that many factors to consider with the other population. Also, the fact that there is a much much MUCH smaller population pool to get that statistic from, so you have more chance of error/SD which can hurt the results. I mean, if you have 100 people and 15 of them are suicidal, that's 15%, but if you only gather 10 physicians, it's harder to narrow down on the actual value.
But we're digressing. I don't approve of this GBI and think it'll lead to laziness...even though we're not lazy enough as it is.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Medical students, physicians, and lawyers are all populations specifically identified in research as having elevated suicide risk compared to the general population.
And other pathologies like drug and alcohol abuse, depression etc. Also, the long hours leave little time for exercise, so those groups tend to have issues arising from their sedentary lifestyle.
Working 60-80 hours long-term is a killer. I left the NY law firm world after a couple of years. My contemporaries who stayed in it all look noticeably older than their age.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
You can drink yourself to death and no one can stop you. People do have a right to engage in foolish and dangerous behavior so long as they don't harm others.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
It occurs to me that a doctor might be more likely to be successful if they try to commit suicide, compared to someone else who knows less about how their body works.
It occurs to me that a doctor might be more likely to be successful if they try to commit suicide, compared to someone else who knows less about how their body works.
I think that (if) doctors are more successful at committing suicide, it would be more due to access than education.
Anyone knows that gun to head = dead, but shooting yourself requires balls.
A less scary way is to take pills, and doctors could easily get their hands on pills that will give you a peaceful way out. Joe Shmoe doesn't have access to most medications (other than over the counter), so his only option might be the more dramatic, scary way out.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
Are you seriously comparing an alcoholic to someone working 80 hours a week? My head is going to explode with that statement. The entire internet should manifest into a hammer to knock some sense into your head. That's just...man.
It occurs to me that a doctor might be more likely to be successful if they try to commit suicide, compared to someone else who knows less about how their body works.
I think that (if) doctors are more successful at committing suicide, it would be more due to access than education.
Anyone knows that gun to head = dead, but shooting yourself requires balls.
A less scary way is to take pills, and doctors could easily get their hands on pills that will give you a peaceful way out. Joe Shmoe doesn't have access to most medications (other than over the counter), so his only option might be the more dramatic, scary way out.
Like trying to jump off a building - but the building isn't high enough
Like trying to hang themselves - but the rope isn't strong enough
Like trying to get hit by a car - but being hit in the wrong place/the car isn't going fast enough/etc
Physicians know the lethal dose of a medication and what meds can kill you. So, yeah, if they want to try to commit suicide, they know.
Working 80 hours/week is more something you need to adapt to than something that is truly difficult.
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
Are you seriously comparing an alcoholic to someone working 80 hours a week? My head is going to explode with that statement. The entire internet should manifest into a hammer to knock some sense into your head. That's just...man.
Why shouldn't we compare them? They are both self-destructive behaviors that the person engaging in attempts to rationalize.
Posts
Working 80 hour weeks isn't for everyone, but there's nothing intrinsically bad about working hard.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh, it is very easy for a first-world government to afford to guarantee the essential needs of all its citizens. Including the US federal government. Unfortunately, you won't like it, since it would entail treating the people who do resort to the essential-needs safety net in a fairly brutal fashion, just to deter reliance on it - tiny public-housing apartments, somewhat unpleasant universal healthcare, government-backed debt collection so that government-provided student loans and so on can be recovered, etc. It doesn't have to be inefficient or bureaucratic; just... not very attractive.
Controlling costs just entails imposing alternate costs, like waiting periods, but there are plenty of other costs that one can impose - albeit ones which strike most people in the first world as unappealing. You don't need your dignity to live, do you? Nor any form of non-essential wealth? We could send a debt collector to seize all that. What about your geographical loyalties - you don't need to stay in the neighborhood, city, or even state where all your friends and family are to live, right? If the state jobs agency decides they've found something for you a couple hundred miles away? We could even occasionally harass people you relate with if you go on the essential-needs dole, in the name of preventing slackers from declaring all their wealth in the names of their friends. Or attempt to embarrass you by printing your name and address in public, and perhaps the names of your family members as well.
I could really go on here, but I trust the point is made clear - "needs" is a misleadingly optimistic way of describing what we would find acceptable here. We actually want people to have a decent amount of things which are, strictly speaking, not necessary for staying alive and physically healthy. All that implies a somewhat more expensive program than "needs".
(I should note that the US does pretty much end up doing all the above anyway, albeit in a non-state-driven and relatively arbitrary way; people in poverty do want to live and so often end up making similar decisions in order to do so. Bad individual decision-making does mean that people sacrifice their long-term health, etc. on the way down instead of some state-designed sequence of Things You've Got To Lose, but such as it is)
Um, that's people that are caught. Meaning we're excluding those that "use" medicaid when they have the income to purchase regular insurance. I'm making anecdotes, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing so. At this point, though, I've stopped caring. And we're derailing the thread right now, so I'm going to stop discussing it.
Residents are now limited by regulation to a maximum of 80 hours a week and a lot of people think that's still too much because sleep deprivation and burnout causes medical errors. There's a pretty substantial body of work that shows a huge laundry list of health issues from cardiovascular to gastrointestinal to psychiatric from being overworked.
There are a few possibilities here:
1) You're one of the rare people who can work an 80 hour week and not get burned out.
2) You don't actually work 80 hours a week and you're just blowing smoke up our asses.
3) You clock 80 hours a week but you work positions that are low-stress with sufficient breaks and flexibility to make up for the long hours.
I've worked 80 hour weeks before that felt like 40. And I've worked 40 hour weeks that felt like 80. It just depends on the job. Even small changes to a job can have that effect. I had a job for a while where I was doing secondary research for pharma companies - basically, I was looking up journal articles on medicine. When I started the job, I took it over for somebody else so I was basically doing two peoples' jobs, and the last guy who had it burned out because he couldn't manage deadlines. When I started, the job was going to burn me out too so I talked to my managers about my coworkers' expectations - basically told them that they needed to let me have a 2-3 day turnaround time rather than same/next-day. That made all the world of difference and I willingly spent an extra 10 or 12 hours a week at work without clocking it in because I loved the work.
So, yeah, I'd say that being able to work 80 hours a week without it plowing you into the dirt is relatively rare and depends as much on the job as the people.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wow. Or maybe we've become a bunch of lazy people accustomed to the 40 hour work week? I mean, if you're going to be skeptical of my position and outright call me a liar, then I'm not going to continue discussing it. And yes, they're trying to say maximum of 80 hours, but you've obviously not talked to residents/doctors/attendings to realize how full of shit that cap is. They're tired, yes. But considering the amount of residents they pump out into doctors each year, I'd say your argument is pretty much proven incorrectly. Especially tied with the fact taht physicians lead a high life expectancy and have one of the most stressful jobs on the planet, I'd pretty much say that you fall into a demographic that can't handle the heat. I get tired, yes, I never said I didn't. But I can handle it. Research isn't low-stress and it involves a lot of thinking and reading. I did a full masters while working full time and I lived. I'm fine with it and I know that other people have done it and lived. That over glorified statement about "you're gonna' die early' or 'you're not really working 80 hours' or whatever is ridiculous and I don't even know why you're cynical of people that can do this. If you can't handle it, fine, but it's ludicrous to assume that just because you couldn't do it, I can't.
There are numerous studies that cite a positive correlation between increased work and ill health.
That is not to say it is universally the case, but in most cases working longer hours has a negative impact on health.
Again, the statistics are not really on your side, but this is again a tangential point.
Yeah, I'm sure that you can find papers that say that. But I can easily argue that part of the reason is that we're not conditioned for that lifestyle and that's why. And I still stand by lawyers/doctors/investors that live to their 80s pretty much refutes that argument. The thing that bothers me are people saying
"you're a silly goose"
or
"you'll die early"
or
"I really doubt you're doing 80 hours of work because I couldn't do it"
I mean, really? Say that it can be unhealthy, but I can point the finger back and say working less than 40 hours is unhealthy or whatever.
this is kind of what i was implying earlier. the american work ethic, as a whole, is for absolute shit. it's the product of a culture that emphasizes consumption without production.
btw, i worked full time during my undergrad while earning 2 majors in 4 years. i'm currently pre-med and will likely enroll next fall. *high five*
to clarify though i'm not trying to say that the 40hr work week is too short or for lazy people, just that we as a whole have evolved into a society of lazy people.
"Smoking will give you cancer."
"Nuh uh, not smoking will give you cancer!"
Americans work way more than Europeans.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93364&page=1
My point is that I am fairly certain given a life of leisure, people would live longer. Do not cite gout as a historical counter example to this claim, as I said "leisure" not "opulence".
that doesn't really refute what i'm saying
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I edited in a link. We also work more than the Japanese.
Depression rates tend to spike around retirement age. But that's not a question of "working more" vs. "working less," that's a question of "working" vs. "not working."
That's why a lot of retirees are encouraged to do volunteer work or get a low-stress part-time job. We need something to do, but that doesn't necessarily imply that something should take 80 hours a week.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I wonder what the correlation between retired people with hobbies they actively engage in and depression rates is?
My point is does that "something" even have to be "work" in the sense of employment? What about an elderly painter, for instance?
Have these studies not been done yet?
Is this tangent getting out of control? (I think not, as it relates to the overall theme of work/non work and the connection between that and shades of welfare states)
This whole business that 'physicians can do it!' where "it" is working 80 hours a week is complete hogwash.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, because the percentage of suicide rate is astoundingly high. Oh, wait
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/410643_2
No, it isn't.
0.034%? Hmm... Watch out world!
You're being a silly goose here. Becuase you can't do it, doesn't give you the right to unjustifiebly make that statement. You're depressed, yes, but you're in training. People are depressed during military training, law school, grad school. But they get over it and they even admit it's because of the schooling/education.
It has to give the person a sense of purpose and a sense of connectedness with people outside of their home. So painting might work, but the important thing is to get out of the house and talking to people and having shared goals. Teaching a painting class or taking a painting class would be better.
But, no, it doesn't have to be classic employment.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Alright, good answer. I accept this.
I bet those numbers are eerily similar to other high hour jobs.
while i do think that article is interesting, i still remain highly skeptical. I don't mean to make light of it but I don't have a lot of faith in news outlets accurately reporting the results of a study, especially a single study that may have been ended up being flawed. i'd like to read the study myself.
besides, there are other factors aside from pure hours put into a job that i was referring to, and i was more making a comment on the current generation that is just now entering the work force rather than the likes of the baby boomers or other earlier generations that grew up in a considerably different cultural landscape.
that said, i think i'm just gonna shut up now for good. i probably shouldn't have said anything in the first place anyway. no offense to you guys, but i don't think it's a good time for me to get entrenched in an online debate.
*Looks around*
yep.
Oh and even though we work more than Europeans our worker productivity is much lower. This is due to several reasons, but there is sort of a Laffer Curve of time spent working and productivity.
It's also a highly visible marker for less visible circumstances - for everybody who successfully commits suicide, we can extrapolate that there are other people who have attempted it unsuccessfully, and even more people who struggle with suicidal thoughts without actually following through with it, and even more people who suffer from depression and burnout without dealing explicitly with suicidality.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You show up every damn day, and just do it really half-assed.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
If you haven't worked more than 40 hours/week for several years then suddenly trying to pull 80 hours/week is going to be very difficult.
I find that when I gradually increase my workload 80hours/week becomes my normal routine and does not burn me out. And yes, the work is "high stress" and "intense" or whatever. It's not 40 hours of actually working and 40 hours and spacing out.
Well given that number is more than double the normal suicide rate I wouldn't outright dismiss it as a minor increase, especially considering that it matches the suicide rate on Indian Reservations which have massive unemployment, high crime rates, and are some of the poorest locations in America.
Yeah, and the "average" might be skewed by the same logic for people who aren't pursuing long hour careers. I could assume that people who are physicians are too focused on their jobs/tired to convince themselves of suicide/etc. Not to mention they probably know damn well how to commit suicide correctly. I mean...they're doctors. They know what helps and hurts the body. Then you take jane doe who thinks drinking tons of diphenhydramine thinking it'll hurt her, but it's a failed attempt. I'd actually bet that actual attempts at suicide are far higher for those working lower hours.
And wow, to the quoted. Way to over exaggerate that statistic. It's double, but there are sooo many factors that go into that. People that thought they wanted to be doctors but were wrong, people that were miserable to begin wtih, people that only want to be doctors for prestige, idiots, etc. You don't have that many factors to consider with the other population. Also, the fact that there is a much much MUCH smaller population pool to get that statistic from, so you have more chance of error/SD which can hurt the results. I mean, if you have 100 people and 15 of them are suicidal, that's 15%, but if you only gather 10 physicians, it's harder to narrow down on the actual value.
But we're digressing. I don't approve of this GBI and think it'll lead to laziness...even though we're not lazy enough as it is.
That's just it. People see it and think "wow...you're gonna' die!" when, I mean, one could argue that it's basically darwinism and those that don't will die out/suffer. We can't spoon-feed this generation forever, ya know? It might ultimately come to working 80 hours/week because it's a necessity and people will be come accustomed to it. Those that don't will die out. I presented the same argument to my ex about nursing. Nursing may become more involved in decision making/etc and she thought it was ridiculous...despite the fact that their roles were becoming more involved compared to 50 years ago when all they did was stand there and alert the doctor if anything happened. It might happen and you'll get used to it, just like you're getting used to the roles of a nurse now.
Working 60-80 hours long-term is a killer. I left the NY law firm world after a couple of years. My contemporaries who stayed in it all look noticeably older than their age.
Rigorous Scholarship
Regardless, how much an individual works is no one's business but there own. If you don't want to work 80h/week no one is forcing you. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about.
How much of an alchohlic an individual wants to be is no one's business but their own
I agree.
Rigorous Scholarship
I think that (if) doctors are more successful at committing suicide, it would be more due to access than education.
Anyone knows that gun to head = dead, but shooting yourself requires balls.
A less scary way is to take pills, and doctors could easily get their hands on pills that will give you a peaceful way out. Joe Shmoe doesn't have access to most medications (other than over the counter), so his only option might be the more dramatic, scary way out.
Are you seriously comparing an alcoholic to someone working 80 hours a week? My head is going to explode with that statement. The entire internet should manifest into a hammer to knock some sense into your head. That's just...man.
Like trying to jump off a building - but the building isn't high enough
Like trying to hang themselves - but the rope isn't strong enough
Like trying to get hit by a car - but being hit in the wrong place/the car isn't going fast enough/etc
Physicians know the lethal dose of a medication and what meds can kill you. So, yeah, if they want to try to commit suicide, they know.
Why shouldn't we compare them? They are both self-destructive behaviors that the person engaging in attempts to rationalize.