Slashdot Mirror
Take Back Your Time!
pycnanthemum writes "Today is national Take Back Your Time Day. Boston.com has a story about it, it's a Seattle-based movement to get overworked Americans to value the non-material parts of their lives. When I read the article I thought of a lot of techies I know."
Quit surfing the web all day at work and at home. You rarely learn anything. In fact, you're rarely even truly entertained!
The dearth of recreational and family time in America is nothing new, although work hours have been increasing decade by decade leading to mini 'revolts' like this. However, who actually took your time away in the first place? You did. If you let yourself be conned into working 80 hour weeks, that was your call.
"But I won't be able to afford the mortgage on my $500,000 home!" many will cry. A lot of people think it's some sort of given that they must have a large house, 2.4 children, a Lexus and an SUV parked outside. Not so! A lot of people have escaped from the 'rat race' to start farms out in the boonies, backpack around the world, or live as a family out on the ocean waves.
Living in a 60-80 hour workweek society is your choice, and if you're too blinkered to do something about improving the quality of your life, fine.. but it's YOUR CALL!
Web Hosting Reviews
Who says that work can't be non-material? What if you really do enjoy your job, as I'm sure a lot of the techies you know do? Sure, perhaps you may enjoy it less because you get paid for it, but that will depend on the work environment.
Obviously this 'movement' (such an over-used term) has some good intentions--neglecting family and self are problems when you're overworked--but the mindset that employment = slavery is getting hackneyed. I thought we grew out of that idea of "despise The Man" after high school.
Oh, but wait, this is Slashdot.
I don't know about y'all, but I'm so sick of various days and weeks and months being devoted to all this random crap. In this case it is entirely ironic because everyone's going to be 'taking back their time' rather than doing what they really want to do. Some people actually like working. It's just a bunch of people deciding that they know what you should really be spending your time doing.
Maybe partying will help...
Someone call me the WAAAAAAAAAAAMBulance please.
20 Credit hours this semester, fall of my senior year in college.
I signed up for 1700+ hours for Americorps.
My fiance and I are planning a Spring 05 wedding.
I run a small IT consulting company.
Free time = 0
Rewards = Huge.
I have absolutely NO ONE to complain to but myself. If I want more time, I make more time. Same thing for everyone else. No one is making you work the job you are at. If you don't like the terms, renegotiate! If you don't like the job, quit. Not that simple because the cost of living is too high where you live? Move. Don't want to move because you like your nice house and nice cars and all that jazz? THEN KEEP WORKING.
No one is forced to work the coal mines 60 hours a week...
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
So Americans work nine more weeks than Europeans. America's also more successful than the EU and those who choose to work hard in America enjoy a higher standard of living.
Coincidence? I think not.
This article/press release/petition is a borderline socialist puff-piece. Move along, nothing to see here.
This movement touches on one of my central concerns. People are urged -- even required -- to spend more and more time at work.
Not only does this take a toll on life outside of work, it exacts a price at work. Exhaustion increases the likelihood of making mistakes. Perhaps more importantly, it also limits our ability to learn newer and better ways of doing things. It also affects our ability to discover new things.
As far as I can tell, this trend began during the 1970s and accelerated to the present day. What's interesting to me is the fact that the rate of productivity growth -- high in the quarter century after WWII -- dropped precipitously in the 1970s. This rate stayed low until the dot com bubble in the 1990s when productivity apparently soared. Now we're busy restating that productivity burst -- downwards.
Summing up, exhaustion carries a real price not only for society as a whole, but also possibly for business in particular.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
It is unfortunate that the web site complains about how we work more hours than other Western nations but fails to mention that we produce the greatest amount of technological, scientific, etc. innovations of any nation no the planet. Not that working less is bad. Rather, we need to not be delluded into thinking that working less is nothing 100% pure good. The gains of working longer are more subtle. By being more industrious and creating more innovations, we speed up the increase in the standard of living via invention and mass production. By working less we have more spare time but also less progress. Taking it to the extreme, the idea that we should be able to sit on our butts most of the time doing nothing productive for maintaining our lives while still have a good and growing standard of living is demanding a fantasy devoid of any objective reality.
So yes, we work more than the medival workers as the web site says, but we are also progressing technology, industry, science, etc. and thus our standard of living many times faster than they ever did.
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
I think a lot of this is relative. Before I had a wife and kids, I didn't care what time I had to deal with a problem. I only cared when a company didn't reward me for the extra effort.
I worked for a small IT department in a large foster care organization. One that in-took kids 24 hours a day across the country. I didn't mind coming in if the systems went down at 3 AM, mostly because they paid me well.
My next job was at a University. Same scenario, lots of systems, few IT people. After I was denied a raise at my first annual review, I told my boss not to expect any more late hours fixing problems. After a few problems that just had to wait until 8AM the next day, I think they realized why I felt cheated. I had a VP threaten to fire me on the phone for not coming in late one night, it was great, the threat was rescinded when I asked how the press would feel about their 'family-oriented' university giving someone the can because he didn't feel like coming into work at 11PM.
I agree with the parent poster, Life is tradeoffs you have to take the good with the bad.
I feel for you, as I've had those same bosses that, even in technical positions, don't understand the difference between just sitting in your office, pulling a George Costanza, and sitting in your office a few less hours per week because you do good work.
On the flip side, there are those that claim they are working at home, or work short weeks, that are basically trying their best to just get out of work, and then we have the "no one can work at home" statement by the manager after someone brings attention to him or her self. Sheesh, just fire the people that don't respond to their emails in a timely manner, or answer the phone, for goodness sakes!
Type-A management. These people see a group of employees working 40-hour weeks and getting all their work done, and to their overheated little minds, it seems inefficient.
So they cut staff. If the work is still getting done on time, they cut more. Then, when deadlines start getting missed, they say things along the lines of, "well, the work still needs to be done. We all need to pitch in."
Then you get employees working 50-60 hour weeks to meet the deadlines. Then the boss gets a huge bonus for cutting costs and making the business line more efficient, and then goes on to "improve" another business line.
The only solution is to shoot them all (kidding! I'm just kidding! But not by much)
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Actually, you probably threatened her value system on a number of different levels:
1) You valued personal time more than the material posessions working longer hours would bring.
2) You were content with a job that was sufficient to meet your needs instead of climbing the career ladder.
3) You organized the work you were doing to fit within the time you allocated for it instead of letting the work organize you.
And you demonstrated that it was possible to do this and be happy (probably happier than she was by doing the opposite). Bummer your old boss left.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Work hard, play hard. Americans need to get over being so god damned uptight about everything. We have forgotten how to kick back and have fun. Adults don't have to be stodgy.
Stress is for work, laughter is for the rest of the time.
I wouldn't count on it. A french philopsher in the mid 1800's computed that the amount of work we actually need to do is only 2-3 hours a day and yet we still work our asses off. The problem is progress and the overly rich. All our life styles require x amount of work per day to sustain. However, the problem is that some people's life styles are so outrageous that there are simply not enough hours in the day for that person to possibly sustain there life style themsleves. Guess who makes up the difference. You see Aquilera acting like a whore and living like a king, remmeber, omeone has to do the necessary work to produce stuff so that she can do that. In our society, we call it money. We buy a cd. We pay way more than what that cd is actually worth. Assuming the time they each spend wroking to create that cd is equal to the time spent of alll the people that purchase that cd, and that the peopel who created that cd is equal to the number of people who purchase it, then the amount you would have to pay woudl be equal to the amount that you worked (aka your total income for that time.) In other words, the amount they work should equal the amount you work and (in a perfect soiciety) the cd they created would be worth the amount of work your equivalent group did. So wahts' wrong? It isn't. The amount you spend to purchase that product is far more valuable than the actual work and effort put into that product. Quite simply, your paying them more than the work tehy are doing for society is worth. Hence, they are using taht extra wealth to consume more of societies overall wealth than they are contributing to it. Someone has to make the difference up. [The actual argument would be a lot more complex tahn this of course but you get the general gist of what I am getting at.] In addition to this, there is the mater of progress. In order to stay as we are, we could work only a mere fraction as much as we do now. However, if we want to progress, we have to put in a little more time beyond what is required to sustain us. Now look at progress over the last 1000 years. As the amount of work we do increases so does the speed of progress (though not as much as it could and should be increasing due to the amount of work we put in.) By working more we also create more wealth and hence raise our standard of living (ie. progress.)
The question we have to ask ourselves is when is enough. When do we have enough material goods that progress can slow down to a more comfortable level? The problem is we don't. That's is what they thought in the fifties: taht certainly by now we would have all we could ever want and so we could move to sustaining ourselves instead of trying to aquire more and go farther. And quite simply our greed is unquenchable. No matter how much we have, we want more. 100 years ago they thought we would be able to settle for the heaven we live in (and many of us do live in a fantasy land - especially the gated community types) but the fact is we are starting to reach the phyical limits of what can be achieved. The world can't support 6 billion Americans. There isn't enough resources on earth. The question is can we even sustain the level of living at we are at now? By using sweatshops and taking advantage of the third world, are we actually as an entire scoiety taking mroe than we contribute (even though we contribute a great deal - and if the answer is yea than there is the matter of europe who has the same standard of living and works even less which would mean they are contributing less but taking the same amount as we are.)
We need to stop looking at the world wealth and the work done through symbols like money an start looking at the actual wealth. We need to start rewarding ppl for the work they actually do. Aquilera does not deserve the life style she has. Probably neither do any of us. We have to stop being greedy. we cannt maintain a ridiculous standard of living. If we try the number of poor will increase, whether you see it or not (when every family in india goes with one less meal it isn't so obvious as
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
People are working these long hours because they want two (or more) SUV's, the vacation house, the boat, the personal water craft, blah blah blah.
If you value free time and the opportunity to do your own things in your own way or to be with your family/friends more than having a bigger car/house this development is not good. If you like your work and just HAVE to have this huge SUV to impress your neighbours, don't mind to be stressed till you break down and think material wealth is everything, then nothing is wrong. But at least, give people a chance to choose what they want, more time for themselves or just more money.
Personally, I would choose for time.
(I live in the Netherlands (!= Holland),so i work 40 hours/week. Even that is too much sometimes, as working pressure can be very high here. This country is more productive per hour as most other countries, including the USA. The only reason our yearly productivity is lower than the USA's is the fact we work less hours, and if I believed in a god, I would thank it for that.)
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
1) Be very agressive about defining EXACTLY what is to be accomplished by working extra hours. That enables people to meet those goals before the hours actually start. I've been able to diffuse a number of "team must work the weekend" events down to a few people coming in for a few hours. Refuse to go to useless meetings if there is a time crunch that is pressuring you to work long hours.
2) Force peoples hands by being the most "extreme" worker around. If someone wants a meeting at 6:00pm, say "I would love to, but I really have to go do some stuff - I'd be happy to meet at midnight though" (or 5am for you early types). If you are serious and willing to go through with this few will call you on this and usually back off the semi-unreasonable timeframe. A bonus benefit is that if they do decide to go for it, you only loose out on sleep, which you them make up at work to prove a point about how they shouldn't take your time.
3) Be accomidating during real crises, it gives you more leverage when they want to use your time just for the hell of it. Just one overnighter can be pointed to for a year as an example of why you are not working THIS weekend/evening.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The birth of my daughter ten days ago makes me a stay at home dad that occasionally works as a project manager with a local software development firm. My wife is the breadwinner and it made sense for me to be the caregiver.
So what are the costs of this for me and my family?
- Or newest car is almost 6 years old and a new one is no where in sight.
- There is no way we can now afford to move into a bigger house, even though it would be nice.
- I can't afford a boat, personal watercraft, RV, vactaion overseas or pretty much anywhere for that matter.
- I don't have some fancy title or job to brag about to others. My business cards would say "Dad".
I could of course go on. But what I gain is the satisfaction of raising my daughter myself, not some stranger at daycare. I can take her to the doctor when needed, we can go on walks whenever we like, read a book, etc. I don't have the play money I used to and I won't have the "stuff" that that money could buy, but my stress level is SO much lower and I get great satisfaction knowing that I am doing the right thing. I might also add that this situation also makes things much easier on my wife as I can take care of the daily family tasks. She doesn't have to worry about anyting once she gets home from work.
I've taken back my time and I love it.
How did this get modded +4, Insightful? It's pure flamebait (my bet), or its a pretty awful misunderstanding of economics. People will always go for this shit more when the economy is down, too. Have IBT? Maybe. But I still like to argue.
I'm a little curious who this "french philosopher" is, but not really. Macroeconomic theory changed drastically in the late 19th century, which ties in to the birth of the field as an actual discipline in itself (instead of merely the province of bored clerks, philosophers, and suchlike). Suffice to say, we've come a long, long way since this argument held any water in serious discussion--it seems plausible, though, so people get away with it all the time amongst those who haven't taken any economic theory.
First problem: this theory assumes that labor (or work) is directly proportional to productivity, which is demonstrably not true. Productivity is a function of labor and CAPITAL (tools, training, materials, etc), such that the exact output is determined by "technology", loosely speaking (you could also say "technique"). Take Heinlein's great example of apple pie: a skilled chef can take raw ingredients and make a wonderfully valuable, tasty, expensive pie, while a clueless moron can turn those same ingredients (which already have some value) into a disgusting, inedible mess. Note also that the quality of the ingredients (e.g., good vs. rotten apples) or the quality of the tools (full restaurant kitchen vs. a hot plate and a paint stirrer) is a TREMENDOUS influence on the value of the pie that is the output.
An American costs a hell of a lot more to feed, clothe, and put in an SUV, it's true. But it's also true that the American produces a hell of a lot more wealth per hour of labor (generally, but not true for every case) than a Third-world counterpart. By the time we start working for a living, we mostly have better education and job skills than they do. Also, we tend to have longer working lives, because we live longer and stay healthier. It IS true that you will have a higher standard of living if you produce more value, so it's not surprising that we're materially better off.
Consider, also, the fact that capital (not just money, but all real property and knowledge) tends to accumulate over the years, given mostly stable circumstances. Millions of people every year cross the Brooklyn bridge, work in the Empire State Building, and drive on our interstate highway system. If you don't get how, consider that a trucker might make twice as many trips between customers per day on a nice superhighway than he would on a narrow cobblestone road, because he can go faster.
These valuable things, when injected into the American labor/capital function, enhance the amount that we can produce with a given amount of labor. All the cars, trucks, houses, offices, and roads all over the country are a part of this production function, enabling a much higher level of output. We have invested a hell of a lot over the years in building this capital stock, and it pays us back every day.
I'm not going to say that sweatshops are fair or unfair. "Exploitation", as it were, does exist in capitalist market economies, and it happens all the time, but it's not the reason why the modern First world is rich. I will pay an employee as much per hour as will maximize my profits. If the labor market is supply-heavy, I can get away with lower salaries because the workers have less choices, but it's true just as often that a worker can pick and choose, driving salaries up. The amount of power a worker has depends on how unique and productive he/she can be, meaning that you tend to make more money as a worker if you're educated and skilled.
In countries with masses of unskilled potential laborers, factory-type employers can usually pay a wage that's barely enough to make a worker better than they'd be without the factory jobs--some people call these sweatshops. Nobody has the power to bargain for a better wage because there's probably anoth
You mean you do things other than working? That isn't obvious from reading /.
Higher quality of life: I prefer walking in forests that aren't dying because of acid rain. As for the air you breath...
I have moved from a 60 hour week to a 28 hour week. My health (physical and mental) are much better. I go to the swimming pool twice a week and walk everywhere I can rather than drive. I cook all our food. It saves us about 15-20% compared with prepared food (frozen, canned, delicatesen). It tastes better and is healthier too.
On the financial side I earn less but I also pay less social security and tax. The interesting part is that I have more time to spend the part that is left over after the taxman has passed!
My other half has 45 days paid holiday (9 weeks) and works full time now. For the last 10 years she had been working from home while raising the kids. We just swapped roles at the end of last year. Now our sons are old enough to need dad around to help with homework etc.
They are very different from some of the other childern we know - the ones who only see their parents on the weekend...
That is what I call quality of life (reminds me of the scene from a Monty Python movie...)
realkiwi