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.
What criteria should we use to determine what self-destructive behaviors should be allowed and what should not be allowed?
Mace1370 on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
I don't disagree but it is a bit silly when people try to justify it as a good idea.
Also, I'm gonna use that "lol the rates are still tiny" reasoning next time anyone brings up anything that gives you cancer. Sure, it may triple your risk but the risk is very low anyway so it's not very important.
Julius on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
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.
i'm gonna break my silence and just quickly interject here and say that that's completely faulty logic.
alcoholism is destructive behavior. working 80hrs a week is risky behavior. there is a very big difference. if you drink yourself stupid every day, you will suffer negative health effects with 100% certainty. if you work 80hrs a week, studies may show a higher risk of negative effects but its in no way a certainty. There is a very significant difference that makes a direct comparison asinine.
edit: the risk of negative effects isn't even some kind of quantifiable statistic that you can apply generically to every person. smoking increases your chance of lung cancer. fact. working 80hrs a week may increase your chance of depression, anxiety, etc. and depends wholly on the mental state of the person in question. They're two very different types of risks.
And that said, even if there was some insanely high statistic such as an 80% depression rate among people who work 80hrs a week, are you honestly going to claim that the 20% that are completely healthy and happy don't have a right to their non-destructive lifestyle? Alcoholism and smoking is destructive to body tissue 100% of the time. Working 80hrs is not.
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.
I don't disagree but it is a bit silly when people try to justify it as a good idea.
Also, I'm gonna use that "lol the rates are still tiny" reasoning next time anyone brings up anything that gives you cancer. Sure, it may triple your risk but the risk is very low anyway so it's not very important.
Why can't I justify it as a good idea? Because people don't want to do it? Because you might have to man up and work harder to adjust to this lifestyle? What if the idea is that we actually can work harder, but we don't want to try. Why is that an irrational argument? I stick with darwinism and think we just need to put our heads down and power through.
Also, I'm not arguing that suicide isn't scary. What you're saying has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm stating that people can survive working 80 hours with low chances of suicide. Just like you can survive a normal life without getting cancer. I mean, yes, you can get cancer. But the chances are slim. What, you're going to live the life of a shut-in because of the chance you might get cancer from an environmental source?
It's downright ludicrous to compare alcoholism to working long hours. Alcoholism is an addiction to a bad behavior that more often than not is a detriment to the people around you. Working long hours is not a bad behavior that more often than not is beneficial to the people around you/society. HOW is that the same thing?
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
LeCaustic on
Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
I'm using the same reasoning. The lifetime risk for a smoker getting lungcancer is 17%, which means that 83% of smokers never get lungcancer. So obviously it's not really much of a concern since most of the time it doesn't happen, right?
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
I'm using the same reasoning. The lifetime risk for a smoker getting lungcancer is 17%, which means that 83% of smokers never get lungcancer. So obviously it's not really much of a concern since most of the time it doesn't happen, right?
No
You're not at all. There are a million reasons why your reasoning is faulty. First - 17% is ridiculously larger than 0.034% (magnitude of 500). So...I don't even know why you put that out there as a small statistic. Second - I already made my point about arguing cancer vs arguing my point.
Also, I'm not arguing that suicide isn't scary. What you're saying has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm stating that people can survive working 80 hours with low chances of suicide. Just like you can survive a normal life without getting cancer.
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.
I believe he was comparing the two based on the fact that their both individual choices and therefore left up to the individual (until they'd be influencing the rest of the world).
Also on the 80hr work week deal, some jobs are best left as 40hr jobs no matter the situation. I'm perfectly fine with a researcher or a similar deskbound position working long hours if they so desire but an 80hr work week would be unfeasible long term for transportation or heavy industry jobs.
I also find the idea of medical personnel being more capable of suicide due to their knowledge kind of interesting, suicides are usually not attempted when the individual is in a normal state of mind and they likely don't give the situation the proper forethought needed to ensure their death. Otherwise we'd find all suicidal electricians killed by precise voltage and folks working in gas handling would always commit suicide via inert gas inhalation.
But as to the oroginal topic of a GBI I can see the initial appeal of such an idea but a comprehensive overview and restructuring of govermental aid programs would make more sense and be more likely to happen in our current politcal 'wonderland'.
So a full-time 40hr a week position isn't considered working anymore?
Well shit.
I should stop going home in the evenings and spending time with my family -- I need to get another 40hr. job.
If we're going to say that 70-80 hours is stupid/ridiculous/whatever, then I'll illogically make a stupid counter point that working 40 hours isn't enough and lazy. I mean, I don't want a relationship, have time to spend with friends, work out regularly and like what I'm doing. So that's silly? Okay, that's awesome... /rolleyes
[
I believe he was comparing the two based on the fact that their both individual choices and therefore left up to the individual (until they'd be influencing the rest of the world).
Also on the 80hr work week deal, some jobs are best left as 40hr jobs no matter the situation. I'm perfectly fine with a researcher or a similar deskbound position working long hours if they so desire but an 80hr work week would be unfeasible long term for transportation or heavy industry jobs.
Yeah, I don't think he was.
Why shouldn't we compare them? They are both self-destructive behaviors that the person engaging in attempts to rationalize.
That's what he's saying. And he's wrong.
And I'll simply say that I can't speak for every position out there.
LeCaustic on
Your sig is too tall. -Thanatos
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Why can't I justify it as a good idea? Because people don't want to do it? Because you might have to man up and work harder to adjust to this lifestyle? What if the idea is that we actually can work harder, but we don't want to try. Why is that an irrational argument? I stick with darwinism and think we just need to put our heads down and power through.
You can't justify it as a good idea because it is unhealthy. It's not a question of manning up or powering through or whatever bullshit, it's simply fact that our bodies aren't built to withstand stress like that for so long.
Are people pussies too for not being able to stay awake for 5 days in a row?
Also, I'm not arguing that suicide isn't scary. What you're saying has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm stating that people can survive working 80 hours with low chances of suicide. Just like you can survive a normal life without getting cancer. I mean, yes, you can get cancer. But the chances are slim. What, you're going to live the life of a shut-in because of the chance you might get cancer from an environmental source?
No but I do try to avoid risky behaviour some of the time. Especially when there is no real important benefit to me.
I'm not going to suggest you're not allowed to work however much you want, I'm just saying that it's silly to claim there is nothing wrong with it.
It's downright ludicrous to compare alcoholism to working long hours. Alcoholism is an addiction to a bad behavior that more often than not is a detriment to the people around you. Working long hours is not a bad behavior that more often than not is beneficial to the people around you/society. HOW is that the same thing?
What is exactly beneficial about working long hours? Increased chances of suicide? increased chances of medical problems?
Julius on
0
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
I'm using the same reasoning. The lifetime risk for a smoker getting lungcancer is 17%, which means that 83% of smokers never get lungcancer. So obviously it's not really much of a concern since most of the time it doesn't happen, right?
No
You're not at all. There are a million reasons why your reasoning is faulty. First - 17% is ridiculously larger than 0.034% (magnitude of 500). So...I don't even know why you put that out there as a small statistic. Second - I already made my point about arguing cancer vs arguing my point.
Ah I understand, my reasoning is faulty because my numbers are bigger?
The point is not that smoking is more dangerous for you, it's that they're both unhealthy activities. You can survive smoking with a reasonably low chance at lungcancer too, doesn't change the fact it's unhealthy.
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.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
I'm using the same reasoning. The lifetime risk for a smoker getting lungcancer is 17%, which means that 83% of smokers never get lungcancer. So obviously it's not really much of a concern since most of the time it doesn't happen, right?
No
You're not at all. There are a million reasons why your reasoning is faulty. First - 17% is ridiculously larger than 0.034% (magnitude of 500). So...I don't even know why you put that out there as a small statistic. Second - I already made my point about arguing cancer vs arguing my point.
Also, I'm not arguing that suicide isn't scary. What you're saying has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm stating that people can survive working 80 hours with low chances of suicide. Just like you can survive a normal life without getting cancer.
Third - really, smoking?
You're measuring against the population in total. The jump was more than 100% of the original number. 17% of people that develop cancer over nonsmokers is significant. More than doubling your chances at suicide because you're working 80 hours, that is also significant, regardless of the actual number of suicides.
Don't look at the statistics as an overall "Hey it doesn't really happen very often" as an indication that it's not statistically significant. That is why statistics are bad, no, look at it as an indication that working 80 hours leads to a more stressful lifestyle which includes an increased risk of wanting to commit suicide.
So a full-time 40hr a week position isn't considered working anymore?
Well shit.
I should stop going home in the evenings and spending time with my family -- I need to get another 40hr. job.
If we're going to say that 70-80 hours is stupid/ridiculous/whatever, then I'll illogically make a stupid counter point that working 40 hours isn't enough and lazy. I mean, I don't want a relationship, have time to spend with friends, work out regularly and like what I'm doing. So that's silly? Okay, that's awesome... /rolleyes
The reason he brings up that point is it's the work schedule shared by a vast majority of the Earth, many people would rather not spend the vast majority of their day away from their families. So saying that the only reason the whole US doesn't work 80hr weeks is sloth seems rather insane. I know I'd rather not drive another eight to ten hours a day.
The alcoholism/80 hour work week comparison is stupid.
There's no good reason to be an alcoholic, and nothing positive can come out of being one.
On the other hand, working 80 hours a week, though not terribly healthy, may be a good and positive move. It depends on the circumstances and why you're doing so. But, even then, doing it long-term is not a good move, health-wise.
That being said, if you want to become an alcoholic or work 80 hour weeks, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The whole "can you work 80 hours a week" thing is silly anyways since the issue at hand is that there are people who can't even work for 1 hour a week since we are in a recession and there are 15 million unemployed workers who want jobs and only 2.5 million job openings. These people aren't lazy, there are factors out of an individual's control keeping them unemployed, and the government should help them through that.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Lump of labor fallacy. You working two jobs doesn't increase or decrease the chances of others finding jobs, outside of very specialized fields. (I.e. if I get cast as the lead in a movie, you cannot.)
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
That depends on the communication and coordination overhead of the particular job. If we are talking assembly work, you are certainly correct. If we are talking research and creative work, that's not always true. For example, often one programmer working 80 hours can accomplish more than two programmers working 40 hours each.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
And that's why I don't feel bad about my situation. I'm not taking this job and doing nothing. I'm doing a great job and already got a raise after 1 month working. Why should I feel bad?
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
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.
Workoholism and Alcoholism are symptoms of the same disease but working 80 hours a week doesn't necessarily indicate you are a workaholic any more than drinking too much from time to time.
If you were to say outright ban working 80 hours a week, that just punished people who aren't workoholics and need to work X hours to survive for say a short period of time.
Meanwhile the workoholics, with the DOC now banned, become alcoholics instead.
Workoholism and Alcoholism are symptoms of the same disease but working 80 hours a week doesn't necessarily indicate you are a workaholic any more than drinking too much from time to time.
If you were to say outright ban working 80 hours a week, that just punished people who aren't workoholics and need to work X hours to survive for say a short period of time.
Meanwhile the workoholics, with the DOC now banned, become alcoholics instead.
I wish people would stop thinking in extremes like this. No one is suggesting that we outlaw working long hours, just like we don't ban binge drinking (I think that was the point of the original comparison). However, if we have a serious problem with large numbers of people working themselves to an early death, while others can't find a job at all, I think that we need to rethink some things. Either encourage people to adjust their social values, or have the government use incentatives to discourage working so much- like higher tax rates on high incomes. I also think that many people only work long hours because they'd lose their (salaried, no overtime pay) job if they didn't. Employers are heavily taking advantage of the high unemployment rate here.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I wish people would stop thinking in extremes like this. No one is suggesting that we outlaw working long hours, just like we don't ban binge drinking (I think that was the point of the original comparison). However, if we have a serious problem with large numbers of people working themselves to an early death, while others can't find a job at all, I think that we need to rethink some things. Either encourage people to adjust their social values, or have the government use incentatives to discourage working so much- like higher tax rates on high incomes. I also think that many people only work long hours because they'd lose their (salaried, no overtime pay) job if they didn't. Employers are heavily taking advantage of the high unemployment rate here.
And what about medical residents, who have to work a large number of hours just to fit the large amount of training they need into a 3-7 year period? They just get screwed? That sucks.
Also, this crisis of "people working themselves to an early death" you speak of does not exist. So, like I said earlier, I really don't see what the point of this is.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I can understand why that would bother you.
The problem I see with this argument is that, for a lot of jobs, the best employee isn't the one who's the most prolific. Sure, if you're an assembly line worker, it's easy to see who produces the most. But what if you're doing something intellectual, like research or finance? At that point, working long hours can harm your ability to work, and your boss might not even realize it. Finance executives are famous for working long hours, and also for making some extraordinarily bad decisions that noone caught for years. And anecdotally, the researchers I know who work long hours are no more productive than the ones who work a a more normal schedule.
I wish people would stop thinking in extremes like this. No one is suggesting that we outlaw working long hours, just like we don't ban binge drinking (I think that was the point of the original comparison). However, if we have a serious problem with large numbers of people working themselves to an early death, while others can't find a job at all, I think that we need to rethink some things. Either encourage people to adjust their social values, or have the government use incentatives to discourage working so much- like higher tax rates on high incomes. I also think that many people only work long hours because they'd lose their (salaried, no overtime pay) job if they didn't. Employers are heavily taking advantage of the high unemployment rate here.
And what about medical residents, who have to work a large number of hours just to fit the large amount of training they need into a 3-7 year period? They just get screwed? That sucks.
Also, this crisis of "people working themselves to an early death" you speak of does not exist. So, like I said earlier, I really don't see what the point of this is.
Similar to what I wrote above, I question how much someone can really learn by training 80 hours a week for 7 years. At some point the brain just doesn't absorb information so well. But, if they want to do that, no one will stop them.
And while you might not consider a .03% suicide rate a crisis, it's still pretty bad. Not to mention stress related health problems like ulcers. This is all pretty tangential to the main topic, though.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I can understand why that would bother you.
The problem I see with this argument is that, for a lot of jobs, the best employee isn't the one who's the most prolific. Sure, if you're an assembly line worker, it's easy to see who produces the most. But what if you're doing something intellectual, like research or finance? At that point, working long hours can harm your ability to work, and your boss might not even realize it. Finance executives are famous for working long hours, and also for making some extraordinarily bad decisions that noone caught for years. And anecdotally, the researchers I know who work long hours are no more productive than the ones who work a a more normal schedule.
Again, it really isn't any of our business how much people work. If working a lot was actually so detrimental to output quality then companies would adapt a model accordingly.
You can campaign all you want about "working too much is bad for you" but ultimately, just like drinking alcohol, it should be up to the individual to decide.
Similar to what I wrote above, I question how much someone can really learn by training 80 hours a week for 7 years. At some point the brain just doesn't absorb information so well. But, if they want to do that, no one will stop them.
And while you might not consider a .03% suicide rate a crisis, it's still pretty bad. Not to mention stress related health problems like ulcers. This is all pretty tangential to the main topic, though.
Considering that you are not involving in the process at all, do you really think you are qualified to make a judgment on how much medical residents learn during training? Trust me, you want them working 80 hours a week.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I can understand why that would bother you.
The problem I see with this argument is that, for a lot of jobs, the best employee isn't the one who's the most prolific. Sure, if you're an assembly line worker, it's easy to see who produces the most. But what if you're doing something intellectual, like research or finance? At that point, working long hours can harm your ability to work, and your boss might not even realize it. Finance executives are famous for working long hours, and also for making some extraordinarily bad decisions that noone caught for years. And anecdotally, the researchers I know who work long hours are no more productive than the ones who work a a more normal schedule.
Again, it really isn't any of our business how much people work. If working a lot was actually so detrimental to output quality then companies would adapt a model accordingly.
You can campaign all you want about "working too much is bad for you" but ultimately, just like drinking alcohol, it should be up to the individual to decide.
Similar to what I wrote above, I question how much someone can really learn by training 80 hours a week for 7 years. At some point the brain just doesn't absorb information so well. But, if they want to do that, no one will stop them.
And while you might not consider a .03% suicide rate a crisis, it's still pretty bad. Not to mention stress related health problems like ulcers. This is all pretty tangential to the main topic, though.
Considering that you are not involving in the process at all, do you really think you are qualified to make a judgment on how much medical residents learn during training? Trust me, you want them working 80 hours a week.
Again- I'm not saying we should ban working long hours. Just decincentivize it. Like we do with alcohol, by putting a tax on it and teaching kids about the dangers of it.
That's the point, it's no ones business if I fuck over someone else and work two jobs. I guess.
Are you fucking over someone, though? Few people will work 80 hour weeks unless they have to either make ends meet or to avoid losing their job.
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
I believe his point is that if the equation is:
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I can understand why that would bother you.
The problem I see with this argument is that, for a lot of jobs, the best employee isn't the one who's the most prolific. Sure, if you're an assembly line worker, it's easy to see who produces the most. But what if you're doing something intellectual, like research or finance? At that point, working long hours can harm your ability to work, and your boss might not even realize it. Finance executives are famous for working long hours, and also for making some extraordinarily bad decisions that noone caught for years. And anecdotally, the researchers I know who work long hours are no more productive than the ones who work a a more normal schedule.
Again, it really isn't any of our business how much people work. If working a lot was actually so detrimental to output quality then companies would adapt a model accordingly.
You can campaign all you want about "working too much is bad for you" but ultimately, just like drinking alcohol, it should be up to the individual to decide.
Similar to what I wrote above, I question how much someone can really learn by training 80 hours a week for 7 years. At some point the brain just doesn't absorb information so well. But, if they want to do that, no one will stop them.
And while you might not consider a .03% suicide rate a crisis, it's still pretty bad. Not to mention stress related health problems like ulcers. This is all pretty tangential to the main topic, though.
Considering that you are not involving in the process at all, do you really think you are qualified to make a judgment on how much medical residents learn during training? Trust me, you want them working 80 hours a week.
Again- I'm not saying we should ban working long hours. Just decincentivize it. Like we do with alcohol, by putting a tax on it and teaching kids about the dangers of it.
Considering that there isn't any conclusive proof that working that long is actually detrimental to health I would have to say no, that's a bad idea.
Your efforts would be better spent promoting a healthy lifestyle and trust me, people are generally much more receptive of being told "do X and you will live longer!" rather than "don't do X, it's bad for you."
In my personal opinion, I think that working that long is just making people unhappy. But you're right, I don't have conclusive proof that it's bad for health, although as far as I know noone has really studied that yet. But our society is still based on puritan ethics in a lot of ways, and that includes the idea that wealth = proof of moral goodness, so you better work hard to avoid hellfire.
How many jobs are really worth spending 2/3 of your waking hours doing, at the expense of everything else you might do? There's probably some, but not many.
In my personal opinion, I think that working that long is just making people unhappy. But you're right, I don't have conclusive proof that it's bad for health, although as far as I know noone has really studied that yet. But our society is still based on puritan ethics in a lot of ways, and that includes the idea that wealth = proof of moral goodness, so you better work hard to avoid hellfire.
How many jobs are really worth spending 2/3 of your waking hours doing, at the expense of everything else you might do? There's probably some, but not many.
I agree, and that's why people should have the option (but not the requirement) to work a lot.
In my personal opinion, I think that working that long is just making people unhappy. But you're right, I don't have conclusive proof that it's bad for health, although as far as I know noone has really studied that yet. But our society is still based on puritan ethics in a lot of ways, and that includes the idea that wealth = proof of moral goodness, so you better work hard to avoid hellfire.
How many jobs are really worth spending 2/3 of your waking hours doing, at the expense of everything else you might do? There's probably some, but not many.
I agree, and that's why people should have the option (but not the requirement) to work a lot.
Fine. Double my salary and I'll consider working less. Oh wait, that's not going to happen. It's survival of the fittest and I'm winning. Sorry
Also, I enjoy working. I feel productive. Why is that wrong?
In my personal opinion, I think that working that long is just making people unhappy. But you're right, I don't have conclusive proof that it's bad for health, although as far as I know noone has really studied that yet. But our society is still based on puritan ethics in a lot of ways, and that includes the idea that wealth = proof of moral goodness, so you better work hard to avoid hellfire.
How many jobs are really worth spending 2/3 of your waking hours doing, at the expense of everything else you might do? There's probably some, but not many.
I agree, and that's why people should have the option (but not the requirement) to work a lot.
Fine. Double my salary and I'll consider working less. Oh wait, that's not going to happen. It's survival of the fittest and I'm winning. Sorry
Also, I enjoy working. I feel productive. Why is that wrong?
Do you consider yourself morally superior to someone who works fewer hours and earns less money than you?
Hours worked won't kill you, but high-stress situations are going to fuck you over something awful. 80 hours a week can be a cakewalk, but 20 hours a week might give you heart palpitations.
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
Posts
What criteria should we use to determine what self-destructive behaviors should be allowed and what should not be allowed?
I don't disagree but it is a bit silly when people try to justify it as a good idea.
Also, I'm gonna use that "lol the rates are still tiny" reasoning next time anyone brings up anything that gives you cancer. Sure, it may triple your risk but the risk is very low anyway so it's not very important.
Man, the life-time risk of getting lungcancer for smokers is only 15% higher than it is for non-smokers, I don't see the problem.
i'm gonna break my silence and just quickly interject here and say that that's completely faulty logic.
alcoholism is destructive behavior. working 80hrs a week is risky behavior. there is a very big difference. if you drink yourself stupid every day, you will suffer negative health effects with 100% certainty. if you work 80hrs a week, studies may show a higher risk of negative effects but its in no way a certainty. There is a very significant difference that makes a direct comparison asinine.
edit: the risk of negative effects isn't even some kind of quantifiable statistic that you can apply generically to every person. smoking increases your chance of lung cancer. fact. working 80hrs a week may increase your chance of depression, anxiety, etc. and depends wholly on the mental state of the person in question. They're two very different types of risks.
And that said, even if there was some insanely high statistic such as an 80% depression rate among people who work 80hrs a week, are you honestly going to claim that the 20% that are completely healthy and happy don't have a right to their non-destructive lifestyle? Alcoholism and smoking is destructive to body tissue 100% of the time. Working 80hrs is not.
Why can't I justify it as a good idea? Because people don't want to do it? Because you might have to man up and work harder to adjust to this lifestyle? What if the idea is that we actually can work harder, but we don't want to try. Why is that an irrational argument? I stick with darwinism and think we just need to put our heads down and power through.
Also, I'm not arguing that suicide isn't scary. What you're saying has nothing to do with the point I'm making. I'm stating that people can survive working 80 hours with low chances of suicide. Just like you can survive a normal life without getting cancer. I mean, yes, you can get cancer. But the chances are slim. What, you're going to live the life of a shut-in because of the chance you might get cancer from an environmental source?
It's downright ludicrous to compare alcoholism to working long hours. Alcoholism is an addiction to a bad behavior that more often than not is a detriment to the people around you. Working long hours is not a bad behavior that more often than not is beneficial to the people around you/society. HOW is that the same thing?
Now you're just being facetious. It's annoying
I'm using the same reasoning. The lifetime risk for a smoker getting lungcancer is 17%, which means that 83% of smokers never get lungcancer. So obviously it's not really much of a concern since most of the time it doesn't happen, right?
Well shit.
I should stop going home in the evenings and spending time with my family -- I need to get another 40hr. job.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
No
You're not at all. There are a million reasons why your reasoning is faulty. First - 17% is ridiculously larger than 0.034% (magnitude of 500). So...I don't even know why you put that out there as a small statistic. Second - I already made my point about arguing cancer vs arguing my point.
Third - really, smoking?
I believe he was comparing the two based on the fact that their both individual choices and therefore left up to the individual (until they'd be influencing the rest of the world).
Also on the 80hr work week deal, some jobs are best left as 40hr jobs no matter the situation. I'm perfectly fine with a researcher or a similar deskbound position working long hours if they so desire but an 80hr work week would be unfeasible long term for transportation or heavy industry jobs.
I also find the idea of medical personnel being more capable of suicide due to their knowledge kind of interesting, suicides are usually not attempted when the individual is in a normal state of mind and they likely don't give the situation the proper forethought needed to ensure their death. Otherwise we'd find all suicidal electricians killed by precise voltage and folks working in gas handling would always commit suicide via inert gas inhalation.
But as to the oroginal topic of a GBI I can see the initial appeal of such an idea but a comprehensive overview and restructuring of govermental aid programs would make more sense and be more likely to happen in our current politcal 'wonderland'.
If we're going to say that 70-80 hours is stupid/ridiculous/whatever, then I'll illogically make a stupid counter point that working 40 hours isn't enough and lazy. I mean, I don't want a relationship, have time to spend with friends, work out regularly and like what I'm doing. So that's silly? Okay, that's awesome... /rolleyes
Yeah, I don't think he was.
That's what he's saying. And he's wrong.
And I'll simply say that I can't speak for every position out there.
Are people pussies too for not being able to stay awake for 5 days in a row? No but I do try to avoid risky behaviour some of the time. Especially when there is no real important benefit to me.
I'm not going to suggest you're not allowed to work however much you want, I'm just saying that it's silly to claim there is nothing wrong with it.
What is exactly beneficial about working long hours? Increased chances of suicide? increased chances of medical problems?
Ah I understand, my reasoning is faulty because my numbers are bigger?
The point is not that smoking is more dangerous for you, it's that they're both unhealthy activities. You can survive smoking with a reasonably low chance at lungcancer too, doesn't change the fact it's unhealthy.
You're measuring against the population in total. The jump was more than 100% of the original number. 17% of people that develop cancer over nonsmokers is significant. More than doubling your chances at suicide because you're working 80 hours, that is also significant, regardless of the actual number of suicides.
Don't look at the statistics as an overall "Hey it doesn't really happen very often" as an indication that it's not statistically significant. That is why statistics are bad, no, look at it as an indication that working 80 hours leads to a more stressful lifestyle which includes an increased risk of wanting to commit suicide.
This is a silly tangent, sorry.
The reason he brings up that point is it's the work schedule shared by a vast majority of the Earth, many people would rather not spend the vast majority of their day away from their families. So saying that the only reason the whole US doesn't work 80hr weeks is sloth seems rather insane. I know I'd rather not drive another eight to ten hours a day.
There's no good reason to be an alcoholic, and nothing positive can come out of being one.
On the other hand, working 80 hours a week, though not terribly healthy, may be a good and positive move. It depends on the circumstances and why you're doing so. But, even then, doing it long-term is not a good move, health-wise.
That being said, if you want to become an alcoholic or work 80 hour weeks, knock yourself out. It's a free country.
Rigorous Scholarship
It's not like the guy working two jobs is generally doing it for fun or to screw over someone else.
Rigorous Scholarship
Lump of labor fallacy. You working two jobs doesn't increase or decrease the chances of others finding jobs, outside of very specialized fields. (I.e. if I get cast as the lead in a movie, you cannot.)
You're right, but, the other argument is that 40 hours could be taken from my schedule and given to someone else who may be in my field looking for work.
Which overlooks the overhead with hiring a new worker. It is, sometimes, substantially cheaper to pay someone's salary twice or thrice over than to hire someone new.
If someone's contribution to a business during hours 41 through 80 would be equal to or greater than your contribution to that business during your hours 1 through 40, then I think it is safe to say they are way better at the job then you are.
That depends on the communication and coordination overhead of the particular job. If we are talking assembly work, you are certainly correct. If we are talking research and creative work, that's not always true. For example, often one programmer working 80 hours can accomplish more than two programmers working 40 hours each.
(hourlyValue-hourlyOverhead)*hours - (benefits+administrativeOverhead)
then (hV-hO)*80 - (b+aO) > ((hV-hO)*40 - (b+aO) )*2
even if hV is slightly less in the 80 hour scenario, because they only spend half as much in Benefits, HR, Accounting, Management, etc.
And that's why I don't feel bad about my situation. I'm not taking this job and doing nothing. I'm doing a great job and already got a raise after 1 month working. Why should I feel bad?
Wow. Yes, good math behind that.
Workoholism and Alcoholism are symptoms of the same disease but working 80 hours a week doesn't necessarily indicate you are a workaholic any more than drinking too much from time to time.
If you were to say outright ban working 80 hours a week, that just punished people who aren't workoholics and need to work X hours to survive for say a short period of time.
Meanwhile the workoholics, with the DOC now banned, become alcoholics instead.
I wish people would stop thinking in extremes like this. No one is suggesting that we outlaw working long hours, just like we don't ban binge drinking (I think that was the point of the original comparison). However, if we have a serious problem with large numbers of people working themselves to an early death, while others can't find a job at all, I think that we need to rethink some things. Either encourage people to adjust their social values, or have the government use incentatives to discourage working so much- like higher tax rates on high incomes. I also think that many people only work long hours because they'd lose their (salaried, no overtime pay) job if they didn't. Employers are heavily taking advantage of the high unemployment rate here.
I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree.
The bottom line is that the guy who is willing to work 80 hours/week is ultimately willing to work for less per hour since the company only has to give him one benefit package, rather than two. This makes him "better" at the job than you. He is out-competing you.
I can understand why that would bother you.
And what about medical residents, who have to work a large number of hours just to fit the large amount of training they need into a 3-7 year period? They just get screwed? That sucks.
Also, this crisis of "people working themselves to an early death" you speak of does not exist. So, like I said earlier, I really don't see what the point of this is.
The problem I see with this argument is that, for a lot of jobs, the best employee isn't the one who's the most prolific. Sure, if you're an assembly line worker, it's easy to see who produces the most. But what if you're doing something intellectual, like research or finance? At that point, working long hours can harm your ability to work, and your boss might not even realize it. Finance executives are famous for working long hours, and also for making some extraordinarily bad decisions that noone caught for years. And anecdotally, the researchers I know who work long hours are no more productive than the ones who work a a more normal schedule.
Similar to what I wrote above, I question how much someone can really learn by training 80 hours a week for 7 years. At some point the brain just doesn't absorb information so well. But, if they want to do that, no one will stop them.
And while you might not consider a .03% suicide rate a crisis, it's still pretty bad. Not to mention stress related health problems like ulcers. This is all pretty tangential to the main topic, though.
Again, it really isn't any of our business how much people work. If working a lot was actually so detrimental to output quality then companies would adapt a model accordingly.
You can campaign all you want about "working too much is bad for you" but ultimately, just like drinking alcohol, it should be up to the individual to decide.
Considering that you are not involving in the process at all, do you really think you are qualified to make a judgment on how much medical residents learn during training? Trust me, you want them working 80 hours a week.
Again- I'm not saying we should ban working long hours. Just decincentivize it. Like we do with alcohol, by putting a tax on it and teaching kids about the dangers of it.
Considering that there isn't any conclusive proof that working that long is actually detrimental to health I would have to say no, that's a bad idea.
Your efforts would be better spent promoting a healthy lifestyle and trust me, people are generally much more receptive of being told "do X and you will live longer!" rather than "don't do X, it's bad for you."
How many jobs are really worth spending 2/3 of your waking hours doing, at the expense of everything else you might do? There's probably some, but not many.
I agree, and that's why people should have the option (but not the requirement) to work a lot.
Fine. Double my salary and I'll consider working less. Oh wait, that's not going to happen. It's survival of the fittest and I'm winning. Sorry
Also, I enjoy working. I feel productive. Why is that wrong?
Do you consider yourself morally superior to someone who works fewer hours and earns less money than you?