Slashdot Mirror


Your 60-Hour Work Week Is Not a Badge of Honor

An anonymous reader writes "We've all had to deal with long, tough work weeks, whether it's coming in on the weekend to meet a project deadline, pulling all-nighters to resolve a crisis, or the steady accretion of overtime in a death march. It's fairly common in the tech sector for employees to hold these tough weeks up as points of pride; something good they achieved or survived. But Jeff Archibald writes that this is the wrong way to think of it. 'If you're working 60 hours a week, something has broken down organizationally. You are doing two people's jobs. You aren't telling your boss you're overworked (or maybe he/she doesn't care). You are probably a pinch point, a bottleneck. You are far less productive. You are frantically swimming against the current, just trying to keep your head above water. ... We need to stop being proud of overworking ourselves.'"

717 comments

  1. No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They're just lucky to have a job at all.

    1. Re:No one is proud of overwork by similar_name · · Score: 0

      Ok, is that irony?

    2. Re:No one is proud of overwork by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      Ok, is that irony?

      It's reality.

    3. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously? I know full well that at least in SFO, ATL and PDX that a solid sysadmin, DevOps, or DBA has no shortage of openings to pursue. I get pestered at least 6-10 times a week with reputable offers (and don't ask how many fly-by-night Indian outfits I've had to spam-can).

      I think I know what's going on... or at least part of it. It's because the market is short-handed in many areas.

      I'm trying to hire sysadmins right now - once we weed out the bullshitters and the obviously incompetent, the rest demand one hell of a high salary (call it at least $95k/yr outside of SFO, and $150k/yr inside SFO), and odds are good that management is going to be forced to cut loose with the funds to do it (and for myself as well, damnit). We managed to hire exactly one out of the four slots we have open... in the past 5 months. Meanwhile, I'm trying to make do with the staff I got. We avoid pushing anyone above 50hrs/week, but I often catch a lot of them working 60+ hours anyway.

      IMHO, given the amount of work that is out there (at least in my neighborhood of tech), any employer who thinks they can treat employees like crap will quickly find that they're stuck with either no staff, or incompetent staff - either way they're screwed. Example? No problem. A local company around here tried to recruit me as a DevOps (they call it a "Systems Engineer" position.) However, not only was it named as one of the worst companies in tech to work for, but nearly everyone in the local area I asked has warned me off from 'em (there was plenty to say about them, and little of it good. To top that off, my own research backed it up.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:No one is proud of overwork by dbIII · · Score: 0

      the rest demand one hell of a high salary

      Makes sense if you are in a town where sticking too closely to the rules of the job can land you in jail.

    5. Re:No one is proud of overwork by dreamchaser · · Score: 3

      Ok, is that irony?

      It's reality.

      In IT fields it is not reality. There are a ton of jobs out there, and it's easy to get one if you're good at what you do.

    6. Re: No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait until your resume shows you're over 40.

    7. Re: No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For me, it's been the opposite. Granted, I'm not 40 yet, but it was much harder to find a job in my 20s than it has been in my 30s. And while my salary previously inched slowly upward to a bit above six figures, it's now doubled in the year and half since I turned 35.

      The general impression I've gotten is that being older is only a detriment if you haven't used the time wisely. If you've spent the time growing personally and professionally and can show it to employers, you'll still be a highly sought after candidate.

      In my case, I've put a ton of effort into continually learning new skills, building my network and looking for ways to increase the scope of my job responsibilities. Now I get job offers from former coworkers for everything from senior developer positions to director of engineering at companies that vary from hardcore C/C++ stacks to the web stacks (Java, JavaScript, Ruby and Python)...I even get sysadmin inquiries. And it's because I've done all of that before. It's amazing how valuable you are when you work at being versatile and well respected.

    8. Re:No one is proud of overwork by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Damn. Is that the Bay Area premium? Maybe I'll consider relocating after all.

    9. Re: No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This AC is so proud of tooting his own horn. Tooooot tooot tooot! You are so amazing. Look at that, he even used buzzwords! Somebody offer him 6 million/year to bathe us in his in-demand craft!

    10. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Round here a sysadmin would typically get the equivalent of $50 to $60k with a fairly high cost of living. $95k+ is pretty amazing.

    11. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      very nice keep working i am also working hard on live cricket website

    12. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I thought that too... until I saw how much it costs in SFO to rent an apartment less than an hour's drive to work, buy groceries, pay taxes, own/use a car...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    13. Re: No one is proud of overwork by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wait until your resume shows you're over 40.

      Most of our best candidates so far are well past 40.

      Unlike programmers, age really doesn't have the same impact in employability for everyone else... in fact it seems to enhance it in many aspects (e.g. you're less likely to find the 'cowboy' type in older sysadmins.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious as to what defines a solid sysadmin - experience in the actual systems being used (likely) or an understanding of the interactions of systems in place - what is better?

    15. Re:No one is proud of overwork by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm trying to hire sysadmins right now - once we weed out the bullshitters and the obviously incompetent, the rest demand one hell of a high salary (call it at least $95k/yr outside of SFO, and $150k/yr inside SFO)

      I wonder if you could find someone lacking the skills who would work for $75k, and how far $20k of ongoing training would take them?

    16. Re:No one is proud of overwork by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It's the same story all over. There are plenty of open jobs. There are few jobs for people with no skills. People with no skills whine about there being no jobs.

      Making it worse is that the irresponsible venture capital of the last 90s and 2000 made some people that have no skills believe that they actually do have skills.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  2. American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or you are poor in America, working 3 part-time minimum jobs 60+h a week just to pay for food and housing with nothing left over at end of the week.

    1. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Week? Month. At least that's how often sensible people get their money.

    2. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work a 40 hour week and no more. I do just fine and don't spend more than 30% of any given paycheck.

    3. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism. Because it works.

    4. Re:American poor by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work a 40 hour week and no more. I do just fine and don't spend more than 30% of any given paycheck.

      Congratulations! You have just made an entirely pointless post that says nothing, and proves nothing!

    5. Re:American poor by AmazingRuss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or you are middle class, and can't quit your job because you took out a huge loan to pay 3 times too much for a house.

    6. Re:American poor by sir-gold · · Score: 0

      Not sure if trolling.....

    7. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Homosexuality. Because you suck cock.

    8. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does say that he lives in his mother's basement.

    9. Re:American poor by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

      Or you are poor in America, working 3 part-time minimum jobs 60+h a week just to pay for food and housing with nothing left over at end of the week.

      Only spending 12 hours a week not working would be a problem.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Celibacy. Because you can't even do that.

    11. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously he lives somewhere rent-free if his expenses are so low.

    12. Re:American poor by similar_name · · Score: 1

      In order of status/pay and words like that it probably goes something like*

      hourly (black market worker)
      daily (gray market worker)
      weekly (working poor)
      bi-weekly (working poor leads)
      monthly (working supervisors)
      quarterly (management)
      whenever (masters of the universe)

      *List was hastily made and likely contains hyperbole, generalizations, logical fallacies, and jest.

    13. Re:American poor by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      And an education.

    14. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, silly GenX me, thinking the next generation can ever afford to become indebted for a lifetime for a house.

    15. Re:American poor by Assmasher · · Score: 0

      Your mom is a homosexual?

      --
      Loading...
    16. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that post, yes, it is a troll.

    17. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you are middle class, and can't quit your job because you took out a huge loan to pay 3 times too much for a house.

      or lose your job and lose your house... so go screw yourself

    18. Re:American poor by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      FYI - teachers are often paid once a month.

      (...at least in Utah they were.)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    19. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Education is a waste of money in Obama's America. You don't need to be educated to say the Muslims are coming, Terrorists lose, America #1!!!!!!!!!!!

    20. Re:American poor by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      60 hours a week @ $9/hr + $3k/yr in gov't benefits (being very generous here) = ~$31k/yr. Car/Gas/Insurance (required by most jobs): $200/mo A (cheap) 2 bedroom apt: $900/mo Utilities (no longer included, thanks 2008 housing collapse :( ) : $200/mo Food / Toiletries (3 ppl): $600/mo (eating very poorly) Health Care (with a kid): $400/mo Communications (2x Cheap cell phones) $60/mo It could work. I've left out two big thing though: 1. Low wage jobs have inconsistent hours. 2. Any emergency (car wreak, and the other guy drove off) and you're basically boned. I think I heard some economist call it a "Fragile Existence"

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    21. Re:American poor by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It proves more than the hypothetical GP about three jobs and 60 hour week. Let's see your statistics showing which is more common.

    22. Re:American poor by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      An education that is totally useless for most of the jobs that now require it.

    23. Re:American poor by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Sorry it's not that simple and you know it.. Kids in africa live in vastly different conditions basically bereft of rules. Essentially they can do 'whatever it takes' to survive and/or get ahead, and get away with it. Life there is brutal, but if you can find a niche, it's yours, and you're free to defend it pretty much any way you can simply because there's little if any state oversight. As low as the sky is, there, the sky still is the limit.

      In western societies, the paths to success are so locked down, arbitrarily limited, and lined with mines by those who've come before, that it's nearly impossible to get beyond low level management if you do everything right, and very easy to lose it all with one tiny misstep. More and more people are realizing that these diminishing odds make the high road more risky than it's worth. College tuition is a fucking ripoff, and most of them are just paper mills, pumping out useless, now-indebted automatons, who, if lucky, get jobs due more to identity politics and/or knowing the right people than by skillset. It's too bad, but that's life I guess. Of course, egotistical people like you won't allow yourselves to see that the defining moments of success you've had was due more to the lottery of being in the right place at the right time than simply having skills and talent. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Time to remove some of those restrictions.

    24. Re:American poor by tburkhol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Car/Gas/Insurance (required by most jobs): $200/mo

      Monthly bus pass $100

      A (cheap) 2 bedroom apt: $900/mo

      Get a roommate

      Utilities (no longer included, thanks 2008 housing collapse :( ) : $200/mo

      Step back to basic cable (or even broadcast TV) and drop the unlimited data phone plan. Never seen an apartment yet that split out HVAC by unit, and it's hard to spend that much heating/cooling a 2-BR, unless you leave the doors open all winter.

      Health Care (with a kid): $400/mo

      You're raising 2 kids on $27k: you qualify for Medicaid

      Food / Toiletries (3 ppl): $600/mo (eating very poorly)

      Number 1: if the best work you can get is minimum wage, maybe you should put off that second kid or ask your SO to help out with expenses. Number 2: $20/day will feed dad+2 kids pretty well, as long as he cooks. Seriously: that's 2 pounds of chicken + 2 pounds of rice + 4 pounds of carrots and a gallon of milk, with enough left over for salt, pepper and ketchup

      If you're working 2 minimum wage jobs, you don't get the American Dream. You adjust your lifestyle. Those sacrifices will make your eventual success all the more sweet and motivate your kid(s) to rise above.

      Any emergency (car [wreck], and the other guy drove off) and you're basically boned. I think I heard some economist call it a "Fragile Existence"

      Yes, if you're living on the edge, then small calamities become disasters. One hopes those are the circumstances where your community (church, neighborhood, or government) pulls together and helps you through.

    25. Re: American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how lesbians work.

    26. Re:American poor by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      1) If you're poor in America, you've already made some pretty shitty life-choices from the start. Ultimately, bad choices may catch up with you, and life's not Candyland, you can't just start over.

      2) 60h week at minimum wage is ~$24,000 year*. You pay nothing in taxes, and in fact get "back" $000's in tax credits that you never paid in.
      Now, if you have a cellphone, and cable, kids, and you smoke, and own a house...that $24,000 starts to get pretty thin. But then, you're already living better than 2/3rds of the people on the planet, not bad for "being poor"?

      *I'd argue that if you have exploited to the fullest the "free education" you get in the US to age 18, never done drugs nor become addicted to alcohol, etc, and neither fathered/mothered a child until you had a stable job and income post-highschool, then there's no way you're working minimum-wage jobs for any sustained period of time. (Barring your being one of the vanishingly tiny percent of people who have an actual catastrophic event destroying their finances and lives beyond the ample safety-net structure....and this is too small a % to base serious policy on.) IIRC a recent survey said that 90%+ of people in poverty failed one of those first-listed points.

      --
      -Styopa
    27. Re:American poor by Calavar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, another yuppie WASP who thinks he knows how to live poor better than a poor person does. Let's put this straight.

      Monthly bus pass $100

      Taking the bus is only an option if you live in the city and if you live in the city, rent skyrockets. I live in a shabby apartment in an undesirable city (high unemployment, high crime rate, a public transportation system so shitty that it takes an hour and a half to make the three mile bus trip from here to downtown) and the rent for my two bedroom apartment is $1800 a month. So in this scenario, the net benefit of moving into the city and ditching the car would be negative $800 dollars a month. That and the fact that your morning commute would jump from fifteen to twenty minutes to an hour and a half.

      Get a roommate

      For a family of three? And how is said roommate going to afford 50% of the rent if he/she has the same minimum wage job? No, in this scenario, another family of three would have to squeeze into the second bedroom because they can't afford their own apartment either. Those are called tenements, and we decided that those were dehumanizing sometime in the 19th century.

      You're raising 2 kids on $27k: you qualify for Medicaid

      That much is true, but you are forgetting that every visit to the doctor equals lost wages at your hourly job. So even if you have medicaid and you have small children who are at that age where they are prone to catching colds, you can easily be "paying" $150 - $200 a month in healthcare costs due to lost wages.

      Number 1: if the best work you can get is minimum wage, maybe you should put off that second kid or ask your SO to help out with expenses.

      The kids were usually born before the SO (the male one most of the time) packed up and left. And if it was that easy to get the ex-SO to pay up, we wouldn't have family court.

      Number 2: $20/day will feed dad+2 kids pretty well, as long as he cooks. Seriously: that's 2 pounds of chicken + 2 pounds of rice + 4 pounds of carrots and a gallon of milk, with enough left over for salt, pepper and ketchup

      I'm guessing you've never heard of food desserts? I live in one. The nearest grocery store is about two miles away. It's fine for me because I have a car. But if you don't (and remember, one of your suggestions was to take the bus) it turns into an hour long bus trip each way. It's a lot easier to stop by the corner market two blocks away from your apartment, but it is also much more expensive.

      If you're working 2 minimum wage jobs, you don't get the American Dream. You adjust your lifestyle. Those sacrifices will make your eventual success all the more sweet and motivate your kid(s) to rise above.

      Oh god, so you are also a libertarian social darwinist. Let me tell you something: American social mobility is a myth. Poor people aren't poor because they are lazy. (Well a small fraction of them are, but that is besides the point.) They are poor because they were born poor and the US social and economic structures tend to keep it that way.

    28. Re:American poor by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Only spending negative 12 hours a week not working would be a problem.

      FTFY

    29. Re:American poor by Calavar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Summary: Yuppie WASP thinks he knows the solution to poverty: If they would only get of their lazy bums, they wouldn't be poor anymore!

      How are so who are so uninformed about the nature of poverty in the US so confident in their deluded opinions? (Wait, I know, it's because Republican rhetoric about government "entitlements.")

      I'd argue that if you have exploited to the fullest the "free education" you get in the US to age 18, never done drugs nor become addicted to alcohol, etc, and neither fathered/mothered a child until you had a stable job and income post-highschool then there's no way you're working minimum-wage jobs for any sustained period of time.

      If you would argue that, you'd either be a moron or someone who is so uninformed as to be totally unqualified to speak on the topic.

      Education in the US is not created equal. Try being born in the inner city where the high school has a 15% graduation rate (half that of the city average) and even those who do graduate often fail to understand 7th grade level algebra. Now add on to this an alcoholic mother who kicks you out of the house whenever she gets drunk, forcing you to either 1.) spend the night with your drug dealing uncle, 2.) spend the night at a shelter where someone is stabbed to death roughly once a month, or 3.) sleep on the street. Are you going to graduate from high school?

      This is not a hypothetical story. I am describing an actual person that I knew back when I volunteered with the social work department at an inner city hospital.

      Let's say that you beat the odds that are overwhelmingly against you and graduate from high school. If you are like the young man that I knew, you have never even heard of the SAT. Your high school's average SAT is below 1000 (on the 2400 scale). And those that do go to a local HBCU with only a 30% graduation rate and absolutely horrendous job placement. Trade school is a more reasonable alternative, but you can't afford the tuition and financial aid for trade school is basically non-existent.

      Your only option at this point is to go for jobs that will take people with a high school diploma, but you live in a city where unemployment is 147% that of the rest of the state. Odds are that the best you will be able to get is a part time job at the local McDonald's. If you work hard, in three or four years, you might work your way up to assistant manager and make a whopping $10/hr.

      This will barely be enough to pay for your rent (usually about $700/month for a single bedroom, perhaps $600 after rental assistance), let alone enough to save up for an education or to pay for the cost of raising children.

      If you see any way to escape this situation through hard work, please let me know. If there were any bad choices made here that resulted in their just deserts, please let me know.

      Now, if you have a cellphone, and cable, kids, and you smoke, and own a house...that $24,000 starts to get pretty thin. But then, you're already living better than 2/3rds of the people on the planet, not bad for "being poor"?

      1.) A lot of the people I knew back when I volunteered with social work would have killed to make $24,000 a year. The average income of the people I worked with was probably closer to $10k - $15k per year because most people were unable to find anything but part time work. 2.) Let's pretend that it is easy to make $24k/yr. So poor people in the US on average live better than sub-Saharan Africans and we call that progress? The US is the wealthiest nation in the world. We absolutely should not be comparing ourselves to the lowest 2/3rd that still

    30. Re:American poor by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Or you are poor in America, working 3 part-time minimum jobs 60+h a week just to pay for food and housing with nothing left over at end of the week.

      Wow, you really that's the typical life of American poor, don't you?

      May I invite you to the local supermarket to observe "check day" ...

    31. Re:American poor by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you're living on the edge, then small calamities become disasters. One hopes those are the circumstances where your community (church, neighborhood, or government) pulls together and helps you through.

      Typical libertarian safety net of praying for a miracle. Thats not so much a net but more of falling from a tree and hoping a branch catches you on the way down.

    32. Re:American poor by maple_shaft · · Score: 1

      Making some bad choices when you are younger in life in America can ruin any chances of making something better of yourself. A friend of mine was charged with a felony and did jail time because he happened to be in a car that his friend had stolen unknowningly. He was poor and his parents could not afford a good lawyer. He got a very callous and uncaring public defendent who didn't even believe that he was innocent.

      He is college educated and still can't get more than a job delivering pizza because he has a felony on his record. He is being punished for not even bad choices but just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Society shouldn't fail you on a few points. There should for non violent crimes always be a path to redemption or a path to recovery. To believe otherwise shows how callous and out of touch from your fellow man that you really are. You should be ashamed for believing such things.

    33. Re:American poor by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Only spending negative 12 hours a week not working would be a problem.

      FTFY

      Math fail on my part. Subtracted the smaller number from the bigger one without checking which was which. Perhaps the negative value causes some wraparound bug in reality that allows him to be able to survive without rest.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    34. Re:American poor by ksheff · · Score: 1

      you're low on the govt benefits: http://www.zerohedge.com/artic...

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    35. Re:American poor by strikethree · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am of the opinion that I do not like you. Your world is too black and white and your answers are too simple.

      Monthly bus pass $100

      That will work for some Americans. For others, it is simply not an option at all. What about those people? What about the people that can choose it as an option but it steals 3 or more hours from their day? I know their time is not worth much but their time is not worthless.

      Get a roommate

      Are we talking about raising a family here or just bare single subsistence? If family, roommate will not work. If not, American society is not like it is elsewhere in the world. Finding a roommate who is trustworthy and will actually pay is VERY difficult. I recall when I was younger trying to go the roommate route. Inevitably, they would not have rent money at the end of the month because they had some other "emergency" they had to take care of. Sure, they can be kicked out but when it is the majority of them doing it, that is a LOT of months paying full rent solo along with the hassle of dealing with the assholes.

      Step back to basic cable (or even broadcast TV) and drop the unlimited data phone plan. Never seen an apartment yet that split out HVAC by unit, and it's hard to spend that much heating/cooling a 2-BR, unless you leave the doors open all winter.

      Fuck off with the holier than thou "basic cable" bullshit. In the 80s, I lived without cable and the heating bill alone was over $200, so the amount listed is not even realistic for this day and age. Electric alone in my current house is almost that much. I still do not have cable even today and my utilities/phone/internet are well over $200.

      This was the part that made me dislike you the most. You dismissed the utilities issues as if it was a pleasure issue that needed to be curbed. Meh. That attitude sucks HARD.

      If you're working 2 minimum wage jobs, you don't get the American Dream. You adjust your lifestyle. Those sacrifices will make your eventual success all the more sweet and motivate your kid(s) to rise above.

      There are a whole lot of shades of grey between the American Dream and dying of hunger on the streets. The "complaint" is that the shade of grey is getting too black to be considered humanitarian. Your dismissal of this concern deserves to be derided and insulted. I ought to throw a fuck you in there to help you wake up and see what you are not experiencing but you would likely just close your mind even tighter then.

      Yes, if you're living on the edge, then small calamities become disasters. One hopes those are the circumstances where your community (church, neighborhood, or government) pulls together and helps you through.

      You realize that this is America we are discussing right? People will stand there and watch you die and then walk on as if nothing had happened. The government? Help? ROFLMAO. Perhaps if you are female, a minority, a felon, or a child. Oops. I mean if you are a single man in America that has never been involved with the system, there are zero safety nets. You are 100% fucked, short of a miracle. Don't ask me how I know this.

      FYI, I have the American Dream now.
      (lol, CAPTCHA is agonize)

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    36. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did this get downvoted? I thought it was a hilarious spoof on conservative thought. ... it is a spoof right? Nobody is really this stupid, are they?

    37. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The nearest grocery store is about two miles away. It's fine for me because I have a car. But if you don't (and remember, one of your suggestions was to take the bus) it turns into an hour long bus trip each way

      What's wrong with just taking your bike?

    38. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      3 Miles is walkable/bike-able. $1800 a month for a two bedroom is outrageous, move to flyover country and get a house in a suburb for half that. Kids with colds don't need a doctor, sorry but your little snowflake is going to have to suffer through it just like everyone else. I'm not going to touch on the issues regarding women becoming single mothers after dating dumbasses, I'm sure they were all completely rational and the guy was an deceptive con man with no red flags. Food deserts are horrible, and just like real deserts, only a committed dumbass would live in a desert and complain about the lack of water.

      Social Mobility is certainly possible and opportunities abound, however the social structure is absolutely not favored towards changing the status quo.

    39. Re:American poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the dessert you live in some kind of cream pie?

      2 miles from a grocery store. It's so terrible you have to live in such famine conditions. One of these days shit might get really bad and you whiners will realize how good you had it.

    40. Re:American poor by psithurism · · Score: 1

      The other fact that you barely touched, is that the well educated who come to discuss this stuff on /. have a good overview of the whole situation. We were discussing these things as if we were suddenly body swapped with underprivileged teenagers, in which case, of course we would know optimal course to maneuver ourselves back into the middle class.

      They guy you spoke of probably had no concept of the tiny slice of a career map that would be available to him. The unemployed that I've met, often don't even know how to start a coherent job search.

      We middle-classers also think it's easy to find the optimal apartments and part time jobs given that we have reliable access phones, vehicles, nice clothes and the optimal sources to get the latest listings. When you don't have these things, it's nearly impossible to find even that low paying job. And if you think you might lose it, are you really going to invest your first few months salary in an apartment (plus security deposit and whatever fees the landlord charges you for not knowing your rental rights) and vehicle?

      Plus, each of those needs is itself, a struggle to get without the unappreciated gifts of being middle class. You mentioned HUD, but a little known fact about renting, is that though owners legally have to accept HUD, if you mention it, they just stop returning your calls (assuming your alcoholic parents will take a coherent message for you, and don't scare the agent). I also learned, that at the last two places I rented, I beat out the other guys just by being a sharply dressed white guy* with sober contacts. Oh yeah, forgot to mention, you need three of your buddies to own phones, speak well formed English sentences and answer with polite sobriety for the entirety of your house and job search.

      As for the vehicle (this is the US we are talking about, good luck without a vehicle). Some people are usually willing to part with their vehicles to anyone with money (which you have to find first, maybe once you've got that job you can sell your soul to payday loans), but I've had a friend ticketed for improperly disposing of a vehicle years after the sale; turned out the buyer decided to negate the transfer of ownership (illegally). To avoid these problems, many people also screen who they sell their cars to. I myself don't drive around to find you so you can test drive my car, so you also need to find a reliable friend with a car just to buy used (gas guzzling, mechanically unlucky) cars from rich folks like me (sorry).

      *Like HUD, owners can't be caught screening against single women or minorities, but they do anyway.

    41. Re:American poor by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Using WASP as a derogatory term is racist, btw.

    42. Re:American poor by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      food desserts

      (Psst, I think you meant "deserts". ;) ) I completely agree, and I want to add extra focus to this. Food deserts are actually a very large problem that I think most people are unaware of; it's one that I'm only beginning to learn about in these last two months, and I consider myself more well-read than the Average Joe. I think everyone should read up on them.

      Food deserts are a far larger problem than most people probably realize when they first hear about them, one that can't be cured just by increasing unemployment benefits. You could have a "decent" income but, with nothing to properly spend it on, you may as well have nothing. Not only do food deserts result in high prices at "local" stores (which, as you pointed out, aren't necessarily that local), but often times these have a severe lack of fresh foods which only increases the problem of obesity.

      The thing is, especially for "WASPs" (I used to be one), the idea that there isn't a moderately-stocked grocery store in the vicinity is so foreign that you may as well suggest that poor people can't afford toilets in their homes. Even when growing up in small towns and suburbs in an upper-low income family, we always had grocery stores nearby; even if their prices were higher than average we would get by fine, and once or twice a month drive to a nearby city to stock up on non-perishables in bulk. So this is something that had to be told to me (I first learned about it through a short NPR story) and may never have figured out on my own unless I experienced it first hand.

      OTOH, I think this offers a huge opportunity to entrepreneurs who have a huge humanist/charity streak and aren't looking for buckoo profit. I envision a chain of small corner stores, where produce and food can be easily transported by refrigerated vans or small trucks, which can also be used as community centers on upper floors, dispersed throughout rural areas. There are a lot of hurdles that would have to overcome to make it happen, but if they are then I believe such a system could really help a rural area at large.

    43. Re:American poor by longbot · · Score: 1

      I've been there, and I've clawed my way up a bit, but it's still very hard sometimes (I get paid well hourly, but work on call as many as 65 or as few as 3 hours per week, can't rely on it to be regular at all). How'd you do it?

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
  3. How about 80? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about 100?

    How about 169? :)

    1. Re: How about 80? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just make add 9 more hours for it to be 69 so he can really be proud that his job nailed him on both sides...

    2. Re:How about 80? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to work over 100 hours a week once in a while. Not for more than a month at a time though. After that you are pretty useless. Just driving a car becomes dangerous.

    3. Re:How about 80? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      I've done a couple of 100s, but I'm hoping that never happens again. I was working Quality Assurance and Systems Engineering on a project for a major customer when 9/11 hit, and exactly 1 month later, the entire team was laid off except me and the documentation writer (all four devs and both full time QA people). We had a fixed deadline to ship to that customer, Jan 1 with 1 month manufacturing lag, so I had to be done by Dec 1, and coding wasn't even complete. The substitute programmers burned the midnight oil and handed me a first working copy mid-November and I worked 117 hours that week first configuring the environment to be like the customers and then testing (tests which were thankfully mostly scripted, but there were 1100 of them), sleeping all but one night in the office, usually about 2-3 hours. Round 2 (after bugfixes) was the next week, where I tallied 106 hours, mainly because I was not allowed to work on Thanksgiving day.

      I couldn't go to my managers to ask for help because a) my manager and his direct report got laid off, b) my new manager didn't know the project at all and had just been bumped from peon into management (but she eventually turned out to be the best manager I ever had), and c) training alone would suck up two weeks of my time... but 70% of QA was laid off, so there was nobody to train - everyone else had to be on board for a March product release that had just lost 1/2 its staff (again a customer commitment).

      Two months after that, we hired our first 1000 workers (roughly) in India and it probably took 2 months to ramp them up. They may cost 1/3-1/4 as much, but early on many of them were worth what you paid for, which is not much. The cultural taboo of reporting bugs being an insult to the programmers that wrote the code didn't help. After about 5 years, their quality improved and then we started hiring Chinese and had a similar ramp up. Now I think both groups are quite decent, but I don't think firing over 60% of the US workforce without transitioning knowledge was the brightest way to transition to that (and yeah, that is jumping in with both feet...).

    4. Re:How about 80? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I did that sort of time once for a very unethical boss but most of it was sitting around and waiting. It was with a non-destructive testing crew during a prolonged plant shutdown. The prick would have us turn up at 7am, sit around waiting most of the day, may doing 1 or 2 hours actual work, than at 5pm after the safety inspectors had gone home we'd do stuff, often being interrupted at intervals and told to go slow. At 3am we went home, got some sort of sleep, then started it all over again. It turned out that we were getting paid a flat hourly rate but the client was getting charged shitloads for overtime. A couple of times I fell asleep high up on scaffolding. I certainly wasn't in a fit state to drive, but did anyway. I stuck it out for six weeks for some reason, I'm still not sure how or why, probably because the shutdown was only supposed to be for two weeks so the end always seemed to be in sight. Before I went in I thought it would have been like previous well run jobs where you get in, work as quickly as possible for 12-14 hours, then get out with enough time for sleep.

      Anyway, the lesson of that anecdote is that if you are doing those sort of hours something is very badly broken, often deliberately. Even in life and death situations efforts are made to relieve medical staff or troops long before it gets that far.

    5. Re:How about 80? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "1 month later, the entire team was laid off except me and the documentation writer (all four devs and both full time QA people). We had a fixed deadline to ship to that customer [...] I don't think firing over 60% of the US workforce without transitioning knowledge was the brightest way to transition"

      Unless you are the company owner, no, "we" didn't have a fixed deadline, your company, the one that laid off 60% of the employees, had a fixed deadline. And given the results, your are wrong: the way they managed the transition was brilliant because it was cheap and sucessful... thanks to a simpleton that was working 2.5x for free.

    6. Re: How about 80? by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      No, add 8 hours. That way his boss cans say "You blow me and I'll owe you one."

    7. Re:How about 80? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you were being paid hourly, time and a half over 40 and at least double time once you hit over 80 hours, you're a complete idiot.

      There's a time to let someone else's stupidity cause them to fail. And when everyone gets fired with a deadline ahead like that is when it's time.

    8. Re:How about 80? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      How about 169? :)

      I notice there are only 168 hours in a week - please share your time technology!

    9. Re:How about 80? by Radres · · Score: 1

      To be fair, a month after 9/11 who wasn't afraid of losing their job? Management could ask for anything back then.

    10. Re:How about 80? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too.. and after a certain point my productivity was so worthless it became pointless torture. I remember one instance where driving home was so dangerous I literally pulled over within 5 minutes of leaving the office and slept for several hours. Was not pleasant... :/

    11. Re:How about 80? by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      How about 169? :)

      I notice there are only 168 hours in a week - please share your time technology!

      Fall DST changeover week gets an extra hour.

  4. Re:Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I spend 60 hours a week trolling Slashdot. Do you mean there are ways I could be more effective at it?

    Absolutely. Perhaps you should outsource and/or automate your trolling to improve your trolling efficiency. This will allow you to achieve a healthy troll/life balance.

  5. Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't want to hear it. Its his fault you are working 60 hour weeks instead of the business hiring another worker. He approved it, he is aware of it, and he could give half a shit as long as you keep working. You get sick? Not his fault. You get burned out, well you should have taken steps to prevent that but still stayed and worked to get things done.

    You will never win. If you are working 60 hour weeks and want to stop doing so, just stop. Take a day and do some interviews, find another job. Cause the second you stop giving 150%, they are going to fire you anyways.

    The corporation has no loyalty to its employees. You can all be replaced. What YOU need to start doing, is to think of the corporation as being replaceable. Shop around, find a better deal, and take it for a couple years, then shop around again, find a better deal, and take it. You owe them nothing, they need you, not the other way around. You can leave all this and buy land and subsistence farm and sell produce to city-dwellers for the rest of your life if you want. The corporation cannot, it dies without workers.

    Never forget, they need you. To work for them. To buy from them. Stop doing both and they die. Its that simple.

    1. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In addition to the above, as overhead per worker goes up, the pressure to not hire a second worker will go up. Until overtime costs more than overhead, the company has a strong incentive to not hire another worker. This is especially true for salaried professionals who get the same pay no matter how long they work each week. A lot more programmers and developers on salaries should be demanding hourly wages, with overtime pay based on best estimates of a companies per-worker, per-hour overhead costs, and should be greater than that cost.

    2. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are in union with your boss in working so many hours, just do not mention the word union

    3. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The corporation has no loyalty to its employees. You can all be replaced. What YOU need to start doing, is to think of the corporation as being replaceable. Shop around, find a better deal, and take it for a couple years, then shop around again, find a better deal, and take it. You owe them nothing, they need you, not the other way around.

      The way I say it, be loyal to people, not to corporations. The corporation will fire you in an instant, but people are real.

      I've stuck around at companies longer than I needed to, just so my coworkers wouldn't have so much trouble picking up after me. I don't regret it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whenever my boss demands I work more than 40 hours per week I do so, but I spend 50% of the time just sitting around doing nothing* and taking 1 hour lunches.
      Like I give a fuck. Don't like it? Fire me.
      I work so I can afford to do other stuff. If I don't have time to do that stuff what the fuck is the point of working so hard?

      * Note that here I'm assuming regular demands of working more than 8 hours per day. Not a week long rush to get things ready for release.

    5. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah right. I'd rather get one stable salary and deal with the occasional bouts of overtime, then get paid less for the occasional bouts of under time.

    6. Re:Your Boss by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      the problem is that it is easy to replace a worker than to change companies.

    7. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Sucks to be American, right? In the (rest of the) civilised world unions are protected by law.

    8. Re:Your Boss by impossiblefork · · Score: 1

      You can't stop though, because if others continue there is no reason for other employers to offer better conditions.

      A corporation is certainly in some part dependent on its employees, but if they hold any real resource, like say, a mine, oil wells or an expensive factory then they are likely to be able to find other people to exploit. Your proposal of a combination of boycotts and quitting is likely to lead to a small improvement, but it won't be all that substantial, especially in an economy with a labour surplus.

    9. Re:Your Boss by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      The corporation has no loyalty to its employees. You can all be replaced. What YOU need to start doing, is to think of the corporation as being replaceable. Shop around, find a better deal, and take it for a couple years, then shop around again, find a better deal, and take it. You owe them nothing, they need you, not the other way around.

      The way I say it, be loyal to people, not to corporations. The corporation will fire you in an instant, but people are real.

      I've stuck around at companies longer than I needed to, just so my coworkers wouldn't have so much trouble picking up after me. I don't regret it.

      You don't owe your boss anything if you work for an abusive company. If he claims he is powerless to keep the company from overworking you, then he is at worst lying and at best useless as a boss.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    10. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but bosses aren't the only ones at your company. And I never overwork, unless it comes with a paycheck.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *"couldn't give half a shit"

      "could give half a shit" suggests he cares, which I think isn't what you mean.

    12. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every job I've worked in gives me an hour break for lunch.

      Maybe you should find less shitty employers.

    13. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be fortunate if they remain "occasional," because as the GP pointed out, the number of hours required in overtime will increase because it's easier to pay nothing and have it worked than it is to have someone new added to the staff. Then, of course, when you start making mistakes, they'll hold you responsible for them in spite of the problem being caused by poor staffing management.

    14. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure to check up on the actual federal regulations regarding salaried workers...

      Supervising 2 or more people.
      Control what you do and when you do it (ie, no change management, no approvers)
      Your job requires a college / advanced education.

      There are others as well.

    15. Re:Your Boss by Penguinisto · · Score: 0

      Sucks to be American, right? In the (rest of the) civilised world unions are protected by law.

      Unions are protected by law throughout the US. We just don't baby them to the point of crippling the economy (unless we're talking about Detroit, but that's a way different story, no?)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    16. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations die without workers? Nope, they do not. They only become extinct when they're out of money. If we want to think about it in a weird way, the worker themselves is technically giving money to the corporation by working. Ultimately the corporation only cares about money. Problem with money is that it can be used to do basically anything, and that the corporation can sacrifice the money, as well as the worker if it wanted to, for schemes that promise a perpetual money making machine. Lots of groups want this perpetual money making machine. Woe to the world when it finally arrives.

    17. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with IBM, and my boss works 70+ hours per week (5x12-14, plus Sunday afternoon). I know this because I see the flight itineraries, late meetings, and daily emails at 9-11pm and again at 5:30am, and shadowed them on several occasions. If your'e in IT and want a $175K+ salary plus options and awards, that's what it takes.

      In turn, 60 hours/week are expected from staff that are advancing their careers. Those standing still or at risk are welcome to finish at 40-50 hours, and refuse to travel Sunday night.

      It would be great to have 3 people for every 2, but all 3 will have to take 1/3 less salary, because there is no budget for that extra person.

    18. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen.

      Corporations are not people. They do not care about you. The minute people start recognizing this, the inequality goes away. People will start flexing their influence over policy, corporate welfare, subsidies. Republicans lament the 130 Billion spent on social assistance (welfare, foodstamps) etc, how come they don't lament the 150 billion in corporate welfare and subsidies. They want to get rid of social safety nets - what about corporate safety nets? How about one of the biggest pork-barrel corporate subsidies in the US Budget - 600 Billion in Defense?

      While I believe that when you are paid to work, you should work. You should also be paid a fair wage. I do not server a shareholder. I have an agreement with my employer that I will do my job to the best of my ability.

    19. Re:Your Boss by schlachter · · Score: 1

      how does one subsistence farm cheetos, coke, and burritos? and were do we buy this land u speak of..

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    20. Re:Your Boss by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That is exactly the attitude the company wants you to have. They will happily hold your coworkers hostage so that you will stick around for them to cheat and abuse.

    21. Re:Your Boss by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      especially if a company owns an important resource like a mine, well, or factory, workers willing to leave at the drop of a pin are a real liability. You seem to have never worked at any of these kinds of jobs, they are highly skilled. This is why unions are so effective at these kinds of jobs and ineffective at unskilled jobs.

      When my company was picketed because we fired a janitor who was doing something wrong, the company(and employees) didn't care. Because frankly the janitors didn't offer anything we couldn't replace within a week. No one cared and everyone moved on. On the other hand, that won't be the case at any large factory.

      And why people seem to think 40 hours a week is some holy grail is baffling to me. It's not. It is, historically speaking, ridiculously short vs what people have done for humanity's existence. Hell, 8 years in, I'm down to about 65 hours a week, and I'm not even close to "overworked". Granted, I'm compensated well for my time, else I would never do it. And why people would do such a job if the money wasn't there confounds me. But then, I've never had much faith in the decision-making of the masses.

    22. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They will happily hold your coworkers hostage so that you will stick around for them to cheat and abuse.

      That doesn't work. Or maybe it works for you......how stupid are you?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    23. Re:Your Boss by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      You will never win. If you are working 60 hour weeks and want to stop doing so, just stop. Take a day and do some interviews, find another job. Cause the second you stop giving 150%, they are going to fire you anyways.

      Excatly. The only way to escape is to find another job. In the meantime any lack of enthusiasm or effort could get you fired, and you are working for effectively less if you are a salaried employee without overtime.

    24. Re:Your Boss by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Maybe I meant exactly. Maybe I meant excatly. Maybe you can really only understand business decisions when you've been a cat.

    25. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not a week long rush to get things ready for release.

      This shouldn't happen either; it's a sign of poor planning. And let's be honest, how bad is it really going to be if your release is delayed by a week? In most cases, no one will care.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Last I checked, there weren't three companies waiting to hire every worker who wanted to switch jobs.

    27. Re:Your Boss by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      Sounds great but people get stuck. You move to a medium sized town with what you think will be a great job. For a couple years it is. You get married have kids, buy a house etc. Now it is hell. You can piss away half a years salary on relocation expenses, get your wife to leave her job and hope she can find something wherever your going that is comparible, relocate kids etc. Or you are tied down geographically because of family reasons (parents getting older etc). Either way "just get another job" only works if you have another job nearby sometimes.

    28. Re:Your Boss by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't read your own posts....

    29. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Question is, do you let your boss hold you hostage like that?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Your Boss by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No. You described that you do. That is why it is clear that you don't read your own posts.

    31. Re:Your Boss by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It would be great to have 3 people for every 2, but all 3 will have to take 1/3 less salary, because there is no budget for that extra person.

      You mean that if there was a budget for that extra person it'd have to come out of the bosses' yacht fund.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    32. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're not very good at dealing with people, I can tell that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re:Your Boss by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Because I don't ask people "how stupid are you?"

      Hmmm....

    34. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was younger at smaller software companies I saw sooo much of this shit. Perception was/is reality. You came in at 7am and left at 6pm? Fucking slacker. You came in at 10am and stayed until 9pm? Model employee. You came in at 10am and stayed till midnight, even though you took a 2 hour lunch and spent 3-4 hours reading websites? You're a frickin' Rockstar!

      One company I worked at was doing normal hours for a couple of years but then pressure to ship the next version (for the upgrade revenue) got intense as the company was in the red. So we all worked our asses off 12x6 for a few months and shipped. Everything calmed down. But then a few months later 8 hours being the norm turned into 9, then 10. Then 11. After a few months of that we started to realize that even though everyone was staying later, they were getting the same amount of actual work done, or worse, they were writing more code but also making more mistakes due to fatigue that would then require MORE work to fix. Upper management was made aware of the problem but didn't see how it was actually a problem. So I left, as did others and the place pretty much fell apart.

      Now I work for a place that likes a 40 hour workweek and actually enforces it through our time reporting. If we work extra hours, upstairs starts looking to hire more resources for us. It's much better for your peace of mind. Life's too short to spend it in the office. I only wish I'd learned that about 10 years earlier.

    35. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I'm good at dealing with people. I only said you aren't! :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    36. Re:Your Boss by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Many argue that our pre-industrial ancestors actually worked less - http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma...

      If you like your work (or money) enough that you want to spend your whole waking life doing it then all kudos to you. For many of us though money isn't everything, and doing anything for 40 (+) hours a week, week in and week out, just isn't our ideal life style choice.

    37. Re: Your Boss by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, there were many groups like that. Its said in the cold weather or anscestors would basically not move as the farms were lying fallow and there wasn't exactly importation of food from other areas to feed you. So it wasn't exactly fulfilling liesure . but you did have down time when there wasn't the ability to grow food.

      But my background is the warm rice farming regions where generally people farmed year round. Its said a Chinese farmer worked from sunrise to sunset with three breaks, breakfast, and lunch (so probably an average of 9 hour days in the field) basically year round in the southern regions.

      My only point is 40 hours isn't some magical number, and there are large stretches of the world that can comfortably function on consistently higher hours. I'm not saying everyone should have to. I'm waiting for the day we go star trek and people do what they want with all their time, but we aren't ready for that type of society yet. I like my job and find/found it very rewarding during those long hours and I don't regret them. I feel sorry for people who don't like their job (I've been there as well) as every hour is misery. But I don't care to hear this BS that there is some magical physical limit at 40.

    38. Re:Your Boss by houghi · · Score: 2

      Wherever my boss asks me to do overtime, I do so and get payed 150%. So my boss sees to it that overtime is not needed.
      If I do not take all my holidays, I will loose almost all the money that I would get as payed holiday, so I don't do that. This means he needs to hire 3 people if he wants to get 120 hours of work in instead of 2.

      The people who do overtime (managers, directors) are compensated for it.

      Oh yeah, I have three unions I can choose from (that I know of) and my boss doesn't care if I am in a union, neither is anybody else.

      O yeah number two. I work in Belgium, Europe.

      I soon am expecting relieve programs to give money to the poor people of America. All this time, there are some filthy rich people. Look at the Wealth Inequality in America.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    39. Re:Your Boss by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      And let's be honest, how bad is it really going to be if your release is delayed by a week?

      But then the revenue generated by the new release would have to be recognized next quarter instead of the current one, and we *can't* have that...

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    40. Re:Your Boss by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But then the revenue generated by the new release would have to be recognized next quarter instead of the current one, and we *can't* have that...

      I understand your pain.....that must be horrible. Let's talk bonuses and maybe something can be arranged.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    41. Re:Your Boss by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world doesn't have Sen. Bob Corker.

      http://www.salon.com/2014/02/1...

    42. Re:Your Boss by xaxa · · Score: 1

      My manager has never asked me to do overtime, although I think we have a similar arrangement.

      However, sometimes I work late, particularly if I have no plans for the evenings, the office is quiet, and I'm busy concentrating on something. I leave early later that week, or if there are enough hours (like if the weather is really bad), take an afternoon or day.

      I'm not sure what would happen if I didn't take my holiday. I think nothing, so long as I've taken the legal minimum (20 days in the UK, though I get 32).

      (Inequality in the UK isn't that much better than in the US: http://inequalitybriefing.org/... )

    43. Re:Your Boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're young, aren't you, Anonymous Coward? I mean under 45, probably under 40. If you're older, then you haven't really tested your worth on the job market in the current economy.

      Because if you're 45 or older, employers classify you as an "older worker" and start leaning on you to do just what you suggest: Look for another job. If you jump ship, it allows them to hire a younger worker to replace you, while arguing that this younger worker has a more up-to-date "skill set" they need.

      The problem is that most corporations now seem to be hiring only younger workers, who are cheaper. But workers 45 and over tend to have children, who need new shoes and college, and probably a mortgage. They're most likely not in a position to leap easily to another job.

  6. Practically no content in the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know, I'm not supposed to read the article, but the idea that a 60 hour work week is too long, is a totally new concept to me. Luckily this author has written about 20 sentences about it on his blog. Excellent.

  7. Another type that is interesting... by sottitron · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is the type that is always *talking* about how much they work, but they are out the door at 4:00 and are never online or responding to emails in the evenings.

    1. Re:Another type that is interesting... by amjohns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean the people that actually come in, knuckle-down, get work done instead of facebook/instagram/etc, then leave and go have a life?? Damn them, Damn them all to hell!!

    2. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with leaving at 4pm if you started work at 7am. And certainly nothing wrong with employees not responding to work communications outside working hours.

    3. Re:Another type that is interesting... by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the point was about people who TALK about how much work they do but only put in 40 hours a week (hold on to comments about that "only").

      Essentially those people are doing PR for the 60 hour week that the other people are putting in.

      So not only do you have to convince management that more workers are needed BUT you also have to convince management that you aren't the problem because Bob says he's working all the time but he's not complaining like you are.

    4. Re:Another type that is interesting... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with giving said person -2% raises year after year either since they're piggybacking off the rest of the team that is available to help with emergencies when they come up.

      Get a life. Your life and health are more important than your job. If they work hard, meet deadlines and live it their all when they are work, that is all that is needed. This is especially true if it is not their work that causes the emergencies in the first place.

      Maybe you need to start taking your work more seriously so that you don't have to face "emergencies" so often.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    5. Re:Another type that is interesting... by madprof · · Score: 1

      If you know you will get emergencies you should have an agreed plan of who to contact and who will take overall responsibility when one occurs.

    6. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you paying me to be on call?
      What's that? You're not?
      Well fuck you too.

      Note that I work in R&D not the fab, or IT or whatever so I can't conceive of any kind of work emergency that couldn't wait till tomorrow morning.

    7. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Your boss is the one piggybacking off you if you are contracted to do a 40 hour week, yet you are made to feel you should do more.

    8. Re:Another type that is interesting... by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

      Nothing you do is so important that it is an emergency.

      People live and die every day, so don't give me that "life or death" excuse.

    9. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Those people are rarely in the group he delineated.

    10. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Your life and health are more important than your job.

      His? No, they're not. Fuck that guy.

    11. Re:Another type that is interesting... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      But working only a decent work day was not the entirety of the claim.

    12. Re:Another type that is interesting... by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he means the people that come in and send an email at 8am to "prove" that they are in the office then go fuck around out of sight for 3 hours.

    13. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. But you forgot they also keep a jacket on the back of their chairs 24/7 to give the illusion of attendance.

    14. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they work hard, meet deadlines and live it their all when they are work, that is all that is needed.

      And when they can't meet the deadlines within a 40 hour week because their equipment is so out of date that they need to work closer to 60 hours?

    15. Re:Another type that is interesting... by ATMAvatar · · Score: 2

      Then you put in a request for new equipment, and explain that it will make them far more in increased productivity from you than it costs. A $2k upgrade only needs to increase your productivity by $1/hour to return the investment in the first year. That's usually a no-brainer expense.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    16. Re:Another type that is interesting... by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      Unless it's in the contract that they have to be available after 4pm, what exactly is the problem?

    17. Re:Another type that is interesting... by captjc · · Score: 1

      This isn't about emergencies. Shit happens and hard deadlines have to be met. Most people will not argue that there are times when overtime is necessary.

      The problem is when this mentality becomes standard operating procedure. Bosses start treating salaried workers as a way to exploit overtime laws. There are plenty of examples of companies that consider 60 hours to be the new 40.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    18. Re:Another type that is interesting... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Some people have to fix the "emergencies" of others so there's no point blaming the messenger.
      After a while you get to narrow down the list of suspects and work out which mistakes they repeat and that saves time.

    19. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with leaving at 4pm if you started work at 7am. And certainly nothing wrong with employees not responding to work communications outside working hours.

      Before I retired, I often came in at 0 dark thirty, and stayed very late in the evening. but if things were quiet, I'd take a long lunch, or go home and take a nap for an hour and come back in. 60 hour and 80 hour weeks were the norm.

      One time someone complained that they couldn't reach me at 10:00 a.m.

      For the next month, I arrived at my desk at 0800, took a 15 minute break at ten and 2, left at 12 for exactly 1 hour, and left at exactly 5 p.m. Even though they got the message very clearly after the first week.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    20. Re:Another type that is interesting... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      sad that you think employees should be online working in the evenings. perhaps u need a diff job?

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    21. Re:Another type that is interesting... by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Many careers have been made by fighting fires caused by one's shoddy engineering. At a previous job, a top developer was hailed for his abilities to work 48 hours straight to fix problems. Those problems were on his code, which was very poorly written in the first place. He was the firefighter, but also the arsonist.

      If emergencies are not very rare, time is better spent preventing said emergencies than just fighting them.

    22. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is the type that is always *talking* about how much they work, but they are out the door at 4:00 and are never online or responding to emails in the evenings.

      You know what? Fuck you. Seriously just fuck you. I leave at 4pm because I come in at 6am. Then I do all the work no one wants to take responsibility for and put in 80 to 100 hours a week every fucking week. I haven't had a full day off in three years. You sound lazy and entitled. You fucking useless baby boomer cock sucking shit.

    23. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      For the next month, I arrived at my desk at 0800, took a 15 minute break at ten and 2, left at 12 for exactly 1 hour, and left at exactly 5 p.m. Even though they got the message very clearly after the first week.

      Wow, you worked regular work hours and coworkers could find you during the day... you really showed them.

      If you're going to be working odd hours and come and go whenever you want, then that should be a "work from home" job. But, since somebody complained that they couldn't find you at 10am, it sounds like it wasn't that kind of a job.

      Believe me, 9 out of 10 companies would prefer you to work 40 hours a week and during regular hours than this "I stay very late" BS.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    24. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I am amazed at the number of people that think salary means you don't get paid more to work over 40 hours, but you get docked pay to work less than 40.

    25. Re:Another type that is interesting... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What ever happened to actual 40-hour work-weeks? It would be 8am to 4pm.

    26. Re:Another type that is interesting... by xianzombie · · Score: 1

      My last company was exactly that. "Salary Minus". I forget the exact pay rate, but lets say it broke down to $1/hr. So I'd make $40 per week based on a 40hr work week. 60hrs that week meant I still got $40. 30hrs for the week meant I got $30. These hours were against actual projects/new work.

      Additionally, I was on call 24/7. Every goddamn week. A service call during the day cut into my time on new work, so I had to "Work Harder" to make up the time I lost on the new job to offset the time spent on emergency maint.

      On the upside, I did get paid a fixed $50 per service call for after hours maintenance (before taxes). $50 per call no matter how long it took. 15min fix? $50. 12hr fix? $50.

      This was from 2004-2006. I started at $37,500/yr and I think when I left I was up to a whopping $39k or so.

      Maybe I'm a masochist, as I switched companies and kept doing the same damn thing. The customers I had switched their contracts to my new company less than 6 months after I left the old.

      Still salary, still the same on-call schedule, and I lost the after hours compensation I used to have.

      But now I kinda work my own schedule, act as my own supervisor, manage my own projects, work less hours and make more money.

    27. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Ed_1024 · · Score: 1

      "I think the point was about people who TALK about how much work they do but only put in 40 hours a week"

      I don't see those two statements as being incompatible. How much useful "work" you produce is not necessarily linked to the number of hours your body is present. Unless you're employed as a stationary mime...

    28. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Radres · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's near impossible to say with certainty whether those issues created by that developer were unavoidable as part of doing the job. Many times bugs are the fallout from dysfunctions either in the team (poor requirements, planning) or in the technology (buggy, poorly-implemented abstractions that the developer is forced to build on top of). Of course it's reasonable to blame it all on the incompetence of the developer, but in some cases it genuinely isn't his fault despite his name being attached to the bug.

    29. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a full day off in three years.

      And whose fault is that, Mr. Fucking Idiot That's Too Much of a Pussy to Stand Up For Himself?

    30. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wow, you worked regular work hours and coworkers could find you during the day... you really showed them.

      Oddly enough, it sort of did. Because now, we had people who had no intention of ever working the hours that I did suddenly scrambling to figure out how to do the work in those hours that I was no longer working. More on that below.

      Believe me, 9 out of 10 companies would prefer you to work 40 hours a week and during regular hours than this "I stay very late" BS.

      Perhaps you have a better solution when the Director comes down at 4:55 p.m., and gives you an 8 hour job that he needs finished for tomorrow's 8:00 a.m. meeting? Majick? Telling the director to slag off?

      And that is why my "perfect 8 to 5 employee" act went away quickly. When the Director asks my boss why I'm no longer willing to put in the whacky hours, and is told that some underling was pissed off because they couldn't find me - well, who do you figure wins that conflict? And no further questions when after a 24 hour work day, I went home ot catch a couple hours sleep.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Another type that is interesting... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Then you put in a request for new equipment, and explain that it will make them far more in increased productivity from you than it costs. A $2k upgrade only needs to increase your productivity by $1/hour to return the investment in the first year. That's usually a no-brainer expense.

      No-brainer PHBs in management usually have problems seeing such matters.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:Another type that is interesting... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      You want me to respond to emergencies because our software is crappy? Fuck you, pay me.

    33. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Not really. Everyone needs a mid day break, not just to eat, but to avoid going crazy.

    34. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      When the Director asks my boss why I'm no longer willing to put in the whacky hours, and is told that some underling was pissed off because they couldn't find me - well, who do you figure wins that conflict?

      Well not you. For a month you managed to work the 40 hours you are paid for instead of 60 hours. But once this was resolved you went back to working 60 hours. You lost.

    35. Re:Another type that is interesting... by green1 · · Score: 1

      That's only a 37.5 hour work week... what? you don't expect pay for that half hour lunch break do you?

    36. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      When the Director asks my boss why I'm no longer willing to put in the whacky hours, and is told that some underling was pissed off because they couldn't find me - well, who do you figure wins that conflict?

      Well not you. For a month you managed to work the 40 hours you are paid for instead of 60 hours. But once this was resolved you went back to working 60 hours. You lost.

      In your world, perhaps.

      There was a certain amount of chaos that erupted, as my department knew exactly what type of chaos that would erupt. My department was very, very happy when I went back to my normal "leave when the job is over." mode.

      My point was proven. Hire three shifts of driven people, or allow me to work it out my way. No more complaints if I wasn't there for a while. Underling was told to slag off.

      I lost? A lot of "winners" as you would no doubt put it, were left by the wayside. I was paid more, lasted through several downturns, and ended up with the wherewithal to retire at 55 very comfortably on my terms. But while I worked, the powers that be knew if thay had to get it done, it came to me. They liked that, and I was proud of being the go to guy.

      "Losing" felt pretty darn good, IMO. Apparently you have a different definition of success than I do. I fully understand yours, but you have no concept of mine. Don't impose yours upon me, please.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:Another type that is interesting... by anyGould · · Score: 1

      If you have a boss that measures productivity solely by "what hours they're at the office" instead of "what was accomplished", then the guy who makes sure his punches are accurate is meeting the productivity goals as defined. If the boss defined the goals incorrectly, that's management's problem.

    38. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good future working hourly for a "consulting" company. I used to wander over to their part of the building sometimes; they'd be hanging around reading the paper, talking on the phone, flying paper airplanes, whatever until 6 pm. Then, order out for pizza; then start working until midnight. Results: lots of nice hours billed for their actual employer.

    39. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your employer was violating several labor laws.
      First, salaried means you get paid a fixed base wage for the entire year, it doesn't matter if you only work 1 hour a week or 40 they have to pay you the same. If they don't then they're violating several regulations and laws and at the very least the IRS will be interested to find out about it.
      Second, even if you're salaried, you cannot be worked more than 40 hours a week on average over the course of a year without additional compensation.
      Third, "on-call" has some fairly strict rules about what they can require you to do without additional compensation.

      All in all the biggest problem is that people are often so desperate for a paycheck and so unsure of their actual rights that they don't properly document and report such violations, so employers often get away with it.

    40. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sips coffee in agreement... what was I doing again?

    41. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I understand your world perfectly. I just grew out of it. If extra hours are expected they should be paid for. Doing them out of some sense of loyalty to a company, or worse fear of one, or even belief that it resulted in you being respected, as they inevitably are, is just plain wrong.

      Of course some people have jobs that are so pleasurable to them that they are better than time spent with the family or pursuing their leisure time pursuits. But it's notable that that reason didn't feature in your justifications. I guess you were doing something like IT in an office environment rather than training dolphins.

      That you were paid well, had job security, and got the opportunity to retire early are great. But they don't excuse your employer not paying for 33% of the time you worked. You were stiffed.

    42. Re:Another type that is interesting... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You were stiffed.

      Then just be pleased and gratified that you are not only much smarter and practical than I am, you have a bonus of not laboring under the delusions I am.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    43. Re:Another type that is interesting... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      7-4. 9 hour day. You know, I remember having lunch paid for by most employers at some point in the past. If not much was going on, we'd take a full hour lunch. If it was busy, you ate a bit faster. But lunch wasn't considered 'time off'.

      There was even a song about it :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDMFOLIHxU

    44. Re:Another type that is interesting... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, the old "40 hour work week" was supposed to include breaks. Multiple breaks, not just lunch. The shift to include lunch is just part of a recent shift to change expectations to thinking that it's normal to work 50-60 hour weeks.

      The 80s song "9 to 5" wasn't "9 to 6" or "8 to 5", because at the time, working 9am to 5pm was considered a normal 40 hour work-week.

    45. Re:Another type that is interesting... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, breaks were supposed to be included in the 40 hour work-week. Not just a lunch break, but other ~15 minute breaks throughout the day. The expectation that people don't get to take breaks is recent.

    46. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      In the UK, the convention for an full time day is that you get a morning and afternoon break on employers time. And you take a lunch break on your own time.

      Hours are usually 40 per week. But sometimes 37.5 hours.

      If it's 37.5 hours, and you take a half hour break, you can indeed do 9-5.

      The law is that if you work more than a 6 hour day, you are entitled to a 20 minute break. That's all. The rest is at the discretion of the contract.

    47. Re:Another type that is interesting... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the US, but in the UK, lunch was always on the worker's own time. To the best of my knowledge, and my experience of working since the early 80s.

      Breaks were and are on the employers time. Usually one of 10-15 mins morning and afternoon.

      Legally they are simply required to give a 20 minute break to anyone working more than 6 hours. Hence 2x10 min breaks, and lunch on your own time.

    48. Re:Another type that is interesting... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Some of that might depend on what you mean by "on the worker's time". If you're talking about hourly work, then lunch breaks often aren't included in determining pay, but other breaks may be. However, if you're talking about the "40 hour work week", the concept of it originally, and up until recently, included all breaks. It meant that you showed up, and then you left 8 hours later. I believe that was historically the idea even in Europe, but it was very definitely the idea in the US in the 70s and 80s.

  8. Re:doing two people's jobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Oh for fucks sake... there are always exceptions to any rule. This article is speaking in generalities, and is not saying this is true for everyone, you fuckwit.

    God DAMN sometimes I hate this place.

  9. Umm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm amazed that he managed to get through that entire essay without mentioning the proverbial elephant in the room: Unless you are working on a project you own, or being paid as befits your schedule (in which case it still may be a bad idea for the reasons the essay does mention) your 60-hour workweek isn't merely 'not a badge of honor' it's a sign that you are doing two jobs for one salary because haha, what the fuck are you going to do about it, sucker?

    The merely pragmatic considerations of fatigue degrading certain cognitive functions of various important sorts aren't false, and may even be the primary concern in the cases of self-employed contractors and startup jockeys with equity stakes(that they might even keep after the VCs are finished with them...); but if you are working for a paycheck and reporting to a boss, your bigger problem isn't whether working those additional hours makes you a less visionary creative or whatever. It's the fact that your effective pay, per hour, is plummeting (and in the way that annihilates your life outside of work, and sucks you dry, rather than just making you feel poorer, as working 40 hours for a stagnant or declining salary would).

    Probably good practice for the bold future!

  10. GDP by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Informative

    US Per Capita GDP is 51,704. French per capita GDP is 35,392. Americans work about 200 hours more per year.

    1. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Average American monthly wage is $3769. Average French monthly wage is $3698. Even though they're working about 15 hours less per month.

    2. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm doing my best to help even things out. I am NOT a choke point. I work under 20 hours a week, most weeks. Therefore, I'm actually helping my company by increasing its efficiency! I didn't know that.

    3. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      More intersting countries to investigate:

      Luxembourg and Denmark; Much greater per capita GDP than the USA / shorter working week.

      Greece and Mexico; Some of the longest working hours. Much less GDP than the USA.

    4. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...and the french have a longer and healthier life, as W.H.O.'s data prove. And they are also far slimmer and better looking.

      Working 60 hrs a week is just stupid, stupid, stupid. It causes heart diseases, fast aging, stomach problems, etc...

      People who work so much should be mocked and laughed at, rather than respected for it.

    5. Re:GDP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Average American monthly wage is $3769. Average French monthly wage is $3698. Even though they're working about 15 hours less per month.

      This sort of thing is so difficult to measure, because it's hard to separate all the variables. Any time you see a raw number like this, you know the person telling you is either an idiot or spreading propaganda.

      Consider some of the issues:
      *) It should really be measured by hour of work, not month of work, although you took that into consideration, most people don't.
      *) Make sure you somehow are aware of the people who can't find a job, making $0 a month. Should they be counted?
      *) It shouldn't be measured as dollars spent, it should be measured as total compensation. In the extreme example of this, you have people like Steve Jobs making one dollar a year. That kind of thing needs to be accounted for.
      *) You need to be careful including in your statistics people who've recently immigrated, and don't even speak the language. They pull down the average, just as you would if you went to a foreign country, trying to work but couldn't talk to anyone.

      Those are just the easy issues that I can think of, not even having a deep understanding of the problem. I'm sure I'm missing a lot. Point is, make sure you have good data with proper controls if you actually want to understand the issue.

      But if you don't want to understand the issue, if you just want to spread propaganda, carry on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:GDP by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Complete bollocks. Americans get 0 weeks of vacation, French have mandated 6. There's your difference, ignoring the differences in hours per week.

      Also take into account the fact that the US Per Capita GDP is extremely bloated; median income is near equal.

    7. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In what universe do you live in which Americans get zero vacation? I don't think I've ever had less than 4 weeks paid vacation in my > 15 years in the workforce.

    8. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've come to suspect (out of my ass) that a lot of American 'gdp' is funny money. It's on the books, but none of it's circulating in the real economy. Just paper being leveraged to by more paper,

    9. Re:GDP by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 1

      It is difficult to do both 1 and 3 at the same time. While his statistic wasn't too useful, I'd expect it to be due to a large amount of paid vacation time per year (3) rather than a higher hourly wage (1).

      As for 4, WTF?

    10. Re:GDP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      As for 4, WTF?

      If you have someone saying, "wages haven't gone up at all for Americans in the last 30 years," but they don't mention that you've had an influx of 10 million people who can't speak the language drawing down the average, then they're being deceptive.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:GDP by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      That might mean something if the US and France had similar wealth distribution. The average American may produce more but certainly doesn't get to keep it.

    12. Re:GDP by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's no legislated amount of vacation for Americans. Maybe your job gives it to you as part of your compensation package, but your typical hourly fast-food worker doesn't get any at all. In France and other European countries, vacation time is mandated by law.

    13. Re:GDP by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      It should really be measured by hour of work, not month of work, although you took that into consideration, most people don't.

      France has a 35-hour work week to America's 40. If the rough monthly numbers are still anywhere near comparable, something is Very Wrong in the US, and no amount of "fine tuning" will make that go away.

    14. Re:GDP by sir-gold · · Score: 1, Informative

      In my 20 years in the workforce (mostly service jobs) I have NEVER had even a single day of paid vacation.

    15. Re:GDP by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Those weeks of vacation are at your employer's discretion in their compensation package they offered you. You've had good luck in the employers you've had, nothing more. There is no legally mandated vacation time for workers in the U.S.

    16. Re:GDP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Heh, if you are any good at statistics, you can 'fine tune' the data to mean anything you want. That's your problem perhaps, you don't realize that.

      It's not a matter of 'fine tuning,' it's a matter of getting numbers that are meaningful.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:GDP by Bengie · · Score: 1

      So these immigrants who can't speak our language are competing for our middle class jobs? Middle class pay has gone down and the number of people in middle class has shrunk dramatically. How do low cost uneducated immigrants affect middle class other than increase taxes to help support them?

    18. Re:GDP by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      How do low cost uneducated immigrants affect middle class other than increase taxes to help support them?

      Honestly, I don't really care. I say, bring in the tired and poor, and rich and anyone else who likes America and wants to live here.

      However, for the purpose of getting accurate data and an understanding of the situation, you need to take these things into consideration.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:GDP by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      American monthly wage per capita / American GDP per capita = 0.072; French monthly wage per capita / French GDP per capita = .104

      Whoever John Galt is he is clearly not an American.

    20. Re:GDP by Tom · · Score: 1

      GDP is a meaningless number if you don't also look into which sectors contribute how much.

      In the USA, the top 3 sectors are renting/leasing/real-estate, government and the financial industry. In other words: Nothings gets actually produced or created in the top 3 sectors, making up close to 30% of the economy.

      Other countries are a lot more industry-heavy than the US, which has turned into a service economy. You can judge this one way or the other, but comparing just one number when there are considerable differences in how it is created is a bit shortsighted.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my 44 years in the workforce (mostly service jobs) I have ALWAYS received at least 2 weeks of paid vacation days plus holidays and personal days. I guess it sucks to be you, "sir-gold".

    22. Re:GDP by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      How can the french monthly wage per capita be more than 10%? There are 12 months in a year.....

      Also, average wages don't really tell the story. High wage-earners skew the numbers one way, and non-wage compensation skews in another (profit sharing? Medical/Retirement benefits? etc.)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete bollocks. Americans get 0 weeks of vacation, French have mandated 6.

      6? um, 5....

    24. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your complaint to the comment is that the French get paid the same as Americans for equal work, but in addition to this they get 6 weeks of paid vacation?

    25. Re:GDP by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      Any number of vacation weeks above 0 is better than 0. I'm not sure it matters whether it's 5 or 6.

    26. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0

      Why SHOULD there be legally mandated vacation time? I do not understand why the government should interfere in my negotiations with my employer over things such as vacation time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    27. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly though, it's difficult to measure....because they fire the guys that track their time, and none of us can do math anymore.

    28. Re:GDP by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Why SHOULD there be legally mandated vacation time? I do not understand why the government should interfere in my negotiations with my employer over things such as vacation time.

      Because given the chance employers would give people zero vacation time. It's the same reason labor laws exist -- because people in power rarely demonstrate morality, or apathy for the condition of the rank-and-file worker, if they aren't forced to.

      All it takes is a collusion of all employers in the same industry in an area to stop anyone in that group from having vacation time.

    29. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my 20 years in the workforce (mostly service jobs) I have NEVER had even a single day of paid vacation.

      Well, it's obvious you're not very smart. 20 years in the workforce doing menial jobs, and never offered a manager position? And never had paid vacation? By god, you must be dumb as a fucking stump.

    30. Re:GDP by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      ...rarely demonstrate morality, or apathy for the condition of...

      Oops. I meant empathy there.

    31. Re:GDP by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      In my 20 years in the workforce (mostly service jobs) I have NEVER had even a single day of paid vacation.

      ...then you're doing it wrong.

      You only get what you negotiate. Sometimes life dictates that it cannot be helped, but you always have the chance to improve your situation if only you work at it.

      I started my working life in some of the crappiest jobs known to man (my very first job was at a lumberyard for a very abysmal wage, but small towns don't grant much options). However, I constantly sought and pursued better options wherever I could find them. Sometimes I had setbacks (and one year was positively evil), but overall I'm doing fairly well now, and I never turn away new opportunities without at least looking at them first.

      As for TFA? I remember one of my earliest EE gigs - I put in hellish hours for shitty pay. It was then that I realized that damn... this sucks. I started looking around, and not long after, something better presented itself. It was there that I shifted from EE to IT (mid-1990s), and found something I really loved to do.

      Call it luck all you want, call it a mere assertion, but lucky breaks are only 1% blind luck... the rest involves 49% patience and 50% looking for the damned thing to come along, recognizing it, and jumping on it.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    32. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can the french monthly wage per capita be more than 10%? There are 12 months in a year.....

      It's per capita, not per capita in work

    33. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, that is interesting since most of the jobs I have held give vacation time. How did that happen? BTW, it has nothing to do with morality, or empathy for the condition of the rank-and-file worker. It has to do with getting workers who are productive and valuable. I have held several hiring position jobs (although in none of them did I have the ability to set wages). The places I worked as a manager which required the least skill in the workers actually paid the best for those workers. The reason was that in order to get people who were reliable to work those jobs we had to pay more because they were not very desirable jobs. Most of the people we got in those jobs were not worth minimum wage, when we got someone who was reliable enough to be worth employing, it was worth paying them significantly more than minimum wage in order to keep them (actually, we hired at significantly above the minimum wage in order to attract people who might be worth keeping. We ended up having to fire a significant percentage of those we hired because too many of them could not be relied upon to show up for work on a regular basis).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    34. Re:GDP by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      any particular reason you put so much value on making something? My biggest pieces of consumption are not for things, they are for services. Why shouldn't the economic distribution have some relation to how people spend their money? If I wanted, I could put all my money into goods, but I'm not a hoarder and don't find value in that.

      The pilot who fly's my aircraft, the bar tender who serves me beer, orbitz helping me find a flight, all these things are services. And this is where my money goes. Add in rent, and the vast majority of mine (and everyone else's) spending is not for goods. And you are wrong, all developed countries are heavily based on services. Only in the 3rd world is it even close to true. Even that bastion of industry, Germany, is about 72 percent services.

    35. Re:GDP by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is that working hours, or hours at work? I can't speak for Mexicans, but Greeks seem to have six 15 minute cigarette breaks per hour.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    36. Re:GDP by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Boy, I say boy, is you one of them there cormnusts?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:GDP by Tom · · Score: 1

      any particular reason you put so much value on making something?

      Just to illustrate the point. If the USA were industry-heavy, the example would've probably gone the other way around. The point is that $1000 GDP could be $1000 of manufacturing or $1000 of table waiting, and while an economy needs both, they are not interchangeable.

      I'm not trying to make any country better or worse, just saying that if you really want to compare, it makes more sense to go deeper. It's like citing only a companies bottom line, when everyone who has ever worked in some capacity with access to budget data knows how much fudging goes into those numbers.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    38. Re:GDP by c-reus · · Score: 1

      Why SHOULD there be legally mandated vacation time? I do not understand why the government should interfere in my negotiations with my employer over things such as vacation time.

      The government should leave freedom to negotiate a contract between an employer and potential employee - however I strongly support that the negotiations should have minimum limits that the employer cannot lower. Things like minimum number of paid vacation days and minimum wage. The former to allow the employees to have some time to rest, the latter to allow the employees to actually survive.

      The way I see it, the mandated vacation is there so that the employer could not force the employees to accept having no vacation time just because they can. If there's a mandated non-zero minimum amount of paid vacation days, then the negotiation for paid vacation days cannot start from zero. A lot of people are not in a position to (or they choose not to, due to fierce competition) negotiate for a better deal than is offered to them.

      Consider a low-paid Walmart employee, say the guy loading products on shelves. Finding someone suitable for that job isn't (probably) too difficult, and the people applying will most likely not argue too much about the compensation package. It's far easier to just reject people with higher demands and shop around until someone with no vacation demands applies for the position. Someone that would take pretty much any job to survive until the next paycheck. Is that a fair enough justification for an employer to not provide any time at all for the employee for a vacation?

    39. Re:GDP by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Health considerations and efficiency. At the end everyone wins if the workers are treated well - the company, the worker and society as a whole. There is nothing "left", "right" or anything remotely political in this. It's solid, scientific facts. And you know the thing about science, right - it works!

      Where I work we are obliged to take minimum 15 days per year. That's working days, mind you, in essence it's 3 calendar weeks. My total vacation days are 28 working days [5 calendar weeks and a bit] + the option to buy 5 extra days. I always do it. Money is nothing compared to spare time...substituting 1 tablet per year for 1 full week rest - that's cheap!

      Oh, and in case you are wondering - I work in a fully [high-tech] private company, shareholders and all, and we are bloody good in what we do.

      In the larger picture - when the assholes say these worker protections are not profitable what they mean is that it's not profitable for THEM. But if you look over the whole society you will see the [enormous] profit everywhere. When the assholes get their way, they [as an example] force people to poverty and sub-standard lifestyles which results in increased health costs and increased crime rates but those are not paid by THEM, so society covers for their profits. Get it? This is going on in Europe [the assholes pushing hard against science and reason for personal profit] at the moment and if we are so stupid to succumb to these [imported] lies our societies will degrade....

    40. Re:GDP by guises · · Score: 1

      Denmark is the only one from that list that's interesting. Luxembourg is a tax shelter, and Greece and Mexico are too poor to fit in the same category. You can always take it to extremes: what are the working hours in North Korea? What's the GDP there?

    41. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Nothing in your post explains WHY it is a government concern that people get some minimum amount of vacation time. You say that the government should mandate some minimum amount of vacation time because otherwise an employer might not offer any. But that begs the question by assuming that it is a government interest that people get some minimum amount of vacation time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    42. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Then that makes it in the interest of the employer to offer vacation time, perhaps even enforce a certain amount of vacation time (I have worked for companies that forced employees to take a certain amount of time off each year). It does not explain why the government should force a company to take actions which are in the company's interest. According to your argument, companies which give their employees vacation time will be more successful than companies which do not. My observation is that the more the government interferes in the "market" the greater the amount of poverty. Historically, poverty for the majority is the norm. The exception to that is in those parts of the world where the free market has dominated.
      Again, you have not explained why the government should mandate a minimum amount of vacation time. All you have done is explain why a company will be more successful if it gives a minimum amount of vacation time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    43. Re:GDP by c-reus · · Score: 1

      There's some research to support that taking vacations is beneficial - see http://www.tandfonline.com/doi... (paywalled, sorry) and http://joh.sanei.or.jp/pdf/E51... (pdf alert) - but I get the feeling that the debate is not about whether vacations are good or not but rather about if it' should be the government that gets to dictate that vacation time should be granted.

      In the following, I will make some assumptions:

      1) Taking vacations reduces stress and provides health benefits (sort of based on the research cited above).
      2) If the reduced stress and the health gains are significant enough, the government will either have to spend less on health care or social benefits, or the government will earn more in the form of taxes.
      3) The employers are willing to exploit lower paid workers for short-term financial benefit.
      4) The government is willing to act in the interest of the citizens.

      Granted, the second assumption is the weakest one but at least it sounds logical to me. The time that a person spends being sick or recovering from a sickness is time the person will not (or cannot) spend working / earning money. Less money earned should directly correlate to less taxes paid which of course means less money for the government. Furthermore, less time being sick probably means less money spent on medical assistance (be it financed by the person, an insurance company or by the government).

      The fact that employers are willing to exploit workers is in my opinion quite clear. There are quite a few regulations put in place by the government to minimize that - for example regulations requiring protective clothing when handling hazardous materials. A better example is probably the minimum salary, which (at least in theory) should provide all workers well enough remuneration to survive on it. If there's a guy willing to work 60 hours per week for $200 per week flipping burgers and an employer willing to hire that person, should it be in discretion of the employer and employee only to decide if that is acceptable?

      Based on the previous points it is my opinion that the government should get to mandate a number of paid vacation days because it provides substantial enough benefits for the citizens. Since the employers would not otherwise provide the paid vacation, a law stating such a requirement should considerably increase the number of employers offering paid vacations, assuming that penalties of not doing so were sufficiently high.

    44. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, you have not explained why the government should mandate a minimum amount of vacation time. All you have done is explain why a company will be more successful if it gives a minimum amount of vacation time.

      Because companies are like people. They too often value based on the price at the cash register and not on the lifespan costs of the product. A company can and will user people up and spit them out if it can make a quick profit, even at long-term expense. Some companies are forward-looking, but many are not.

      Government is a disinterested agency (as opposed to legislators with agendas) which doesn't profit from treating people as consumables. Although burned-out workers are often a drain on government resources, both because they're more likely to require government assistance and because the lower their incomes due to under/un-employment, the less taxes they're going to pay back into the system.

    45. Re:GDP by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      It does not explain why the government should force a company to take actions which are in the company's interest.

      One could also argue that it's within the government's rights to demand whatever they want as a requirement for the company to obtain and keep a corporate charter. Otherwise, those who wish to go into business are welcome to be personally responsible for their own debts and liabilities.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    46. Re:GDP by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Nothing in your post explains WHY it is a government concern that people get some minimum amount of vacation time. You say that the government should mandate some minimum amount of vacation time because otherwise an employer might not offer any. But that begs the question by assuming that it is a government interest that people get some minimum amount of vacation time.

      In the US banking sector the FDIC strongly recommends mandatory vacation time of two consecutive weeks or more for active officers and employees as an effective internal control to combat fraud. This recommendation is even included in their Manual of Examination Policies for FDIC audits. If you allow exceptions you need to have compensating controls in place.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    47. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's mandatory vacation.
      In France you'd be hard-pressed to find a job with less than 25 days vacation. At least if you're not working minimum wage jobs.

    48. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1
      First you are overlooking something in your argument, studies have pretty conclusively shown that taking vacations also improves productivity. So, while your assumption 3) may be correct, the market will deal with that since those companies which exploit workers for short-term financial benefit will pay a long-term financial penalty.

      If there's a guy willing to work 60 hours per week for $200 per week flipping burgers and an employer willing to hire that person, should it be in discretion of the employer and employee only to decide if that is acceptable?

      Yes.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    49. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      One could argue that. I would disagree, but one could argue that. I would argue that it would be better for the government not to give out ANY corporate charters than to give them out on the basis of criteria which do not reflect any particular government interests.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    50. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The FDIC has an interest in seeing to it that banks have an effective internal control to prevent fraud since the FDIC provides the depositors with insurance against loss of their deposits that does not extend to any company not under the regulation of the FDIC. So, your argument fails to explain why the government has an interest in people outside of that industry getting some minimum amount of vacation time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    51. Re:GDP by c-reus · · Score: 1

      First you are overlooking something in your argument, studies have pretty conclusively shown that taking vacations also improves productivity. So, while your assumption 3) may be correct, the market will deal with that since those companies which exploit workers for short-term financial benefit will pay a long-term financial penalty.

      Hopefully you are correct. I'm guessing it will still be years until the low paying jobs start getting vacations by default. The government has the opportunity to stimulate the market towards that goal in a much shorter time span though.

      If there's a guy willing to work 60 hours per week for $200 per week flipping burgers and an employer willing to hire that person, should it be in discretion of the employer and employee only to decide if that is acceptable?

      Yes.

      I disagree, at least partially. While it should be largely between the employer and employee, the government really should intervene when the deal is obviously unfair to the employee. Preventing creating sweat shops and all that. If the employee really knows what he's doing - and is not doing so merely out of desperation - then by all means, they are free to burn themselves out.

    52. Re:GDP by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The argument for mandated vacation time would be primarily for the workers' benefit, i.e. society in general. That it would also work out to the company's benefit (in the form of happier/more productive employees) is a side-effect. We grant corporate status to organizations because there's a perceived benefit to society at large (encouraging investment), but when that benefit to corporate investors begins to adversely affect society as a whole, government has the right to step in and change things. Note that I'm not arguing either for or against mandated vacation time - I haven't studied the pros and cons enough to have an informed opinion right now, but I do own my own corporation and have opinions regarding their place in society.

      It's kind of funny, because I'm largely libertarian in my beliefs, but it seems that not many people take into account the fact that the corporate veil is also an example of "interference in the free market" and feel like it's something they're entitled to without any strings attached.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    53. Re:GDP by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      I bet you had to travel both ways uphill in the snow barefoot as well.

      Today it is much harder for someone "indigenous" and fresh to get a start and to hold it steady to make it into a good stable career.

    54. Re:GDP by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Why SHOULD there be legally mandated vacation time? I do not understand why the government should interfere in my being shafted with my employer over things such as vacation time.

      Fixed that for you

      Because it gives you a minimum that a dodgy employer cant take away.

      Its cute that you think employers are fair instead of trying to rip you off in every way possible.

      You can negotiate extra leave, but your employer cannot take away leave that is mandated. If you dont want to take that leave (because you're a boring person on their way to burnout) you can opt to get paid out for it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    55. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Where did I say that employers are fair? I believe that most employers will do what is in their best interests. For the majority of employers that means giving their employees vacation time.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    56. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no legislated amount of vacation for Americans

      These discussion might be more interesting and productive if people like you had a clue about how labor laws work in the US.
      While there are no Federally mandated vacations, most (if not all) States do have them for full-time workers. US labor laws are often more complex than other nations because the laws can vary by state, by type of job, and by how many hours the position entails (full vs. part time vs. salaried, etc.)

      The people who tend to take it up the ass the most are part-time workers in the service industries.

      But the FACT is that simply attempting to compare hours worked to money earned does not even begin to properly compare the difference between working in different countries.

    57. Re:GDP by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll admit I'm not an expert on European labor laws, but I highly suspect that they don't fuck over low-paid service workers like we do here in the US. Here on Slashdot, we have a horrible habit, as you've shown here yourself, of applying white-collar job norms to society in general, and completely (or mostly) ignoring all the blue-collar, part-time, etc. jobs out there. "The US isn't that bad!! Our six-figure-earning white-collar workers get almost as good treatment as workers in Europe!" Yeah, I'm sure the janitor in your office really feels better now.

    58. Re:GDP by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Because a large part of MBAs are sociopathic greedy assholes, and will take every opportunity to get more profit at the expense of anyone besides themselves and their superiors?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    59. Re:GDP by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      That does not make it the government's business.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    60. Re:GDP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm american and I got 5.5 weeks of vacation. Imagine that!

  11. When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Old+VMS+Junkie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... my BS meter begins to go off the scale. While I've done my fair share of brutal weeks (I'm an IT guy), it's been my experience that 99% of people who claim that they regularly work 60 hrs a week are full of crap. If you work an extra hour a day, and then put in five more over the weekend, you're still only at 50. You need to work five ten hour days and then STILL put in ten more hours over the weekend. Humans just aren't built for that. When people have boasted that in interviews, I've drilled into them and I'll get excuses like, "I was on call, so even though I wasn't actually working, I was still working..." or "Technically I have a home office so when I drive every day, I count my commute..." or "Well, it was 60 hours for the last three weeks before go live, but before that it was 45-50!" Yes, there are legitimate workaholics that do 60 hours a week. Average Joes doing it? Rarely.

    1. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Twice I've put in 3 consecutive 80 hour weeks. And both times, as soon as the deadline was passed and everything signed off, I basically collapsed and slept for most of the next 2 days.

      I certainly couldn't do anything close to that on an ongoing basis, not even when I was younger, fitter, and considerably dafter.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, there are legitimate workaholics that do 60 hours a week. Average Joes doing it? Rarely.

      Maybe true in IT. But other fields like law, medicine, finance? The common perception is that when you're starting out as an intern or assistant, the way you get ahead is working 12 hours days or weekends or whatnot.

      There have been recent stories of Wall Street firms trying to get people to stay home on Sundays. (The assumption being, of course, that everyone has to work on Saturdays.)

      Thankfully, some physicians have finally started speaking out about the grueling hazing done on residents and young doctors at hospitals, where insanely long hours actually put lives at risk.

      Maybe other professions can finally start catching on....

    3. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I put in 84 a week, minimum, when I am at work. I have worked plenty of 24+ hour shifts as well. This is the norm in the industry I work in, and my industry is pretty big, more than 1% of my region in any case. Be very careful in using your very limited exposure to the world when making any generalized statements. It is a lot bigger and diverse than you, or I, can imagine.

    4. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are legitimate workaholics that do 60 hours a week.

      But they aren't going to stick around to leisurely tell you about it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regularly? Are oncall weeks "regular", say, every four weeks you work your 5 8 hour days and then 2-4 hours on two to three nights a week and then 6-8 hours on each day of the weekend? Hmmm

    6. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as soon as the deadline was passed and everything signed off, I basically collapsed and slept for most of the next 2 days.

      Yeah, I do this occasionally, then I get labeled as that guy who doesn't do anything. How much I accomplished doesn't matter. My physical need for sleep doesn't matter. People are literally this stupid: if you're not doing something right now then you obviously never do anything ever. People have the attention span of slime molds.

    7. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      K-12 teachers do it all the time.

    8. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy to reach if you are in "matrix" organizations. Was in a team that worked 60+ hrs was because the manager had to pick up her kids from school, serve them dinner and was not available from 2:30 to 7pm. All meetings were pushed out to between 8pm to midnight. This stopped after some of said they had to hit the nightclub at 8pm, F*** hell broke out and then quickly died.

    9. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twice I've put in 3 consecutive 80 hour weeks.

      For one consecutive 50-week span I averaged 80 hours every one of those fifty weeks.

      After which I took off halfway around the world to be incommunicado for three weeks to recuperate. And spent another year working hard, after work, at the gym to get my health back.

      What can I say - I'm a slow learner. But I never needed to work those kind of hours again because that year of insanity made an impression on enough layers of management that they never question whether I'm willing to do what really needs to be done.

    10. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know of some construction workers - contractors - who were working 7 days a week, 12 hours a day for some months (I think about 6 months) on one of Apple's big projects in the United States. I'm not sure if their boss was stupid to do so, or if he is a union plant hoping to destroy that company (long story) but certainly productivity decreases considerably without any time off. Some of the workers even collapsed on the job due to being overworked, but they had no choice but to work those hours if they wanted to keep their jobs.

      But 60 hours a week is common in construction - and it's mostly real work. I agree that it's not healthy and ultimately counterproductive if it continues for more than a few weeks.

    11. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. The workload on them, and on nursing staff in non "research" hospitals, is riduculous. And don't forget moms!

    12. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Nothing you wrote was detailed enough to be other than a fable. Perhaps location, industry and work type might help it become believable, if 84+ per week could ever be believable.

    13. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An average assistant manager at a fast food restaurant works ~55 hours a week and is given a salary of about 25k. A manager at a retail story is almost always required to work a minimum of over 50 hours a week. Doctors who are employed by hospitals work almost every waking hour they have. Designers and engineers tend to work ~50 hours a week. Small private contractors will devote their life to a contract until it's fulfilled . . . then immediately take another. Small business plumbers will work as many jobs as they can fit into their schedule.

      What's an Average Joe? An IT guy? You're a server janitor, of course you're not working 60 hour work weeks.

    14. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by aralin · · Score: 0

      Last two years I've worked 100 hour weeks. 16 hours a day, 2 hours for commute / shower, 4-5 hours of sleep. 6 days a week, sometimes Sundays. I've counted 9000 hours in two years. Of course, now I am slowing down. But let me tell you one thing: 60 hour week is just a breeze. That would almost feel like vacation.

      When people write shit like you, it is mostly just men. If you count all the things my mom had to do to take care of our family, she's worked this hard for at least 20 years of her life. It can be done and it is routinely done. Actually when I think of it, 90% of people before 1800 had worked like that. Farm life can be a bitch. So right keep whining. Don't understand how someone could call you insightful.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    15. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by hey! · · Score: 2

      Oh, it's not that hard to put in a sixty hour week at work, it's just not the same thing as working 60 hours per week, which is admittedly very, very difficult. People confuse the two, in part because it's so much easier to measure hours with butt in chair than hours working.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I was in the private Software Industry for over 2 decades. 60 was almost always the norm.
      In at 8 out at 6.
      Nights, and weekends. I got sick of it, and went into the public sector; where I am treated like a human being.

      Software professions, hell mos IT professionals, should NOT be salary, it should the hourly.
      Every time that comes up to the IRS, or courts, the courts have agreed. They don't qualify as salary.
      But the industry like to spread there lies, and misinformation.
      Of course, the industry is full of moron who think getting together to be treated like a human is evil and socialist.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by geekoid · · Score: 0

      by 'all the time' you mean 7 months a year? right?

      They don't do it all the time, and they get summer off.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by E++99 · · Score: 2

      Humans just aren't built for that.

      You know... I love the fact that we as a society are so wealthy that we can have soft easy lives. But the idea that we "just aren't built for" doing 6 10 hour days and then taking a whole day off is ridiculous. Someone doing something they're interested in will probably do something like those hours at a minimum.

      For most of human history 60 hours would probably not even be sufficient simply for the human need to occupy one's mind, since there weren't always the entertainment options that we have now.

    19. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      A junior doctor (anything lower than consultant) in a British NHS hospital position (non-supernumery) can easily end up doing 12 - 14 hours a day for as much as 12 days straight (which is a typical shift pattern for doctors) then have two days off and do it all again.

      I know, I've seen my wife do it repeatedly in hospital rotations for the past 5 years - and often she has no breaks during that time either, having to run to the toilet when she nearly wets herself. And this is entirely normal for junior doctors, even tho EU regulations limit doctors to a working week of 48 hours.

    20. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I work 60+ hour weeks now and I own my own business. At least 12 hours a day 5 days a week of actual in the office work. Usually get some work on weekends in, some cleanup stuff in the evenings (the IT side of things, backups, checking source control check-ins from others, et cetera...)

      I don't know too many corporate jobs that require that level of effort on a regular basis though.

      --
      Loading...
    21. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Last two years I've worked 100 hour weeks. 16 hours a day, 2 hours for commute / shower, 4-5 hours of sleep. 6 days a week, sometimes Sundays. I've counted 9000 hours in two years. Of course, now I am slowing down. But let me tell you one thing: 60 hour week is just a breeze. That would almost feel like vacation.

      Damn dude... I pulled 100 hours weeks for 6 months once, when I was 24, and it almost killed me.

      You make my 60+ hourly weeks much brighter by comparison - thanks for suffering for me :).

      --
      Loading...
    22. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by pokerdad · · Score: 1

      I am not a workaholic, and would consider myself an average Joe, but since my wife came down with medical problems that have kept her from working I have pretty much been forced into working 60 hour weeks.

      Pretty much the problem with your assumption is that you are putting artificial limits in place like 10 hour days and only 6 days of work per week.

      I work two jobs; one is a pretty typical Monday to Friday 8 to 5 job and the other is part time in the evenings (usually 4 shifts of 5 hours each per week). On the days the two overlap I will typically be gone from home from 7:30am to 11:00pm, working between 12 and 13 of those hours. I might get one or two days a month where I am off from both jobs.

      So do people lie about their hours? Yeah, I'm sure some do. But don't assume that just because you can't imagine working that much that no one could.

    23. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by ebh · · Score: 1

      I did that too, at the last startup I worked for. After months of 100-hour weeks, a 60-hour week *did* feel like a breeze. And that's how I knew how messed up I'd become and that it was time to get out. That was ten years ago. No more startups (or pretend startups) again, ever.

      I work 40 hours a week unless *I* feel like putting in extra time on a particularly fun assignment, and I'm happily pissing away all those extra hours by having a life instead of killing myself to make other people richer.

    24. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by 'all the time' you mean 7 months a year? right?

      They don't do it all the time, and they get summer off.

      by 7 do you mean 9-10? i wish i had 5 months vacation when i was in k-12.

    25. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a liver transplant surgeon and I've been working over 80 hours a week for the 29 years since I graduated from medical school. In my seven years of residency and fellowship, it was more like 100-120 hours/week. Now there are resident duty hour restrictions limiting residents to a maximum of 80 hours per week, which has improved their lifestyle at the expense of continuity of care for patients. (In other words, patients are covered at night by residents who aren't as sleep-deprived, but who are responsible for a lot more patients and are less familiar with each patient's case. So the expected reductions in on-call errors haven't materialized and maybe are worse). At any rate the duty hour restrictions do not apply to faculty physicians, and so I wind up working more hours per week in my late fifties than we would be allowed to ask of a 25-30 year old resident. Plus, even when I am out of the hospital, I am on continuous call from home about 75% of weeknights and over 50% of weekends. On the average, I only have about 40 hours out of every 7 days when I am *not* available to my employer.

      Also, I am on a pure salary basis - I don't get paid one cent more whether I work all night or stay home. This is just how the job works, and I have five partners in our group (a very major US transplant center) who do exactly the same thing. I'd leave in a second if I had enough savings to cover retirement, kids' college, and my mortgage, but I'm stuck in this high-priced "wage slavery" for at least a few more years.

    26. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They claim they do. But.. they don't clock in (or don't clock in for all of the hours they're claiming - the argument is that they work at home grading and planning, etc.), so who knows.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    27. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      But other fields like law, medicine, finance? The common perception is that when you're starting out as an intern or assistant, the way you get ahead is working 12 hours days or weekends or whatnot.

      That fits in with what the GP is saying. The way to get ahead is to book/claim 12 hour days. But no human really can work that hard.

      That's why 90% of the people in finance are gone in two years (the remaining 10% get promoted).

      That's why you hear about lawyers billing commutes, or lunches, or context switching so they can bill 8 rounded-up 15 minute segments in an hour.

      There productive time is far less than 12 hours a day.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    28. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be sure to wash your hair, because when you pull your head out of your arse that's where the shit will stick.

      Around mid-March last year, we had some serious changes at work. Changing from one old technology to a new one. The CEO failed to account for all the variables, and refused to buy some new equipment, so I ended up having to redo all my old work from the previous year, as well as keeping up to date with the day-to-day stuff that was required. I didn't get to take my breaks (illegally, the boss said "That's your problem not mine,") and I ate while sitting at my workstation. I didn't get to go home for my evening meal until after my partner went to bed. My weekends and "evenings" (after midnight each night) involved me taking work home and doing it on my i7, rather than using the 2003 Pentium IVs they had on my desk, then I'd duck back into work and copy it across. Get this: my "evenings" were the few hours of darkness I got to myself when I got home after an 11-12 hour day with no break, and then I'd be doing more work at home because I can get it done more quickly here than at work - I'm talking a speedup factor of about 12 times, and the software I was using at home was old 32-bit software, not as optimised as the pro-level stuff I was using at work.

      Once you account for the hours I worked, and the hours I was paid for, I was paid under $11/hour for a senior position.

      I'm not the only one who was in that position at that time, either - my immediate boss was in the same position, only he did about 15-20 more hours a week than I did, and then came in on the weekends.

      The CEO is clearly trying to make himself look good to the owners, by constantly cutting staff numbers and increasing the number of hours people need to work. Anyway, what happened in the long run? After 3 months, I burned out. I was unable to do the job any more and basically broke down, so the CEO did what any decent CEO would do: started giving me warnings for anything and everything, until he ultimately forced me to resign.

    29. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you've finished lying to yourself to make yourself feel smug, my windows need painting, and the outside of the house needs stripped and repainted. There are some boards that need done, too. You can get onto that, after all, at 100 hours a week that should be done in a week.

    30. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People work that much all the time, it used to be normal. Go to your local university. Open a door to a research lab. Find a foreign graduate student. Ask that person how much they work. It's going to be more than 60.

      To be top tier in many R&D fields you give up all hobbies, all family and all friends. There will always be someone out there smarter than you. There will always be someone out there with more funding than you. The only thing you can control to work harder than your competition. 50% of the people entering a technical PhD don't make it past the 2nd year of lab work.

    31. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's been my experience that 99% of people who claim that they regularly work 60 hrs a week are full of crap.

      Lucky you... I have had 2 jobs where 60 was expected. My current one I made it *very* clear 40 is what I will do unless you help me out in the dollar department. Forget that and I will move on. I am currently updating my resume. Suddenly its expected for 24/7 on-call work 3-4 months of the year. Oh and they call at 3AM and are on that call until 9 (when you are expected to go in). My last 'shift' I think I put the phone down about 1-2 hours during a work day (which was on average 11 I wrote it down and worked it out). Then when I would get home there was usually at least another 1-2 hour call. That 1-2 a day? I was expected to fix 'non critical issues'. My normal time to leave is 5:30. During these shifts it is 8:30.

      10 over the weekend? That is not how you end up at 60. You start with an extra hour or here there and there. Suddenly you are at 50ish. Then 12 a day. You come in 7-8 and leave 7-8. Usually work thru lunch. Then the group meeting then happens 'we need to buckle down', 'we are way behind' blahblahblah. 'Lets hire more? Oh no budget for that'. "We are instituting mandatory overtime so you will be expected to put in at least 5 hours saturday and another 3-5 on sunday".

      I worked with one dude who regularly did 100's. He had the smell to go along with it. He lived right next to the office. So his commute was a walk over a small bridge. Compete with that... Oh and you *are* held up to his standard. Even *if* they are full of shit (some are) you still have to appear you are working 60's. Even then you appear you are a slacker.

      It has created a *lot* of friction with my other developers doing 8-5. I am a 'slacker'. I am not 'pulling my weight'. I am 'always behind'. I dont do 50-60 anymore because guess what? I am not 22 anymore. *every* org has the 60-80 guy. *all*. You have to compete with that. On top of that you have to compete with the indian consultants overseas. Who looks like they got more work done as they worked when we were sleeping.

      It *really* depends on which groups you have been in. It sounds like you have worked mostly with 'large businesses' judging by your name 'old vms junkie'. Try it at some mid sized company that wants to 'act like a startup'. Usually they have f-d over their dollar budget and start trying to double their features budget in the same amount of time. Large companies usually do not let employees work that way. As they do not want the labor department coming in and reviewing what they do. As usually the fines are much larger and they *are* doing something wrong. Smaller/Mid sized companies are usually owned by people who only care about what cool conference they are going to. They do not care as they can fold up fire everyone and start something else and look cool doing it and call it a tax write off and add it to the 'boards they have sat on'.

    32. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      K-12 teachers do it all the time.

      As a former teacher, I can tell you right now that the claim is bullshit. For three months of the year, they're not working at all (unless they volunteer for summer school or suchlike, for which they get extra pay). Then we get to remove the snow days, weekends, holidays, the occasional bi-annual NEA-goaded strike, etc. On the adding portion, there are PTA meetings, and suchlike, but they don't really make up for much.

      By the time you're done removing all that, it comes down to 32 weeks a year or so of actual workweeks. Of those, you would have to work 12 hours a day for five days a week just to make that assertion for just the 32 weeks, but there's a problem with that too: Most school hours are usually open 7:30am-3:00pm at the most, and most schools are ghost towns before 7am and after 4pm. Teachers from grade 6 on up (e.g. Middle/High School) alternate quiet periods (with no students) with active periods (students) so that they can grade papers, plan upcoming curriculum and syllabi, etc. Oftentimes, school districts will extend that alternating period schemata all the way down to the 2nd grade. ( As for the younger kids? Any teacher for grades 5 and under who cannot whiz through 45 test papers in 30 minutes for their kids really should not be teaching.)

      Long story short, if you find a teacher working "60 hours a week", one of three things are wrong: Either the district sucks balls, the principal is shit, or the teacher is incompetent.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    33. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be my guest and give it a try, you'd be surprised how much prep goes into the summer. Oh yeah, teaching during the summer for students who were having a lot of trouble learning in the regular school year... With a lot of behavioral issues. Great vacation that.

    34. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try doing 42 hours in 2 days, Like i had to do about 2 weeks ago. Critical server infrastructure went down and and to work the outage. My count for the week ended up being about 70 hours. Being on call, sometimes I have 40 hour weeks and sometimes I have 80-90 hour weeks. Comes with the territory.

    35. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      That fits in with what the GP is saying.

      I don't get how you can claim this. I linked to a story clearly showing that financial firms are trying to encourage people to stay home at least 4 days per month, perhaps Sundays. If someone works 7 days per week for 8 hours per day, that's already 56 hours, which is close to the threshold the GP claimed was something that "normal" people didn't do. Add in a few 9-10 hour days, and even take a short day on one of the weekend days, and you'll still get to 60. My link clearly implies that companies find it necessary to encourage employees to stop doing what GP says doesn't happen. I don't know how that agrees with GP.

      The way to get ahead is to book/claim 12 hour days.

      This has nothing to do with "booking" or "claiming." I'm talking about interns and entry-level folks. They often need to be around the office for 12 hours to do whatever stuff is supposed to be done. While that might include some downtime some (or even many) days, when I show up at the office at 7am and don't leave until after 7pm, I've worked a "12 hour day."

      That's why you hear about lawyers billing commutes, or lunches, or context switching so they can bill 8 rounded-up 15 minute segments in an hour.

      Yeah, that happens. But I don't see how this applies to physicians that are actually at the hospital and expected to be available to work for 60-80 hours/week. Are they continuously engaged in treating patients? Probably not. But they're at work and actively available for duties for much more than 40 hours.

      There productive time is far less than 12 hours a day.

      Yes, and? Most people I know who work 40 hours per week aren't "productive" 8 hours per day either, particularly in fields requiring a lot of thinking rather than mindless work or manual labor. The only useful metric for how long these people work is how long they are at the office and expected to be working... which is often a lot more than 40 hours.

      But no human really can work that hard.

      You really need to read some history. The 40 hour week is not some sort of magical number handed down from God. Before modern unions and workers' rights, average industrial workers often worked 6 days per week for long hours (more than 8 hours/day). They survived. They may not have lived very long compared to now, but they did it. Before the industrial revolution, farmers worked many months out of the year basically from sunrise to sundown.

      If your argument simply is, "Well no one can actually concentrate and do intellectual work for 60 hours/week," I agree. I don't even think people are really capable for doing 40 hours of work requiring deep thought each week... maybe 10-20 hours, with the rest filled up by more mindless tasks. Occasionally, you can push it longer before a deadline or something, but you get mentally fatigued.

      Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with how long people actually effectively "work" each day... and lots of professions do expect 60+ hours in the office doing something job-related.

    36. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by kevmeister · · Score: 1
      Time passes and people forget the past (basically before their parents were adults).

      Back at the turn of the century (1901, not 2001), according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics the average work week was 53 hours and the "normal" work week was six 10 hour days. It really didn't change much until 1926 when Henry Ford reduced the work week at Ford Motor Co, to 40 hours, though the average work day had been slowly dropping from 10 to 8 hours before that time. But Ford was most likely the first major company to drop from a six to five day work week.

      So, yes, people CAN work 60 hours a week and your grandparents (or great grandparents) probably did unless they were farmers. Farmers worked longer hours.

      --
      Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
    37. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      You need to work five ten hour days and then STILL put in ten more hours over the weekend

      Yes it is that long. Sixty hour weeks suck. If you don't own the company or a chunk of it that's not the sort of time investment you should be putting in over the long term.

      Sometimes for a clear goal it's worth it for a month or two but it's a way to get fat living off takeaway and lose touch with everything outside of the workplace.

      Yes, there are legitimate workaholics that do 60 hours a week

      Maybe I was that on occasion when I saw changes that I thought needed to be made and could only do them outside of normal working hours. However I see it as worth it if a 3am failure of critical system A only means taking a look at it after 9am because I'd put the time in to have some sort of failover. If it's nothing but "fighting fires" for that extra 20 hours then you need more firemen.

    38. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      For three months of the year, they're not working at all

      In my state a lot of them were fired before the holidays and reappointed after them to avoid the countries four weeks paid annual leave rule for full time employees. Of course some of them didn't come back. Nothing to worry the people in power though - they still getting to keep those that have no chance getting a job elsewhere and those are the ones that won't rock the boat.

    39. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      then you haven't put your head up and looked at other industries. 60 hours is not a long week for a lot of professionals. At year 8, I'm finally "down" to about 60 hours a week. I don't mind, I chose the job and career knowing the hours. But all this crap out there that you can't work 60 hour weeks without fatigue setting in is BS (or there are just a lot of soft people out there I guess). Like all things, once you train your body to handle the work load, it's easy to handle. But if you work 40 hours a week every week, and then suddenly have to do 80, I can imagine the shock to your system would make you think it's not sustainable. On the other hand if every month you add 2 hours, at the end of the year you are up to 65 hours a week and probably are no worse for wear.

      Hell, I don't know how he does it, but my cousin has gone years working no less than 80 hours a week. He has never burned out or needed a break, and he is in an industry where that is standard (law, and a type where billing 3000 hours is considered a standard workload, and you don't bill 100% of your time in the office).

      Now if you want to keep up with all your hobbies and free time, then you probably can't work those kinds of hours. But that is a tradeoff you have to make (if you want to).

    40. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      no, I"m in the industry. During intern training, I expect my interns to be there for at least 14 hours a day (every hour I am there working while they are there) and save their studying and learning of key skills for the weekend. We pay them a huge sum of money when they have no experience or skills in our industry, and so I expect them to at least be there for my hours (the first 12) and spend a few more getting up to speed/learning. My current trainee put in a solid 95 a week for the first 5 months, and as he came up to speed, he said he was finding it "easy" to handle the 80 hour weeks.

      On the other hand, I tell him if he doesn't take every one of his vacation days (22 I think he has) I'll have it negatively reflected in his bonus at year end. And if I see him sitting around in the evening to put in facetime I tell him to get the hell out of work if he doesn't have anything to do. I need people who can stomach weeks on end of endless hours if the markets demand it (when Greece was first blowing up, it wasn't uncommon for hours to stretch towards 17-18), but I don't want people who are burned out because they didn't take vacation or rest when they could. My current role is in a market that is open for 11 hours, and when you add in pre-open meetings and end of day admin work, 12 hours is trivial to reach.

    41. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      During the height of the housing bubble, my wife was doing 80. She was getting paid for it, so a lot of it was double time. When she got pregnant and told them that she was going to have to reduce her work week to no more than 60, they fired her. That is when we found out that labor laws are not for everyone.

    42. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It really needs to go a step farther. I have many a friend that doesn't realize their 8 hour work day + 1 hour lunch + 1.5 hour commute each way means that they are spending 12 hours a day on work. And that is when they are not working overtime. That's why, when I calculate my pay for a job, I calculate, my doorstep to my doorstep, and then recalculate the amount I want to the employer's doorstep. I have seen people think they got a raise with a job change but actually make less per hour committed to work.

    43. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem with the teacher hours claims is that they make a conglomerate of all the worst scenarios. A first year teacher is going to spend a lot of time on curriculum planning. By the 3rd of 4th year, most of the major planning should be done and only minor tweaks need to be done. Teachers that are assigning a lot of writing assignments are going to spend a lot of time grading papers. On the other hand, any claim that kindergarten teachers are spending any significant amount of time grading papers is ridiculous. You will hear about the teacher needing to spend hours a week chaperoning school events, or having to monitor the playground during lunch. The reality is that every teacher is not out doing those things. A few teachers are doing them.

      What happens is that a mythical teacher is created from all of the extra tasks that are spread out across different teachers, and that mythical amount of work is attributed to all teachers.

    44. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      that year of insanity made an impression on enough layers of management that they never question whether I'm willing to do what really needs to be done.

      I wouldn't feel too secure in that. All it takes is one or two guys leaving/transferring, some hotshot brings in KPIs or somesuch, and you'll be known as that old fart who's resting on his laurels.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by xaxa · · Score: 2

      You aren't going back enough.

      Before the industrial revolution, "according to Oxford Professor James E. Thorold Rogers, the medieval workday was not more than eight hours".

      "Detailed accounts of artisans' workdays are available. Knoop and jones' figures for the fourteenth century work out to a yearly average of 9 hours (exclusive of meals and breaktimes)[3]. Brown, Colwin and Taylor's figures for masons suggest an average workday of 8.6 hours[4]. "

    46. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I had a job for a while where 12 hour work-days were common, as well as work on weekends, "after hours" work, and on-call work. So yes, I'd say I typically worked 50-80 hours a week, probably averaging close to 65. All I really did was work, eat, and sleep, and I didn't get to take real vacations.

      And yes, you're right, humans just aren't built for that. It was exhausting and miserable, and after about a year of it, I complained loudly to my boss. When he ignored me, I quit. As someone who has worked those kinds of hours, I'll tell you that not only do I think it's a miserable way to live, but I also think the work suffers. I was exhausted and frustrated all the time, and I could have done a much better job if they'd gotten me some help so that I could have gotten a little rest.

    47. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last job I had, I was handed a plane ticket at 7am on Monday, usually to catch a plane between 10am and noon that day. Be on customer site by 3pm. Work on the customer's site setting up usually until 8pm or so. Next morning, come in to the customer's site at 7am, work until midnight (often later) to cut that customer's site over to new equipment. Next day, on site at 7am, get an email with a plane ticket, on site usually until 10am or so to make sure everything is good, on site with the next customer by 3pm or so, and repeat. Did this on weekends too (I usually ended up at "home" on Sunday afternoon) 3 out of 4 weekends a month.

      Sure, I worked ~ 40 hours if you didn't count traveling, but if you did, it was closer to 68 for a day I didn't work weekends (closer to 88 when I did).

      I only lasted 3 years. I absolutely loved the work I was doing, and I liked traveling around the USA, but it was a quick burn-out.

    48. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by quetwo · · Score: 1

      I doubt you work a whole lot more than 220 days a year yourself. Plus, they are physically in the school usually for about 8 hours a day (most teachers I knew were in at 7am and left around 4-ish). PLUS grading, lesson plans, preparing assignments, etc. (which when I was teaching could take > 40 hours a week by itself). I'd say being a teacher would probably average a 14-16 hour day. 14 * 180 = 2,520 hours, where you work 8 * 220 = 1,760 hours a year. Sounds like you are overpaid.

    49. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by richieb · · Score: 1

      I wonder how effective you can be at the end of 95 hour work week. Next time you fly on an airline, consider if you would want you pilot and copilot have similar "work ethic"....

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    50. Re: When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      What does work ethic have to do with it?

      Every job is different. I want my pilot and copilot both well rested and also able to and have experience working longer than statutory hours. Because if We end up stuck in a pattern I don't want them to be unable to push through.

      Similar for my ER surgeon. This is the value of consistent 90 hour weeks in residency. Some jobs you can't just put down and say "sorry, I hit my 40 hour quota" and they require you to actually be effective.

      Before they changed residency rules, new doctors were working 105 hour weeks on repeat for 18 months before getting to slow down to 90. There is a reason for this. If you live rural, there is no backup. It comes down to your ability to handle doing surgery at 3 am effectively even though you haven't been home yet. Sure, you aren't as good as when fresh.

    51. Re: When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by richieb · · Score: 1

      There is a reason for this. If you live rural, there is no backup. It comes down to your ability to handle doing surgery at 3 am effectively even though you haven't been home yet. Sure, you aren't as good as when fresh.

      Perhaps the problem is that there is no backup. There should be more than one doctor available. We are just not willing to pay for it.

      Working 90 hours a week is work hoarding. There are other people who could be doing this work and most likely better...

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    52. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      For the record, my wife is a teacher (UK, primary school age) so I have many years of first hand observational evidence.

      Her normal working pattern is this: be in the classroom to start work by 8:00 absolute latest, and never leave the school before 6:00. Doesn't get a lunch break per se (as there are always children to deal with over their lunch breaks), so that's already a 50 hour working week. Consistently works 2 hours each evening after dinner (marking, prepping etc.), so that's 60 hours. Regularly works 3 hours each on Saturday and Sunday (mostly planning and general assessment)- so that's 66 hours.

      That's the standard. You can up that to 3 hours in the evening and 5 hours each on the weekend (so 75 hours a week) on special occasions, such as assessment time each term. Her school was recently inspected by OFSTED (look it up if you care), and that week she put 15 hours (at least) for 5 days, plus some time on the weekend. Must have broken the 80 barrier that week.

      Technically she gets quite a bit of "holiday", but she has to do work during that too. She consistently works for 3 days in each 1 week "half term", and generally at least 1 full working week in both the 6 week Summer holidays and 2 week Easter holidays. Once you do the maths, she gets an amount of paid holiday each year comparable with the generous end of standard corporate holiday policy, with the slight drawback that you don't get to choose when to take it.

      Pretty brutal, considering the pay.

    53. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      As a former teacher, I can tell you right now that the claim is bullshit.

      Too bad you're spouting a lot of it yourself. I don't agree with GP that most teachers work 60 hour weeks, but a lot of what you say is bogus.

      By the time you're done removing all that, it comes down to 32 weeks a year or so of actual workweeks.

      Most states mandate a school year that has at least 180 instructional days or so. 180/5 = 36. So, you somehow missed an entire month of workweeks in your calculation. And in most states, snow days need to be made up so as to satisfy the minimum 180-day rule.

      Add in at least another week of days before/after the schoolyear and days for meetings. Then generally add 2 or 3 weeks during the summer that many teachers are required to attend conferences or other training. Sure, there's more time "off" than in most jobs, but you're exaggerating quite a bit.

      Most school hours are usually open 7:30am-3:00pm at the most, and most schools are ghost towns before 7am and after 4pm.

      Because no teacher ever took grading or planning work home with them. [/sarcasm]

      Most primary and secondary teachers don't really have offices. Many of them prefer not to hang out in an empty classroom in the evening hours when they can do it more comfortably at home.

      And aside from that, I think you see schools as "ghost towns" after hours because of the lack of students. My experience teaching high school for a few years (at three different schools, of varying quality) tells me that it really depends on the school. At two of the three schools I worked out, at least half of the teachers in my department were usually still around until 4:30 or 5:00 or later, even when school dismissed at 2:30 or 2:45. 9-10 hour days or so were the norm. Sure, there are always people who run out the door the moment the bell rings, but most of the good teachers I knew rarely did that.

      Teachers from grade 6 on up (e.g. Middle/High School) alternate quiet periods (with no students) with active periods (students) so that they can grade papers, plan upcoming curriculum and syllabi, etc. Oftentimes, school districts will extend that alternating period schemata all the way down to the 2nd grade.

      They don't alternate periods -- they usually get one or two free periods per day (depending on how the schedule works), and at least part of that time is often filled up with required meetings, "duty" like monitoring halls or lunchrooms, etc. I'd say most teachers probably spend about 1/4 of the "active school day" not standing in front of a class, but from experience I can tell you that during the day, I often needed that time just to handle basic administrative tasks like answering email from parents (and other school email), making photocopies, getting materials and other things organized in the classroom, etc. Not to mention just having a few minutes to recover after being "on task" in front of students for many hours.

      So yeah, there are "free periods," but I rarely had time to do any serious grading or planning during them, which I mostly ended up doing after school or in the evenings.

      ( As for the younger kids? Any teacher for grades 5 and under who cannot whiz through 45 test papers in 30 minutes for their kids really should not be teaching.)

      I know you're talking about primary school here, but as a high school teacher at public schools, I had somewhere around 140-150 students per year that I was responsible for grading. At a top-tier private high school, you might get that down to 60 or so.

      My point is that grading 150 papers takes a long time. And elementary school teachers who may only have 25-30 kids in their class (but have them all day) often have multiple assignments to grade every day.

      Long story short, if you find a teacher working "60 hours a week", one of three things are wro

    54. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1
      One last thing -- I forgot to mention extracurriculars. Many teachers are required (or strongly encouraged) to do some sort of coaching or service outside of school time. In many cases, they may be paid extra for it -- but it's still additional time toward their jobs.

      Add those in, and it's easy to see teachers getting to 60 hour/week or more.

    55. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Before the industrial revolution, "according to Oxford Professor James E. Thorold Rogers, the medieval workday was not more than eight hours".

      You need to keep reading further down the page you cited. You'll discover that most of the sources used in that article assume a workday of anywhere from 9.5-12 hours, and generally a 6-day week, leading to workweeks of often 70 hours or so.

      The idea that it somehow averages out to "8 hours per day" is when you recognize that it was difficult to do many jobs during the winter. So, instead, people worked 60-70 hour weeks for 2/3 or 3/4 of the year, and then had some downtime when plants weren't growing or there wasn't enough daylight to do their jobs. If you take the yearly average number of hours and spread it out, the total number of annual hours may come to a modern worker's equivalent... but that has little to do with actual lengths of typical medieval workweeks.

      Your citation doesn't actually say what you think it does.

      Eight centuries of annual hours

      13th century - Adult male peasant, U.K.: 1620 hours

      Calculated from Gregory Clark's estimate of 150 days per family, assumes 12 hours per day, 135 days per year for adult male ("Impatience, Poverty, and Open Field Agriculture", mimeo, 1986)

      14th century - Casual laborer, U.K.: 1440 hours

      Calculated from Nora Ritchie's estimate of 120 days per year. Assumes 12-hour day. ("Labour conditions in Essex in the reign of Richard II", in E.M. Carus-Wilson, ed., Essays in Economic History, vol. II, London: Edward Arnold, 1962).

      Middle ages - English worker: 2309 hours

      Juliet Schor's estime of average medieval laborer working two-thirds of the year at 9.5 hours per day

      1400-1600 - Farmer-miner, adult male, U.K.: 1980 hours

      Calculated from Ian Blanchard's estimate of 180 days per year. Assumes 11-hour day ("Labour productivity and work psychology in the English mining industry, 1400-1600", Economic History Review 31, 23 (1978).

      1840 - Average worker, U.K.: 3105-3588 hours

      Based on 69-hour week; hours from W.S. Woytinsky, "Hours of labor," in Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. III (New York: Macmillan, 1935). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year

      1850 - Average worker, U.S.: 3150-3650 hours

      Based on 70-hour week; hours from Joseph Zeisel, "The workweek in American industry, 1850-1956", Monthly Labor Review 81, 23-29 (1958). Low estimate assumes 45 week year, high one assumes 52 week year.

    56. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      But other fields like law, medicine, finance? The common perception is that when you're starting out as an intern or assistant, the way you get ahead is working 12 hours days or weekends or whatnot.

      An "intern" (not a very British word) at a bank in London died recently, perhaps from overwork after working 72 hours straight.

      http://www.theguardian.com/bus...

      (Respect for the banking industry has fallen so far, I'm not sure there was much sympathy...)

    57. Re: When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      There are a number of specialties that can be required in an emergency and small communities cannot always have multiple of each as they can't afford the cost.

      Its the tough difference between theoretical perfect system and what most countries, even nationalized healthcare, deal with regularly

    58. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Being salaried and being overtime exempt really are two seperate issues. There is no advantage to an employer to have employees on salary plus overtime but it's certanly possible.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    59. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      I actually did work one construction job 55-60 hours a week for most of a year, so I could have actually waved a whole bunch of pay stubs in your face. This was a company that advertised to its clients that it provided crews on 60 hour work weeks. I was in my early 20s at the time, and even then the 6x10 plus commutes took their toll. I split for better conditions well before I became one of the 50-year-old losers doing it. (Come to think of it, that company is now gone forever... couldn't have happened to a better outfit. It was always a shit place to work.) The 15-20 hours of overtime pay a week looked good, until you did the math on how much more OT was taxed....

      Anyway, my work hour load or "work/life balance" is always about right, being self-employed now. And when I have employees, I'll pay hourly, with overtime work being optional. I always have thought that salary was bullshit if you didn't equate the salary to x number of hours per month. If $4000/mo is for 160 hours (bargained at hire time), then asking someone to work 200 or 250 hours for the same pay is reprehensible.

      I don't see this as a political issue, either -- it's not labor vs. capital. It's mutual human respect, and the contract law of a law-run society. Company needs labor, labor needs money, and the two need to agree somehow on a price. Company wants labor as cheap as possible; labor wants as much money for doing as little as possible. Compromise is key, but it rarely benefits both parties equally. It's something we all work on, I guess.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    60. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      For most of human history 60 hours would probably not even be sufficient simply for the human need to occupy one's mind, since there weren't always the entertainment options that we have now.

      It keeps getting suggested that pre-industrial people worked longer hours but the evidence just doesn't back that up. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma...

    61. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      But if you go back further, to pre-industrial times peoples work was slower with many more holidays - http://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma...

    62. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 220 days a year

      If you work five days a week, that's 260 days per year which is 80 days more per year than a teacher. Your example of only 220 days is ridiculous. That is more than 44% more days per year than a teacher. It's amazing how little teachers work and still complain about it. My wife is one, and she just doesn't get it either.

      Personally, I worked 334 days last year (52 weeks * 6 days per week + 52 weeks * 0.5 working every other Sunday - four holidays). That's 86% more days than my wife worked. Do you get it yet why people that work for a living think teachers are lazy?

    63. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 1

      In the 1800s we also sent toddlers into chimneys and down mines because they were small.

      You're an idiot. But if you're happy with yourself, who am I to poop on your parade? Enjoy yourself.

      I work 36 hours a week, and am looking to drop down a bit. Friday afternoons I'm with my friends, having a life. I do sports in the evenings before dinner. I spend much of my free time working on my hobbies, getting good at them and enjoying the hell out of them. This makes enough money for the company I work at for them to want to pay me, for me to pay for the things I want. Sure, there's lots of other work, housekeeping related, helping friends or neighbors, but that's just life.

      Sacrificing that life so you can provide 'value' for someone else? No thanks.

    64. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And what industry is this? Anyone can post stuff on slashdot as Anonymous Coward. Why should we believe you?

    65. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The discussion is about 'hours per week', not 'hours per year'. Teachers don't get paid for those months off. Most work many hours at home. Most work over holidays and summers (unpaid) to do planning, grading, etc. Maybe you don't get this concept because you were not a good teacher. Maybe that's why you are a 'former' teacher. I get 24 minutes for lunch, and 48 minutes for planning during my work day. There is another teacher with students in my classroom during my planning, so it is difficult at best to 'plan', so I am at school at 7am every day, and leave at 5pm (or a bit later) most every day, then go home on the weekends and do more. Not because I am incompetent, but because I care about giving my students the best education I can. This involves constantly updating lessons to stay current and effective. I teach IT, so I also need to keep up with the latest technology, which is a lifelong job. Don't make generalizations, it's just not a valid argument.

    66. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I worked a 6 month period where I worked a minimum of 81 hours per week, and I had a 3 week period where I had 100, 101, and 104 hours. That involved no Slashdot or any other type of goofing off, just working. The hours are accurate because my fine Israeli overlord required detailed time tracking (I'm a USian)

      So "humans just aren't made for it" isn't entirely accurate. Sure it was a pain in the posterior, and I forgot what my wife and kids looked like, but I was able to do it. And I got a huge promotion, thousands of stock options, and several months pay as a bonus, while 10% of the force was laid off

      Then 6 months later *I* was laid off. (So much for corporate loyalty)

      Yes, a lot of people talk the talk without walking the walk. But not all.

    67. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      ... my BS meter begins to go off the scale.

      Comments in subject lines are stupid as hell as my partial quote shows. Regardless, I absolutely do work 60 hours a week. 12 hours a day, 5 days a week. Every week.

      Glad I could pop your BS meter cherry. :P

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    68. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Twice I've put in 3 consecutive 80 hour weeks. And both times, as soon as the deadline was passed and everything signed off, I basically collapsed and slept for most of the next 2 days.

      I once worked for a year straight averaging between 100 to 120 hours a week. The 3 12 hour days each week were considered a nice break... and I was dating my future wife at the time and you know how woman are with taking up your time to prove your love. I was a mess. :/

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    69. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > K-12 teachers do it all the time.

      Even if they did work more than eight hours a day, no state in the US requires them to teach more than half of the days of the year. Most states require teachers to teach only 180 days per year. They are way overpaid for the very few days per year they work.

      Most people who work 5 days a week only work 240 days per year, so the teacher would have to put in 1/3 more hours on the days worked.

      I know multiple teachers who spend 2-3 hours a day 7 days a week in addition to their time in school. I'm sure there are slacker teachers as well, but there are slackers in every profession. Grading, lesson planning and preparation, parent contact, and so on take more time than teachers have during the school day. In my state, teachers are also required to do continuing academic work to maintain their certification.

    70. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a liver transplant surgeon and I've been working over 80 hours a week for the 29 years since I graduated from medical school.

      That is insane. No doubt you have rare skills, and I wouldn't be surprised if there simply aren't enough people with the ability and desire to pursue your profession, compared to the number of people who need liver transplants. I know if I needed a liver transplant I would definitely choose an overworked surgeon over no surgeon at all. However, is this system really providing the greatest good for the greatest number of patients? Is there truly nothing in your 80 hour work week that couldn't possibly be done by an assistant?

      I wonder how this compares to countries that have socialized medicine.

      It seems like there is something terribly wrong with our society when CEOs can run companies into the ground and pop multi-million dollar golden parachutes, but a doctor who actually increases the amount of productive life other people have is "stuck in this high-priced 'wage slavery'".

    71. Re:When I hear "I work 60 hours a week"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and went into the public sector

      You know, that goes a long way to explaining why you are such a lazy, small-minded asshole of a person.

  12. Meh. We've discussed this all before by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

    As I said then.

    We just have a generally messed-up attitude toward work and "getting ahead" in the U.S. There may be many proximate causes, but nothing's going to change until you fix the overall cultural attitude.

    1. Re:Meh. We've discussed this all before by petes_PoV · · Score: 2
      Yes, the biggest problem with the culture is including time spent in meetings as counting as "work". let's face it, it isn't. Sitting in a room with a bunch of other people, bored out of your skull and having to listen to a bunch of agenda items until it's your "5 minutes of fame" to recite your status report (probably the same as the last one - or as everybody elses') and having all the other participants paying you as little attention as you did to them.

      That's not work: it's not even as constructive as the commute in.

      --
      politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  13. Welcome to the new capitalism by jmd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neoliberalism

    I'm glad I'm out of the race to the bottom.

    1. Re:Welcome to the new capitalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neoconservatism

      I'm glad I'm out of the race to drive everyone else to the bottom.

    2. Re:Welcome to the new capitalism by jmd · · Score: 1

      Me too.

  14. Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I was reading his blog post I was wondering to myself, what planet is this guy from? Then I noticed the .ca and it made sense. I'm from the US and have relatives in around Toronto. They make fun of the labor practices in the US. Most of them have 40 hour work weeks and 6+ weeks of paid vacation a year. It always makes me laugh when I hear US corporations lament the high cost of labor. If labor were free these same corporations would complain that people don't pay to work for them. It's all about maximizing shareholder value and you lower you can drive labor costs the better.

    1. Re:Definitely not from the US. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.

      What benefit does that give you, as an American, over a Canadian?

      Other than thumping your chest and saying "We're a superpower (that pats down grannies at checkpoints) BOO YAH!" what benefit does that yield *you*, as a person compared to a Canadian?

    2. Re:Definitely not from the US. by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Uh, 6 weeks of paid vacation per year is not the norm. 2 weeks is mandatory, but most people I know usually have 3-4 weeks. The only people who get 6+ are generally in union jobs. But yes, 40 hours weeks are the norm. Some places do 44. By law you cant do more then 48 unless it is agreed to in writing. Any by law you cannot work more than 60 hours unless the company gets approval by some labour board. Of course there are some jobs that are exempt for this such as truckers, miners.. as well as exceptional circumstances such as an emergency (and no deadlines are not considered an emergency)

        My current job is awesome, 35 hours per week, 4 weeks paid vacation. I used to have a 44 hour job, and that seemed to be fairly life draining I can't imagine doing 50+ consistently.

      But for the ridiculous vacation, just look at some of those European countries.

    3. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really. It's more because 60 years ago the economies of the other strong nations were all blown up, and the US was the only shop in town. The US is a super-power despite our style of working, not because of it.

    4. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far we don't have to worry about drone strikes on us within our own borders.

      Not sure what else, but I think that is a pretty good one.

    5. Re:Definitely not from the US. by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      Cheaper books, apparently. Suck it, Canada!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you were paid well to work reasonable hours in the past.

      Why are you a declining superpower? Because you're expected to work ridiculous hours for no pay.

    7. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Dan667 · · Score: 1

      when you say shareholder you mean rich people.

    8. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to the 5 canadians I personally speak to regularly... I sleep soundly on any given night without wondering if US foreign policy is going to fuck with our exchange rate, drag canada into a war as a US ally, fuck with canadian policy, or cause political fucking turmoil in the alliance or whatever other faction you have in power that week.

      Know why? Because when we set a policy, it fucking sticks. It might cause a decade long war -- but it happens, and we're committed to it.

      We're not just a superpower, we're everything that comes with that -- economic, political, even unfortunately to some extent a religious power.

      Our economic power isn't just the strength of our dollar, our status as the international unit of trade, our energy, our pharma, our technology...

      It's that unlike your countries, our small businesses fucking get things done. The indians, the chinese, the brazilians, the french, and now canada is on the list of "can't fucking do that reliably". And yes, it's the puritanical work ethic, the cuththroat corp environment, and the religious fanatacism that promotes that.

      by the way canadian, enjoy the beating your IT firms are taking in the international press -- not only could your bidder not finish a website -- their boss got embarassed by not knowing it didn't work.

      What benefit does it provide me? The ability to keep doing what I do best, and not give a fuck what you think -- because your national opinion won't matter in my lifetime.

    9. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 0

      What benefit does that give you, as an American, over a Canadian?

      Ever ask yourself the opposite question? 'What benefit do I as a Canadian get by having a superpower as a neighbor?' One answer might be - 'Well, at least I don't have to type this in Cyrillic'. Canadians by and large are lovely people but having been brought up in the loving center between mommy England and your benevolent sociopath downstairs they tend to really gloss over what the world would look like for them if they were on their own. And I know, you are going to respond with some version of 'we don't piss people off so we don't need to ...' however history is rife with nice peoples getting rolled over simply because they were in the way. The Swiss are just as lovely and nice as the Canadians, but they have seen conflict and understand the score and history. They keep almost 25% of their population in the military or reserves because they *are* alone and understand what happens to sheep left out by themslves.

      In short there is a peace dividend that has been purchased with the work to make America a superpower, one you enjoy greatly, but never think about, or if you do it is with a sneer. To quote Col. Jessup "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    10. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what I would do with 6+ weeks of vaca a year. I already am up to 4.5 weeks per year and I bank 1/2 of it, the rest I am forced to take. I get so bored at home and my mind feels like it's going to mush. I timed up my vaca time with holiday time and got 2 weeks of paid time off over the Christmas holiday for only 5 days of personal time. By the end of it, I was wanting to get back to work to start back on some projects.

    11. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.

      What benefit does that give you, as an American, over a Canadian?

      Other than thumping your chest and saying "We're a superpower (that pats down grannies at checkpoints) BOO YAH!" what benefit does that yield *you*, as a person compared to a Canadian?

      We don't have other nations attacking us? That's a fairly big benefit.

    12. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.

      That is actually false on several accounts.

      First, many countries on the planet work harder and longer than americans, especially in Asia. A lot of us westeners get quite a shock when we go working in Asia, because all the bullshit crap we smile politely about in our own culture, like the "company as a family" message some dumbo internal PR asshole actually thinks anyone believes in, is seriously real there.

      Second, America is a super power because it profited massively from WW2. The numbers are in books such as "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" (excellent read, strongly recommended). The short is that every other world power was massively devastated by the war, except the USA who emerged from it with no domestic damage, lots of highly skilled immigrants, as debt-holders of several european powers and a strengthened industrial base. When you get stronger while everyone else is essentially burnt down, it's not difficult to emerge as a super power.

      Third, time (and effort) worked does not equal productivity.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    13. Re:Definitely not from the US. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      we aren't anymore.

      It's not becasue we don't work hard( 60 hrs does NOT equal working hard), it becasue we have less money over all and a huge wealth disparity.
      That's the problem.

      What good is it being one of the richest, most powerful nation if we have cities that are disasters? If we can't fix out infrastructure? Whole cities get wiped out and very little is done to bring them back? If we have area with people without representation?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Definitely not from the US. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Get a hobby? Vacation doesn't need to mean sit around and do nothing.
      Build something.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because Canada has so many other nations attacking them?

    16. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well to each their own. But I don't even comprehend your psychology. If you doubled my vacation time, I'd take it and I'd love it. I recently got bumped from 3.5 weeks / year to 4.5 weeks / year, which has to be taken in the year. Informally I got a little more than that last year to offset some lates nights and weekends I spent during the year, but I don't really count that because I really did lose that time and I was not pleased about that aspect; that was more like making things right.

      Part of it is that I have trouble imagining why you feel like you can do something at work but you can't do it outside of work. I suppose your work provides you with certain unique resources that you can't get anywhere else? Many of us here write software for consumer devices, and that can scale down fairly well. I think most of us also have multiple interests, where no job could possibly fulfill all of them.

      Plus, I like to read and play video games and watch the occasional movie or TV, so I get more time for that too.

      I suppose people whose main interests involve group activities could get bored if their peers aren't taking vacation at the same time. But if everyone had 6 weeks, well, you could just do that too.

    17. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good to hear someone else enjoys their job too! I get every 4th week off got you all beat! Whole world out there why not go explore it!

    18. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come get us fucker we'll burn your white house down for the second time.

    19. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only rich people own stock? Probably true if viewed from orbit, but if you have a pension or even a 401K you're probably a stockholder - 2nd or 3rd hand anyway. Of course, you don't have to own stock of some of the well-known corporate employee-rapists if you have any control over the process. Or maybe you just buy an index fund and don't think about it too much.

      The Really Rich and the Corporate Top End of course do still have a controlling interest in the assets and the process - that's a given. Your retirement stuff no matter how big in cumulative numbers is still just along for the ride.

    20. Re: Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do your Canadian relatives work for the government or for a very stable and large corporation? I know very few people in Ontario who have more than 3 weeks of paid vacation a year (and who actually are able to take advantage of it) across all age groups and industries.

    21. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Shompol · · Score: 1

      The indians, the chinese, the brazilians, the french, and now canada is on the list of "can't fucking do that reliably".

      Most of the stuff that was made in US is now made in China. What still is made in US does not carry the quality stamp anymore. I will take "made in Germany" over "made in US" without hesitation, all the while Germans enjoy over one month of vacation. All that is left of US superiority is either projecting our military power or Imaginary Property laws across the world.

      Mass media propaganda machine is also one of the best, but sady we cannot export that.

    22. Re:Definitely not from the US. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Other than thumping your chest and saying "We're a superpower (that pats down grannies at checkpoints) BOO YAH!" what benefit does that yield *you*

      It actually seems to be a rather common mental disease afflicted on a significant proportion of the population of countries that get to be bullies (i.e. "run the world", or at least their local region) for any significant amount of time. Case in point: there are quite a few people in Russia today who are nostalgic about the USSR for similar reasons. "Yes", they say, "we were poorer then and didn't have all that fancy stuff; but they feared us and shat their pants at the thought of our sputnik circling above". When you ask them the same question - what do they derive from being feared by others, not even personally, but as a cog in a vast machine - they cannot meaningfully answer.

      I call it the "imperial complex".

    23. Re:Definitely not from the US. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      To quote Col. Jessup "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

      You do recall that the character you are quoting is a murderer, don't you?

      And in case you ALSO have a poster of Al Pacino as Scarface on your wall, I'll also remind you that he dies in the end.

    24. Re:Definitely not from the US. by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      Why is America a super power? Because we work our asses off. Nuff said.

      The dollar is the root of our empire, not our labor force.

    25. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not drone strikes, but you still got your panties in a bunch after that thing in New York, don't you?
      You all seem pretty worried with all the government snooping and military.

    26. Re:Definitely not from the US. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The dollar is the root of our empire, not our labor force.

      Sometime try putting an estimate in dollars of how much benefit we actually get from having the world's currency. It will be an eye-opening exercise.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    27. Re:Definitely not from the US. by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the major advantage in natural resources. America has historically been seen as an industrial powerhouse, but the US's can crush anyone in agriculture and resource extraction. And all that, with very low population density, so the resources per capita are insane.

    28. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should've qualified my statement, most of my cousins are in their 40s and have some degree of seniority in their jobs.

    29. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      In fact Jessup never murdered anyone (that we know of), perhaps you should watch the film again. He disobeys orders that result in the death of a soldier under his command. Enough to get you tossed out, but I doubt you could even make manslaughter stick. In any event quoting a killer is far from outre, wisdom doesn't only flow from pacifists. And thanks for the tip, I have never seen Scarface. ;)

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    30. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      "Canadians by and large are lovely people"

      "Throughout the history of the United States, the U.K. is the only country to have ever burned the White House or Washington, D.C., and this was the only time since the American Revolutionary War that a foreign power captured and occupied the United States capital."

      And there wasn't a Canadian force among them. So unless you are British....

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    31. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Tom · · Score: 2

      Yes, but Russia, for example, is fairly similar to that in many regards, except that it had it industry located largely in the west where the german army left nothing but destruction behind.

      I'm not sure if many of us in the west ever realized the massive destruction of Russia during WW2. The numbers are staggering. The book above lists these damages for the german-occupied russian territory:

      • 11.6 million horses
      • 137,000 tractors
      • 65,000 km of railway track
      • 15,800 locomotives
      • 428,000 goods wagons
      • 4,280 river boats
      • half of all the railway bridges
      • 4.7 million houses

      If your competitor had a total domestic damage of one cowshed (if the story about a stray japanese baloon bomb is correct), that is a massive set-back. In fact, not winning a race against an opponent with starting penalties like that would've been utterly pathetic.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    32. Re:Definitely not from the US. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Ah.....well............ah.........we have Disney World... On second thought, is there room in Canada for one more?

    33. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the UK, my job is 40 hours per week and my paid holiday is 4 weeks for new starters, increasing to 5 weeks at the rate of 1 day per year of service. If I work overtime (as long as it's agreed in advance, rather than "ad hoc") I either get overtime pay (at I believe 1.5x salary) or Time Off In Lieu. I've worked some monster weeks in my time there, but I always get recognised for it in my bottom line.

      I like my job, and I like my work-life balance. I also have some affection and loyalty for my company. I honestly don't know how anyone can live with the crushing mistreatment that some people seem to enjoy bragging about in this and similar threads. Do people not have any self respect?

      If I were going to regularly work 60 hour weeks, I'd need to be paid a lit more than I am today, and I'd need to like my work an awful lot more than I do now. Anyone doing a job they dislike, so many hours that they're exhausted, for mediocre money- they really shouldn't be bragging about it.

    34. Re:Definitely not from the US. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Most stocks have a relativly high by-in which keeps the average joe out of the normal stock market, but there are numerous ways arround to that percieved barrier; mutual funds, 401Ks and even stock clubs will get your foot in the door.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    35. Re:Definitely not from the US. by DexterIsADog · · Score: 1

      You may not remember the film very well. Jessup orders the code red that results in the death of a man under his command. That's at least manslaughter, and I'd be surprised if he didn't do hard time for that. It's not a faux pas.

      The point of that speech is to show the overreach and arrogance of some of the people who run the organizations that protect the U.S. and that they can in fact damage us while doing what they think is right. You may agree with the sentiment, but in the context of the film, his disdain of the court and the prosecutor because he sees himself above the law is supposed to be cautionary, not celebratory.

    36. Re:Definitely not from the US. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      To quote Col. Jessup "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way."

      Right, because the Cubans were going to attack US forces at Guantanamo. Exactly what freedom did he (Jessup) provide?

      Also, that quote seems to deny civilian control over the military, as the President also rises and sleeps under that blanket.

    37. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit! Funny, I heard the President of the CoC explain his reasoning for supporting immigration legislation saying that too many Americans are unwilling or unable to fill labor positions therefore more cheap labor whores needed to be imported. Don't get me wrong, the immigration system needs to be reformed but corporations should have a far smaller voice when it comes to these issues. Average CEO compensation is ~ 2k times greater than the employees and yet they want to maximize shareholder value? People in companies should start forming flash unions to force these type of companies into more equitable arrangements. These people are the decay that is rotting our nation.

    38. Re:Definitely not from the US. by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      To compare to the UK, we get 25 days a year vacation minimum (although most jobs specify that five days are taken by public holidays, so you get 20 to do what you want with). Forty hours a week is standard, working more than that is slightly unusual, but happens a lot. If you work more than 40 hours a week you'll either be getting overtime, or getting screwed over.
      Personally, if I have more than 40 hours of work to do in a week, it's my bosses problem for one employee more then one employee's worth of work. (Unless I'm having to work more to fix one of my own mistakes, can't complain about that.)

    39. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough military to blow your country off the face of the planet when you try to impose your socialistic ideas here. In the end, I guess that's all that matters.

    40. Re:Definitely not from the US. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of that speech is to show the overreach and arrogance of some of the people who run the organizations that protect the U.S. and that they can in fact damage us while doing what they think is right.

      I'm sure you'll agree that can extend to fine organizations such as EPA, OSHA, and plenty of other regulatory agencies, especially when the "revolving door" bring in various advocates that push their agendas beyond what the law was intended for, or what the science suggests.

  15. There are many reasons to pull 60 hour week. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Remember the famous mathematics prof told his colleagues (an engineering prof and a physics prof), "Should have both the mistress and the wife. The wife thinks I'm with the mistress and the mistress thinks I'm with the wife, and I can go the department to get some work done"?

    Many people find refuge in work. Else they endure a constant stream of "load/unload the dishwasher", "take out the garbage", "fold the laundry", "walk the dog", "do the taxes", "get some exercise", ...They fire up the VPN, log in and have some gibberish looking text on screen, having mastered the art of sleeping with eyes open while sitting in a chair, (thanks to endless meetings with PHBs) they just relax. Once you learn to fake sincerity, you got it made...

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:There are many reasons to pull 60 hour week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *THIS* is why I go into work on snow days. I can get something done: my wife and kids are at home and I can't concentrate.

    2. Re:There are many reasons to pull 60 hour week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Remember the famous mathematics prof told his colleagues (an engineering prof and a physics prof), "Should have both the mistress and the wife. The wife thinks I'm with the mistress and the mistress thinks I'm with the wife, and I can go the department to get some work done"?

      Many people find refuge in work. Else they endure a constant stream of "load/unload the dishwasher", "take out the garbage", "fold the laundry", "walk the dog", "do the taxes", "get some exercise", ...They fire up the VPN, log in and have some gibberish looking text on screen, having mastered the art of sleeping with eyes open while sitting in a chair, (thanks to endless meetings with PHBs) they just relax. Once you learn to fake sincerity, you got it made...

      Bad to presume that the typical IT worker has a wife.

    3. Re:There are many reasons to pull 60 hour week. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Many people find refuge in work. Else they endure a constant stream of "load/unload the dishwasher", "take out the garbage", "fold the laundry", "walk the dog", "do the taxes", "get some exercise", ...

      You forgot "read slashdot".

    4. Re:There are many reasons to pull 60 hour week. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you are sounding kind of, well, misogynistic. That "constant stream of..." is what it TAKES to run a household. I guess your "lucky" spouse should just suck it up and do it all so you can "work". (Or better yet get the heck out and find a fair-minded spouse like mine who will split the crap jobs so we can both have some fun time!)

  16. Re:The 40 hour work week is BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a troll, you fail it. Miserably.

    Next time, try not to be so obvious.

  17. wow really by xmousex · · Score: 1

    so let me get this straight. If i am in an interview and i explain to them how well i held up under the pressure of ongoing 60 hour work weeks at my current or previous positions, this does nothing for me to get the next job?

    I know for the positions i have hired people in for, this sort of experience is something i always considered a good thing. People who have been willing to do what it takes to get things done.

    1. Re:wow really by gnasher719 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      so let me get this straight. If i am in an interview and i explain to them how well i held up under the pressure of ongoing 60 hour work weeks at my current or previous positions, this does nothing for me to get the next job?

      Not if they have any degree of intelligence. The oldest study that I know of by Hans Eysenck in war-time Britain showed that people working 57 hours a week produced less than people working 48 hours a week. That was about people producing weapons, who you would assume would have been very highly motivated. Working over 40 hours a week doesn't achieve anything. Six weeks at 60 hours a week produces the same work as six weeks at 40 hours. Except after working 60 hours for six weeks you are so tired that you can't keep up with the 40 hour worker anymore.

    2. Re:wow really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are intelligent? What bullshit is this. Have you been talking your imaginary friends again?

    3. Re:wow really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My dear departed mom said that accountants (actual ones not book keepers) assumed that people working 5 hours a day produced 80% of someone working 8 hours a day. You're only half as productive the last three hours as the first three.

      That said I've noticed there are people that work long hours, who burn out and get fired. Those that refuse? They never get fired. I just doesn't seem to happen.

    4. Re:wow really by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      do any studies control for training to be used to the hours?

      Non-work point: before I started hiking a lot, 2 or 3 hours of hard hiking crushed me. After several months of regularly doing it, 10 hours a day didn't begin to bother me (i.e. 25 mile-30 mile hikes). My experience is there is no point in suddenly increasing my hours. Usually I don't get more out. But ease into it, and train up for it, and it's easy to do.

    5. Re:wow really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the people interviewing you. I personally would come to the conclusion that either you're either a doormat or some guy with no life who makes everyone else feel the need to work longer/harder. Neither are what I'm looking for when hiring.

    6. Re:wow really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't entirely true. Yea, on average there is some truth to this but I'm telling you a person who is dedicated will work more than 40 hours and will produce more than those who maintain this limitation. Don't get me wrong, I agree balance is needed but it depends on the person and the task at hand. I would bet money that Oppenheimer didn't maintain a 40hr work week.

  18. 60? Pah, come back when you're in triple digits. by goldcd · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If this is the norm, then as the OP suggests, something is very very wrong.
    Occasionally though, ridiculous hours are required - and I don't have a problem with gritting my teeth and taking it. Moreover I (in retrospect normally) am quite proud of those moments when we "made it happen"
    What's more interesting to me is how your employer handles these exceptions. Whilst chatting to future employers, I was quite dismayed by the number that point-blank refused to accept these scenarios every occurred, and therefore saw no reason for a policy on their handling.

  19. Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you are in the military working hard, not smarter.

  20. Re:doing two people's jobs by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is Slashdot, where the edge use case wins, every time.

  21. you don't want unions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so don't complain when the boss shafts you!

  22. Hasn't it been known for a 100 years? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1
    I mean it's not new that the max you can expect out of people is 40 hours.(One of the big reasons we switched to 40 hour weeks in the 20th century, it was pointless to have people work longer than that you don't actually get any more production.)

    (sarcasm on)

    Oh wait, we're talking about IT. The rules don't apply to us. You know, we don't need a business plan. Lets just wing things, it'll work out and sure 60+ hour weeks make sense.

    (sarcasm off)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    1. Re:Hasn't it been known for a 100 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT is not real work. That's why you don't get any respect for doing it. Your coworkers will expect you to work all night. Your coworkers will expect you to be at your desk early the next morning after working all night. Machines don't need sleep, why should you.

    2. Re:Hasn't it been known for a 100 years? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

      Heh, you mean managers. The other developers here know exactly how tiring a job that consists of thinking all day truly is.

      --
      Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
    3. Re:Hasn't it been known for a 100 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Not managers. Coworkers. Everyone who isn't in IT. Think outside the tech sector, where IT is one step below janitor and treated accordingly. When you work in IT, you don't just work for a manager, you work for everyone who can lodge a complaint about anything even remotely resembling an electronic device. Your coworkers don't care that you were working your ass off all night to rebuild a server from bare metal and backups. If you're not at your desk when they come looking for you, you're a disobedient slacker who will receive a reprimand as soon as your manager's manager's manager hears about how lazy you are. After all, all you do all day is unjam printers, right? That's even less labor than unclogging toilets, so the janitor is better than you.

  23. Stop inviting it by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I see is way too many people bending over backwards in order to get bent over forwards in return. Just because you have a smart phone and a laptop doesn't mean you have to reply instantly. It doesn't mean you have to give an ETA on a project or task that requires you to get it done with 60 hours in a week or 14 hours in a day.
     
        And once you start doing that everyone starts expecting it. Don't start! If you do work at home wait until the morning to send it out. Don't reply to email at 8pm. When your boss says "Where were you last night?" You say "Did we have an after hours appointment?" and make a show of looking at your calendar. The next time you say "Taking my son to xyz." Say it like it was wonderful and not like it's an excuse. Don't for a second feel guilty. Do this publicly as much as possible. Nobody else there wants to work 14 hour days either.

    It's like an idiotic prisoners' dilemna. We all do it because everybody else is. Even your boss is sick of it, and has wife who is sick of it too.

    The only way to win is not to play. If that means moving on to another job so be it. Keep moving until the tide around you moves with you.

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
    1. Re:Stop inviting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep moving until the tide around you moves with you.

      If you're not moving with the tide, you're not a part of society. Enjoy living homeless in the gutter. Finally you can be free!

    2. Re:Stop inviting it by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

      The next time you say "Taking my son to xyz." Say it like it was wonderful and not like it's an excuse.

      And make sure you're not in earshot of anyone actually doing work who resents you for it while you're off having a grand old time.

    3. Re:Stop inviting it by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      Why should they resent you, rather than the ones who cause the problem to begin with (bosses, etc.)? Yeah, everyone should just be as miserable as everyone else; that'll change everything for the better!

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    4. Re:Stop inviting it by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      If you only move with the tide, you're not a human being; you may as well be an automaton.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:Stop inviting it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, be SURE it's in ear shot.
      His point is it should be the norm, not the exception.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Stop inviting it by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 1

      I don't buy into the whole shared misery concept. Perhaps thats why I disasgree with so many of the slashdot liberals.
      Why should I be happy about your allegedly high quality of life subsidized by your crotchfruit?

    7. Re:Stop inviting it by gIobaljustin · · Score: 1

      In other news, 1 + 1 = 2. Irrelevant? You bet.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    8. Re:Stop inviting it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately if I did that I would be the first person to be laid off next quarter. 'Murika fuck yeah!

  24. I'm in IT, you insensitive clod. by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

    We average about 50 hours a week, but there are weeks when it goes up to 60 or more. These aren't too often, however. Plus you know that scene in "Office Space" where we hear that there's a good amount of staring into space? There's some of that too. Take that out of my day and it's a more normal 40 hours of actual work.

    The problem is in finding people. I interviewed over twenty candidates last year but no matter that the resumes read "Linux expert", many couldn't change a password expiration or expand an LV.

  25. It's really not that simple by msobkow · · Score: 1

    When I did contract work, we put in 60+ hour weeks because we wanted to. Rather than trying to find another "star" programmer, our team made do with the resources that we had and worked our butts off because of little issues like having to train any new hires on the techniques we were using. It would have been a good 3-4 months before a new hire would be productive, by which time the project would be almost over.

    After the project, we'd take a month off and just relax, living off our savings.

    Granted, it's not a life for everyone, but when you're living that way by choice because you like taking off a month at a time, it works out for both the client and the contractor.

    Working as an employee outside the contractor mentality, I rarely was called upon to work overtime. The rumours of killer hours being demanded by employers are, in my experience, bullshit. The only employees I ever saw working such crunch hours were people who were so incompetent they just flat out couldn't keep up with the rest of the team. They were working overtime because they weren't good enough to be in the industry, not because anyone was forcing them to, unless expecting someone to do their job competently is "forcing" them to work overtime.

    Sure there were emergencies where we had to pull all-nighters to fix problems, but those were exceptions and didn't happen more than once a month at most. If you're going to work a job that involves babysitting critical batch jobs, you're going to have the occasional night where the babysitting turns into repair and rerun -- you wouldn't be getting paid to carry a pager/cell phone if it weren't important to the company to have that backup to make sure jobs run to completion.

    Startups, however, are another issue. I've worked for a couple of them, and that work environment sucks farts off dead chickens in the August heat. Startups tend to have this mentality that you're "investing" in the company and that you'll "get your rewards" when the company wins it big. But I've never worked for a company that "won it big." Instead, most of them fell over and crashed because they were dreaming big dreams without the cash and capital needed to make it reality, relying on being able to sucker staff into working obscene hours instead of paying them.

    I hated working for startups. The pressure is intense, the demands are unrealistic, and the goals are unstable. The bottom line is that unless you own a startup, you're unlikely to ever see the payout. They're a con-job designed to line the pockets of the owner and investors, not to pay you what you're actually worth.

    So, in short, if you're working 60 hours a week as a contractor, don't sweat it -- it's your choice. If you're called on to work 60 hours occasionally as an employee, make sure it's for the occasional emergency, not a regular fact of life. And if you're working for a startup, wake the hell up and find another job where you're going to get paid what you're worth.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:It's really not that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only employees I ever saw working such crunch hours were people who were so incompetent they just flat out couldn't keep up with the rest of the team. They were working overtime because they weren't good enough to be in the industry, not because anyone was forcing them to, unless expecting someone to do their job competently is "forcing" them to work overtime.

      This is me, for sure. I often put my hand up for work where I'm out of my depth, and have to spend a lot of time skilling up, or just becoming familiar with the tech.

      But taking a step back, I'm working with xen and technologies that didn't exist during my degree. There's been no offer or approval of any training, and there's generally an underlying vibe of "someone will pick it up". Someone always *does*, but always on their own time.

      Just an observation...

    2. Re:It's really not that simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I worked as a contractor (software development), I got paid hourly, and anything over 40 hours a week needed specific approval from the client's management. Guess what? I almost never worked over 40 hours a week.

      As a salaried software developer, I have occasionally worked extra hours, when something had to be ready for a trade show or a customer had a problem that needed resolution ASAP. In that situation I (and my coworkers) have almost always received compensatory time off at the manager's discretion.

      Anyone working more than 40 hours a week on a regular basis without additional compensation is being abused.

  26. How much time is spent producing a work product? by swb · · Score: 1

    I don't doubt there are people (young, single, apartment renters) who spend 60 hours a week at work, but I suspect that all those 60 hours aren't spent actually producing a work product.

    There's a lot of time spent in IT waiting. Waiting for builds. Waiting for downloads. Waiting for installs, updates, restores, data transfer from box A to box B. And waiting is just one category -- there's yakking with co-workers, Google searches for work-related information that end up in some Wikipedia page 6 times removed from what you started looking for. Trips to the cafeteria, vending machines, smoking cigarettes.

    I think for a lot of people with few strings attached work just becomes a place to be when they have nothing else to do. It's especially easy for technology people because a lot of them would be doing the same thing at home they'd do at work but it's less lonely in the office.

  27. Re:Beta by edibobb · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I tried to mod up, but it's broken.

  28. Organizational Breakdown by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    I have worked 60+ hour weeks only one time in my life. Before I joined this company, two of the three employees separately contacted me to warn that the boss was, in their words, "crazy." Unfortunately, I didn't believe them. I hadn't had any experience with crazy bosses up until that point in my career. The only other employee quit around the same time.

    I lasted four months. The pay was good. And the job would not have been that difficult. It didn't even require more people. But the organization had definitely completely broken down. Everyone did five different jobs, everything from electronics repair to customer service to data processing to moving equipment. This was by design, apparently, in order to make the company more "agile."

    I spent a lot of time automating simple data processing tasks, and working on improving physical processes that took a lot of time for no real benefit. But I couldn't make improvements quickly enough. Almost the entire time, the "crazy" boss was literally looking over my shoulder, telling me how to do every little thing in whatever particular way he thought was best. Even though I had been a Unix consultant for nearly a decade, he took it as his personal mission to teach me the wonders of Excel as a universal programming tool. Ugh.

    I was actually relieved to eventually be fired, after working two weeks straight, including travel and weekends and 10-11 hour days, simply for taking a day off. One of the other employees left at the same time. The last thing I did was to fix an absolutely crippling issue that I had noticed on the first day on the job, but never had the time to properly investigate. They had re-programmed a bunch of wireless routers with the same MAC address. Brilliant.

    Last I heard, they had hired a dozen people shortly after I left. Probably all Excel experts.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Organizational Breakdown by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Was this boss from India by any chance? I have worked for Indians, and they tend to be both micro-managers and slightly crazy/delusional.
      (Not trying to be racist, this is just my personal experience)

  29. Sometimes it's fun by edibobb · · Score: 1

    There have been many periods in my career when I worked 60+ per week because I enjoyed it and wanted to. I got a lot accomplished during those times.

  30. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama can't last forever! He has a term limit. Unfortunately the American idiot voters will replace him with something even more evil.

  31. It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm from Eastern Europe, and I can't believe that 40-hours a week jobs in America can't feed and house you. I guess it really depends on your expectations about the house and the food.

    But since everyone around you has a nice house and car, it would be shameful if you don't - especially if you're married, because then it would be shameful for your wife and children, too. So you're overworking yourself for status in society, so that people don't look down upon you and your family.

    1. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      Believe it! That's why Walmart and McDonald's HR include people to help you get food stamps. They know they don't pay well enough to actually live. The expectations are food that is legal to buy for human consumption and housing that hasn't been condemned as uninhabitable.

      The car thing is seriously variable. Housing where public transportation is available tends to cost more than housing without it, but then you need a car.

    2. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Unfortunately, it's not a USA thing anymore, you've successfully exported it to at least Europe.

      Here in Germany, more than one million employees are receiving a special form of unemployment benefits, because without it they would actually earn less than the unemployment benefits are. That's just insane, and the solution to compensate for the difference with tax money is so psychotic that it is my honest believe each and every one of the politicians who came up with that should be put into a closed mental institution and kept there for life.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    3. Re:It's a status thing by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Interesting

      WM and MD jobs are not there for you to "actually live" on them, most of them are not. WM has over 2,000,000 employees, those are starter jobs, as in: you have no skills, you are at the beginning of your professional career, or maybe you are a new immigrant and need the first job in the country, type of jobs.

      Just because gov't destroyed the economy in USA (and other countries) doesn't change the fact that WM and MD jobs were never meant to be anything else but starter jobs where even the current minimum wage is likely 2x-4x higher than it should be based on the number and qualifications of the applicants.

      Now, if we are going to talk about 60hour weeks, I can talk about myself, I run my own company and my work day starts at 8:30AM and often doesn't end until 1:30AM or even later. Yes, I do have people working for me, no, I don't require them to stay past 6PM, in fact it's very rare that somebody stays event past 5PM. No, I don't pay minimum wage, I pay more than minimum wage, that's because the people I hire can get similar deals somewhere else and I in fact also hire mostly new guys, out of schools or even those who never finished college, I don't care about the degree. Yes, I train them myself, the company is small, so I don't have levels of management, I am the management. Maybe if I grow to over 40 people then it would be different.

      My point is, /. is full of shit when it comes to talking of the economy, employment, business in general, it's a slice of general population here with higher than average arrogance levels but nothing much beyond that.

    4. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you elaborate, or post the name of the benefit (in German) ?

    5. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad that's all there is for the people working there trying to feed their families. There is simply no excuse for any full time job (and yes, 39.5 hours is close enough to full time, it's just a dodge to avoid benefits) to not pay enough to at least get by without needing government assistance. No excuse whatsoever.

      The minimum wage should be set such that no person working full time qualifies for any sort of food stamps or welfare AT LEAST. If we set it at any less than that the taxpayer ends up subsidizing employer's payroll. The press costs what it costs to run and if you pay less it dies. An employee costs what he costs to run and if you don't pay enough, he dies (except for public assistance since we don't want dead Wallmart employees littering the streets).

      Boo Hoo, a Big Mac might cost an extra quarter (yes, that would actually be enough to cover raising minimum wage to a barely livable wage).

    6. Re:It's a status thing by jordanjay29 · · Score: 1

      WM and MD jobs are not there for you to "actually live" on them, most of them are not. WM has over 2,000,000 employees, those are starter jobs, as in: you have no skills, you are at the beginning of your professional career, or maybe you are a new immigrant and need the first job in the country, type of jobs.

      They're not really what you believe they are. You clearly have never worked in such a place before. The minimum wage plus erratic hours is designed to ensure that you're stuck working there, it's difficult to find the time to seek out new jobs if you're also a student, parent or both. The mere fact that there are people at Walmart who have worked there for over 20 years in a low-end, low-wage position proves your point utterly false.

    7. Re:It's a status thing by impossiblefork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's an Swedish radical socialist song about this from 1972, by a band called Blå Tåget: "Each hand knows what the other does" (which of course, is a clever title in Swedish). Below is a somewhat crappy translation (the original fits a rhyme scheme, and a metre).

      "The capital raises the rents, and the state the rent benefits
      In this way one fiddle with the Iron Law of Wages
      and even pay less wages than the price of food and rent,
      for the state merrily pitches in should the living expenses grow to great".

      They then go on to give further examples of how a welfare society merely masks fundamental injustices in capitalism and how it is something which alleviates symptoms instead of going for democratic control of the means of production. I've long wanted to translate this song into English properly, because it's insightful and the ideas in it are somewhat foreign to most English speakers.

    8. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my wife was 18-22 she worked at Wal-Mart and Mcdonalds, and then a grocery store and then Sam's Club (they pay decent for the what the job is). She wanted out of that so.. She worked for free in her off time for a few months at a travel agency to learn that trade. She got a job at another agency shortly after that. For a brief stint after we moved across the country when I changed jobs and had odd hours, she had to work at 7-Eleven night shift so we could avoid the costs of a baby sitter. Jump ahead 15 years. She is now an insurance agent making about $50K year + some commission and she is happy with that.

      Your story about being stuck at McDonalds your entire life because of the system is complete 100 complete BULLSHIT. The people that are stuck there are there because they have no initiative, no desire, or they are happy there and want to be there. I know a lot of people want to blame the government, the "system", because that is what they have been told and thought their entire life but in reality, the PEOPLE themselves are to blame and they have to take personal responsibility for their own lives.

    9. Re:It's a status thing by BigDaveyL · · Score: 2

      There was an interview with one of the people picketing McDonalds for hgher pay. The interviewer asked if McDonalds offered her a supervisory role. She said she didn't want that responsibility, just wanted the money that came along with it.

    10. Re:It's a status thing by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Believe it! That's why Walmart and McDonald's HR include people to help you get food stamps. They know they don't pay well enough to actually live. The expectations are food that is legal to buy for human consumption and housing that hasn't been condemned as uninhabitable.

      The car thing is seriously variable. Housing where public transportation is available tends to cost more than housing without it, but then you need a car.

      A severe manifestation of how the wealthiest have passed along tax burden to the rest of us. This allows them to have most of us subsidize their profits. And pay a higher percentage of our salaries as taxes.

      Sweet deal if you can get it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:It's a status thing by schlachter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that's all of us subsidising these corporations to pay lower wages through our taxes and gov services through our social services. People shouldn't put up with that. I'm in favor of needed social services, but not so that companies can pass the buck.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    12. Re:It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      so you want food stamps and welfare to no longer be family size tested?

      you can more than reasonably live off 40 hours a week at minimum wage in many places (that is 14k a year, and net no taxes before any government transfers), but that is living alone. In Florida you don't even qualify for food stamps at that level of income because they know it is sufficient. It'll be hard if you want every employer to assume you were dumb enough to have 3 dependents and then decide minimum wage was how you were going to support your family but the HR dept has probably come to the conclusion that you are that inept at organizing your life. Hence the "hey, our statistics show that most of our employees for some reason think this job is meant to support a family of 6. So you probably qualify for all these government benefits".

    13. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely! That's why I support raising the minimum wage high enough that people receiving it no longer need food stamps.

    14. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agreed.

    15. Re:It's a status thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Can you elaborate, or post the name of the benefit (in German) ?

      In America, it is called EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), and far from being "insane" (as the GP labels it), EITC is generally viewed as a successful policy, and most economists believe that an increase in EITC would be better targeted and more effective at reducing poverty than raising the minimum wage (many minimum wage earners are not heads of households, and do not live in poor families). The EITC cost the federal govt about $56 billion last year.

    16. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's not a USA thing anymore, you've successfully exported it to at least Europe.

      other way round buddy..

    17. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You might not have noticed, but a lot of people lost their decentish jobs over the last few years and have had to take minimum wage jobs. What is your suggestion, sell the kids for experiments?

      Meanwhile, it is hardly unreasonable to expect 40 hours of ANY job to be enough to have a family (perhaps you didn't notice, but that is a normal part of human life).

    18. Re:It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      no, that is really unreasonable, and if you think about what it functionally means, you would realize it quickly.

      The idea that the same job you were qualified for at 16, without a high school education (in a country where some amount of continued education after high school is the norm) is not reasonable. There are people at the age of 16 who either want to or need to work and there should be jobs that suit their skill set.

      Should I be able to support my wife and kids, and send my children to college, and have a modern home, as a caddie? simply because the job of carrying golf clubs for someone else exists that job should support all these things? My friends, in high school (to save for) and in college (to pay for it) needed these kinds of low skilled jobs. They were never meant or though of as careers. If you have spent 20 years rotating between different ultra-lowskill jobs that are meant as transitions I've got nothing for you. And if you are dedicated to walmart and stay there and put up with the crap conditions for 10 years, you can support a family (and since you can start at 16, this means you can afford to be married and looking at having kids in your mid-20s). But if you mean you should be able to afford to get married and support a family well while rotating around across work places in ultra-lowskill jobs, never building any useful skills or firm knowledge?

      There need to be jobs that give people with no skills a chance to do something. Yes, we did have a recession and compared to pre recession levels, the percent of people at or below the minimum wage higher than it was under Bush, but it is lower than any time under Clinton's tenure except the absolute peak of 2000 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm). It's not exactly the end days in the US labor market.

    19. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's unreasonable for a 16 year old to have a job.

      A 16 year old should be in school, they should not be working at all. A college student should not be working more than 10 hours a week, if at all. Oh, and "saving for college" with tuition where it is today is just plain stupid. You come out behind if you try.

      The minimum wage should be set to a level that someone working 40 hours a week should be well above the poverty level for a family of three. They shouldn't be competing for work with high school students.

      And yes, if someone wants to make a career of a full time minimum wage position, they should be able to have a reasonable income.

      Start it at $15/hour. Index it to inflation.

    20. Re:It's a status thing by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      It's called inflation. A US gallon of gasoline cost ~$1.10 in 1993. It's now regularly going up over $4.. A bag of chips that cost $0.89 in 1993, now costs $4. The price of fresh produce has skyrocketed in recent years. That, coupled with rising taxes, burns the candle from both ends. This is what is squeezing most of the middle class down towards destitution even while they're making $30k/year.. Unfortunately, employers aren't compensating for this inflation as they are just using employees as the cushion between this inflation and their profit. It wont' last forever though. When the rest of us fall flat, the entire stack of cards the ruling class live on will also tumble.

    21. Re:It's a status thing by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Attempts at democratic control of the means of production simply move the corruption from private entities into the state, where they now have the means and power to use the power of law to enforce their own interests at everyone else's expense. I fail to see how this really changes anything. In fact, it makes it worse.

    22. Re:It's a status thing by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Ideally, if the job takes up 40hours/week (basically the majority of your waking hours), it should pay enough for you to live reasonably comfortably, debt free. If it doesn't, there's something fundamentally wrong with the system. The whole point of this economy is to allow people to specialize and bring new advances to society without having to toil away in the fields growing food and maintaining basic structures. If it can't do this without beggaring people, then it has failed. It has been failing long and hard enough that growing numbers of people are wondering if they shouldn't just start growing their own food and living off grid. Of course, then the problem becomes property tax, which society uses to ensure unemployed (or those society has decreed as 'unemployable') people can't really live off grid. They are being squeezed.. If this continues, it's only a matter of time before society comes apart.

    23. Re:It's a status thing by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      Many minimum wage earners are young adults. They aren't heads of households because they can't afford to move out of their parent's on minimum wage. Minimum wage should pay a sufficient amount for an individual to live at an acceptable level given social norms. That isn't the case in most of the world. If the assumption is you can go to the food bank, charities, and multiple jobs greater than what is considered full time minimum wage isn't cutting it.

    24. Re:It's a status thing by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Our policies could learn something from the military (at least the Canadian army where I served): shareholders shouldn't get profits until the people generating the profits have a livelihood. When I served the troops eat first. Then the sergeants, then the officers. If the food ran out or you ran out of time etc. too bad for the higher ups. A similar pecking order can be seen in a lot of religious groups, leaders are meant to be the first of the servants not the reason why the whole thing exists.

    25. Re:It's a status thing by Evtim · · Score: 2

      Democratic control means state control?

      That's a lie, perpetuated by both capitalist and the former "communists". I fail to see where is the state in "the means of production belong to the creators of the wealth".

    26. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      other way round buddy..

      Negative. When I was a child, we still had working social security networks over here and losing your job sucked, but didn't make you a hobo. This is an intentional political change. It even has a name: Agenda 2010.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    27. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's simply called "Arbeitslosengeld" - unemployment money. That is the regular unemployment benefits as you probably know them from your country.

      However, after the Agenda 2010 reforms, after one year of unemployment (irrespective of reasons) or under a variety of other conditions (which largely affect especially young people, like not having worked for at least one year in the job you just lost), you will be moved to "Arbeitslosengeld II" - yes, that's just the same with a roman numeral. In colloquial german it is mostly called "Hartz 4", because a Mr. Hartz was the industrialist/lobbyist who came up with the whole concept and convinced the government of it and it was the 4th part of a multi-part reform.

      Hartz 4 is very low, in fact it has been raised at least twice because our highest court has ruled that it violates human rights and doesn't allow for humane living conditions. It is tied to a long list of conditions and regulations and even though it is already set as a minimum living expenses, not meeting those conditions can result in further reductions or non-payment for up to three months.

      The "idea" behind it is that unemployed people are just lazy and need to be pushed to get back into work. Somehow, people living in ivory towers never got the newsflash that in most industries the number of available jobs is less than the number of available workers.

      Oh yes, they can also force you to work for âÂ1/h. That is not a typo. One Euro per hour. If you refuse, your Hartz 4 money will be cut.

      50 years ago, there would've been blood in the streets if they had tried this system. But they were smart and spent a decade (and three different government coalitions) to establish it, and like the frog in the story about boiling waters, the country didn't jump out.

      The idea works, that's for sure. I have friends who have been on Hartz 4, and one of them is right now afraid of losing her job because it would mean she loses the small appartment she just rented a few months ago and everything she's worked for for the past years. She has panic attacks and is deathly afraid. I'm not using that term lightly, the german word is "Existenzangst" - existential fear.

      It would work if it weren't based on a flawed assumption - that the reason for unemployment is that people don't want to work and much rather enjoy unemployment benefits. That kind of people probably exist. Almost certainly, they are like 1% of the unemployed. For the rest, more force doesn't magically generate jobs.

      The hidden agenda (what a fitting term!) is of course to increase pressure on the workforce so people accept worse jobs for less money. And that has worked very well. Wages are actually declining, and a lot of people work in part-time work and a lot of people work for money that nobody sane would've worked for one or two decades ago, because it simply isn't enough to feed and house a family.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    28. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What convinces you that someone working full time should not necessarily be able to have a normal life? I'm not talking McMansion and two new cars, just the basics needed to live without government assistance.

      A full time job should provide all the basics for a normal life (which means a reasonable size family). Keep in mind, many of the adult minimum wage employees aren't there because they have no more skills, but because that's the only job available and the employer has used their desperation for income against them.

      Minimum wage during the Clinton presidency went further than it does today. Minimum wage has stayed put while inflation marches on.

      Unskilled labor has never paid well, but not paying enough for even a small family is a fairly recent development. A long term labor surplus is also fairly new on the scale of written history.

    29. Re: It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Do some basic research. The minimum wage during Clinton, varied but was never more than 7.45/ year inflation adjusted. It didn't go further. The statutory minimum wage back then was around 5 bucks, you pretty obviously weren't working at this time and didn't know anyone who was. The minimum wage was raised aggressively by Bush to keep it in line with the Clinton years.

      And as I said, the percent of folks at the minimum is lower now. If there are two minimum wage earners in the house working full time, you do have enough for the basics of life. I can comfortably support my family of 3 with 25k(is no budgeting required) in one of the most expensive cities in the world and that household would earn 29k. It is well above the federal poverty guidelines.

      So your desires are absolutely met with the current minimum wage (though I agree it should be somewhat higher and inflation indexed).

      And this permanent labor surplus I have no idea what you mean. In general, unemployment rates are lower now than they have been in any recessionary period in the past, and even at its worst didnt quite stack up again the highs in the 80s. And at the rate the US is expanding we will probably be staring at a 5 handle and back within historic norms.

      You honestly sound like your total grasp on economic history started around 2004.

    30. Re:It's a status thing by Solandri · · Score: 0

      The minimum wage should be set such that no person working full time qualifies for any sort of food stamps or welfare AT LEAST. If we set it at any less than that the taxpayer ends up subsidizing employer's payroll.

      This again...

      A job pays what the product of the job is worth. No more. If you raise the minimum wage to above what the job's productivity is worth, the job's wage doesn't magically increase. The job simply ceases to exist. All those no-skill jobs kids in high school get to make some spending cash? Gone. All those entry-level jobs for people who learned a lot of book knowledge but don't yet have practical experience? Gone. All those unskilled assembly line jobs? Exported to third world countries or replaced by robots.

      I'm sure there are lots of low-wage jobs where employers aren't paying what the job is actually worth. But don't be so blinded by your zeal to curtail those abuses that you demolish a large fraction of the functional economy in the process. The taxpayers aren't just subsidizing certain employers' payroll. They're also subsidizing the inability or unwillingness of certain employees to find/work a more productive job.

      This is why funding and providing educational opportunities (both for children and adults) is a much better approach to solving this than raising the minimum wage. True economic growth comes from increasing each individual's productivity. The goal should be to allow people to move from less productive jobs to more productive jobs; not shifting money from more productive jobs to less productive jobs to make those less productive jobs more appealing.

    31. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Boo Hoo, a Big Mac might cost an extra quarter (yes, that would actually be enough to cover raising minimum wage to a barely livable wage).

      That might be enough to cover the raise at McD's, but what about their suppliers? The quality of the food there makes me suspect that their suppliers also pay (close to) minimum wage, which means that the prices for the raw foods they buy would also go up.

      Add in all those additional costs (plus everywhere else in the supply chain minimum-wage labor is involved) and I'd wager that a N% increase in the minimum wage would yield a nearly-N% increase in the prices.

    32. Re: It's a status thing by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      Minimum pay for a government worker In US is around $10 at the moment I think. A 10 year-old won't even take out the trash for that kind of money here in Norway.... Working 40 hours only tells you how much he is working, not what he earns. Here in Norway, flipping burgere at McDonald's will get you $60,000 a year...

      --
      This is blinging
    33. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you define who generates the profits? The shareholders are the most likely candidates. Without investment, there is zero profit. Additionally, what defines a livelihood?

    34. Re: It's a status thing by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      That is preposterous and you know it. Your fixed costs (rent, utilities, etc) in any large city would be over 70% of your income. That's not including: food, transportation to and from your job (easily thousands of dollars per year), clothes, and medical expenses, because you won't have insurance on a minimum wage job. Your notion that unskilled jobs should pay less or else no one has incentive to become skilled is also ridiculous. One of the BIGGEST incentives is to not have to work a mind-numbing job and instead be able to do something creative or intellectually fulfilling.

    35. Re:It's a status thing by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      In colloquial german it is mostly called "Hartz 4", because a Mr. Hartz was the industrialist/lobbyist who came up with the whole concept and convinced the government of it and it was the 4th part of a multi-part reform.

      In the UK, it was known as the Speenhamland system, and it contributed to significant collapse in wages. Arguably, it resulted in the shifting of costs of labor from the employers to the state. ie: people had to have a job to qualify for Spennhamland payments, so they would take any job at any wage, and the state would be responsible for providing the living wage.

      Why do politicians keep reviving these systems that have long ago proven to be completely disastrous? Are they not required to read history?

    36. Re: It's a status thing by Radres · · Score: 2

      Two minimum wage earners in the same household? By definition one of those workers is working just to pay minimum wage for childcare. Two income households only makes sense if both adults are making more than minimum wage.

    37. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, it's not a USA thing anymore, you've successfully exported it to at least Europe.

      Europe was the first place to force in the "30 hour work week" in some countries.

    38. Re:It's a status thing by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Funny that I can remember paying in the US $0.43/gallon in Indiana back in '99. Could fill my car for $6, and drive it from there back home in southern ontario on one tank--if I didn't hit any traffic problems. Now would cost me pushing $30 to fill it. Of course in Ontairo at the time it cost me $20 or so to fill it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re:It's a status thing by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's unreasonable for a 16 year old to have a job.

      A 16 year old should be in school, they should not be working at all. A college student should not be working more than 10 hours a week, if at all. Oh, and "saving for college" with tuition where it is today is just plain stupid. You come out behind if you try.

      The minimum wage should be set to a level that someone working 40 hours a week should be well above the poverty level for a family of three. They shouldn't be competing for work with high school students.

      And yes, if someone wants to make a career of a full time minimum wage position, they should be able to have a reasonable income.

      Start it at $15/hour. Index it to inflation.

      Nonsense. The product of a job for a 16 year old individual is not simply money.

      Having a job in food service has a huge impact on the social norms the person has as an adult.

      Having a physical job (say, loading trucks) has a huge impact on how active the person is as an adult.

      Working with people who are stuck there in their 40's (after 5 DUIs and jail time for cocaine possession) has a huge impact on "gee, better not do that myself"

      Those things people learn at that age makes them better, and results in actual "living wages" as a productive person in society. Instead of a highly-paid skag or drag on society. If you want a good society, you lead people into doing good things, not just give them good things.

      The idea that everybody deserves a living wage for doing no personal development, no effort, no commitment (at least, learning to, not saying they have to be stupid loyal) to a job is foolish. You are creating another dependent, not another producer.

      You sir, are an outright communist. There's no question anymore. Which is fine I guess, the problem is you are SO STUPID you think that it's going to work even in the face of real, big, dire, and far reaching consequences for what you want.

      Hint: nothing happens if you lick a red hot stove burner element if your tongue is wet enough. Try it!

    40. Re: It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuck off troll!

    41. Re: It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off troll

    42. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0/10. You're not even trying. Geez, the quality of trolls here has gone down SO far....

    43. Re:It's a status thing by lostfayth · · Score: 1

      The shareholders in his example would be the taxpaying citizenry.

      Clearly the employees are the one who generate the profits.

    44. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart and McDonald's HR include people to help you get food stamps. They know they don't pay well enough to actually live.

      Walmart and McDonald's jobs aren't designed to live off of. They're designed for teenagers and retirees to get a little spending money.

      TL;DR- get a real job, you losers!

    45. Re:It's a status thing by budgenator · · Score: 1

      In my industry, payroll is 20% of total expenses so to raise the wage by $0.25/hr it costs $0.25/hr/0.20= $1.25/hr, but don't worry when Obamacare kicks in the employer mandate, any employee not worth a $20.00/hr is going to be on the street anyways.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    46. Re: It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you replied to the correct comment. I never said anything about whether a higher minimum wage detracts from a desire for training. Only that its ridiculous to think it needs to be high enough to support anyone in any stage of life.

    47. Re: It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Yes because everyone has to have a personal nanny?

      Its easy, professional friends do it as well. Its called jobs with staggered working hours, and even those on the minimum wage can find them. One parent goes from 7 am to 3:30 and another from 11 to 730. You now need about 5 hours of child care unless the kids are in school, when you need 0. But yeah, if you want a personal nanny I can imagine living on a budget gets hard

    48. Re: It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also many work "Schwartz" - under the table - to survive

    49. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you're capable of is flipping burgers, I don't see why anyone owes you a living.

      People get paid what they're worth. If they're worth less than they're paid, they get replaced by machines.

      A neurosurgeon is worth more to society than a burger flipper.

      When did worthlessness become a badge? "Boohoo, I'm such a pathetic piece of shit, the most I can do is flip burgers when the machine beeps at me. You owe me a living!"

      Now, if you're a single parent dealing with a family, then you're going to need the food stamps ANYWAY, so the part time employer is doing you a favor by helping with that, and paying you as well. "Pay" is infinitely better than "no pay," speaking as someone who's experienced both states.

      But I missed the part of the social contract whereby agreeing to pay someone what their labor is worth to me creates an obligation on my part to support their family.

    50. Re:It's a status thing by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Capital buys machinery, materials and people's time. Generally speaking for any largish company the majority of the investors are not the ones coming up with the ideas, marketing them to customers, dealing with customer complaints etc. With out the workers the company would own a bunch of boxes piled on the receiving dock that had no value added to it since it was purchased from the suppliers. It would be exactly the same value as it had before (less spoilage) and would have no return on investment.

    51. Re:It's a status thing by anyGould · · Score: 2

      A job pays what the product of the job is worth. No more.

      Bull. A job pays the minimum an employer can get away with paying. Whether that minimum is set by market conditions, greed, or their moral compass, no-one pays more than they think they "should". That's why there's a minimum wage.

      If you raise the minimum wage to above what the job's productivity is worth, the job's wage doesn't magically increase. The job simply ceases to exist. All those no-skill jobs kids in high school get to make some spending cash? Gone. All those entry-level jobs for people who learned a lot of book knowledge but don't yet have practical experience? Gone. All those unskilled assembly line jobs? Exported to third world countries or replaced by robots.

      Again, bull. There's never going to be a lack of demand for food-servers and store clerks. And those are jobs that don't export easily. What we're already seeing happen is the opposite - employers pushing for "temporary foreign workers", importing folks who *will* work for those cheap-ass rates and can be deported at the first sign of trouble.

      I'm sure there are lots of low-wage jobs where employers aren't paying what the job is actually worth. But don't be so blinded by your zeal to curtail those abuses that you demolish a large fraction of the functional economy in the process. The taxpayers aren't just subsidizing certain employers' payroll. They're also subsidizing the inability or unwillingness of certain employees to find/work a more productive job. This is why funding and providing educational opportunities (both for children and adults) is a much better approach to solving this than raising the minimum wage. True economic growth comes from increasing each individual's productivity. The goal should be to allow people to move from less productive jobs to more productive jobs; not shifting money from more productive jobs to less productive jobs to make those less productive jobs more appealing.

    52. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Keep treating an underclass like that long enough and eventually they (and you) discover they're also good at shooting and arson. Sound good to you?

      Meanwhile since you're carping on about part time when I was very specific about full time, I presume you're just having fun shitting on people.

    53. Re: It's a status thing by suutar · · Score: 1

      which city are you living in? Where I am, 25k is rent and nothing else.

    54. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 16 year old should be in school, they should not be working at all.

      I'd have preferred having a job in place of high-school. That way, I'd at least have *some* experience when I finished college as opposed to having no education while in high-school.

      That, and I wouldn't have to deal with sucky high-school students. The sooner I could leave them behind, the better.

    55. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some minimum wage jobs might go away if the wage is increased, but a lot will not. I can't imagine the corporate management at McDs can flip all those burgers themselves, they'll have to hire people to do it. How fortunate that by raising the price of a Big Mac by 25 cents they can cover the extra expense of paying a livable wage..

      No segment of the economy that exists only because the government makes up the missing income so the workers don't starve to death can be called functional. Perhaps it's better if it folds since it is clearly unsustainable.

      That would leave the people stuck there more time to get educated.

    56. Re:It's a status thing by See+Attached · · Score: 1

      In a greater Northeast US metro area, the cost of living is pretty high. When the employers for large multinational companies compare the cost of the salaries to keep a presence in this area, to a data center elsewhere on the planet, IT folks look like overhead. Our value add is not usually appreciated, and our opinions are often ignored. Efficiency is never a consideration, and our fate is not looking bright. When taxes are $15K/year, and things like TV/Inet/Phone are $220 per month, (etc...) our salaries evaporate pretty quickly. I drive a 10 year old pickup, and my wife has a 10 year old SUV too, so we do keep vanity in check. Having a can-do and will-do attitude has its costs, but not to my employer directly. Is the fix to move to a rural area, where costs are lower? This cuts down on the face to face contact with customers which has been essential to proper service.

      --
      Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
    57. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some workers in the supply chain are paid minimum wage, but i'll bet that many (especially upper management) are already paid more.

    58. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Parents shouldn't let their kids work for the current minimum wage. It teaches them to devalue their time to the point that it isn't worth even enough to stay alive without government aid.

    59. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      I hope you're not an accountant!

      If the wage is increased 3% and payroll is 20% of your costs, that means your costs go up by 0.6% assuming everybody on your payroll currently makes minimum wage.

      Unless, of course you are a restaurant. In that case it's a 10% raise (pathetic as that is) and so would represent a 2% increase in costs.

    60. Re:It's a status thing by swalve · · Score: 1

      What kind of accommodations can you get for full time minimum wage work in your country? In the US, you can absolutely support yourself on minimum wage. You will have to live with roommates and eat inexpensive food and probably not have much left over for luxuries. Minimum wage is about $1000 a month after taxes (which you probably will get refunded anyway). $500 for your share of rent, $100 for a monthly bus pass, $100 for your cell phone, leaving $300 for food and entertainment and savings. It isn't pretty or fun, but it is certainly doable.

    61. Re:It's a status thing by ewibble · · Score: 1

      The shareholder produce nothing, the provide capital yes, but actually expend zero effort past that point.

      The workers are the ones that actually produce something. It is true that all parts of the system are required to produce something, but paying your employees a living wage should be a priority, if the shareholders can't support themselves off the profits of their shares after that, perhaps they should get off their lazy butts and get a job, where they too would be earn a living wage.

      Yes I know a lot of shareholders actually work.

    62. Re: It's a status thing by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I regularly do my rent for less than 15k per year in Tokyo, Charlotte, and have found places near SF in case I move there.

    63. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a question of entitlement, it's a question of reality. If people can't make a living wage, they'll find a way to get what they need in ways that ultimately cost far more than just giving them the money in the first place (whether tied to make-work or not). The truth nobody on either side wants to face is that there just isn't the demand for menial labor, unless you're a robot or a peasant in an economically depressed (or oppressive) country.

      And, yes, governments will take part of your money at gunpoint to keep society from collapsing into crime, just as they take my wealth at gunpoint to pay for schools I don't give a shit about, and my nomadic friend's wealth to enforce property rights, and everyone's wealth for countless other things which may or may not be of value to us individually but which arguably benefit society as a whole. That's not just Germany in the 1930s, that's every modern society everywhere. I don't like parasites of any socioeconomic class leeching off the mechanics of this system any better than you do, but fantasizing that you can make it go away isn't going to help. Either go find your own island, or grab a mop and help clean up the mess we've made from generations of retreat into political narcissism.

    64. Re:It's a status thing by maestroX · · Score: 1

      This is an intentional political change.

      Same movement visible here in NL, though something like Hartz not (yet?) implemented. Sucks if you're handicapped or layed off when 10+years before retirement.

    65. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure where you're from, but it many places there are a couple months for high school and almost four months for post-secondary where there's no classes, or if there are classes they are almost all specialised to people who failed the same class earlier. During those months there isn't a lot of scholastic expectation on students and it's not unusual to have a "summer job", which also helps serve the purpose of getting some starter experience while also naturally breaking the cycle so people don't feel "stuck" in those jobs. Furthermore, in many cases high school just isn't full time. Classes where I grew up ran no more than 6 hours a day (sometimes much less) with many more "holidays" than usual jobs. It doesn't really explain how you staff McDonald's during the day on school days, but that tends not to be high-traffic times anyway. Works out especially well in touristy areas where demand also increases during summer and school holidays.

      Ontario has an interesting solution where young students have a lower minimum wage than other people. This helps address the concerns of the other people about getting a starter job and starter experience.

      I don't necessarily think it's important to be able to "make a career of a full time minimum wage position", but I do agree that somebody should be able to live on the minimum wage without government assitance. I don't necessarily agree that it must be able to support a family though. A single person should be able to support themselves, otherwise it really is subsidization. It gets trickier when there are families involved. I kind of think subsidizing daycare might work a lot better.

    66. Re:It's a status thing by khallow · · Score: 1

      In other words, Germany has the social safety net it can afford. This is economics in practice. You can't have everything, so you have to prioritize what you really want.

    67. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, also, at least in Ontario, you could get high school credit for "apprenticeship" which happens also to be a job. You couldn't apprentice at a McDonald's as a line-cook; it has to have some educational value, but that's another way 16 year olds worked during school.

    68. Re:It's a status thing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      No. The fact is a 16 year old or a college student shouldn't be working full time to begin with. If you are working full time the job should pay for living expenses. If it doesn't pay for living expenses perhaps you should carry your own damned golf clubs instead of having a manservant.

    69. Re: It's a status thing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Not just that. Most people want more than you can get with bare minimum living standards.

    70. Re:It's a status thing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      How many supervisors do you think McDonalds has in a store anyway?

    71. Re:It's a status thing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Full time working teenagers? Hah.

    72. Re:It's a status thing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      But I missed the part of the social contract whereby agreeing to pay someone what their labor is worth to me creates an obligation on my part to support their family.

      People are expected to have families.

    73. Re:It's a status thing by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Think of minimum wage as a regressive tax on employers. Large, successful businesses can probably easily pay higher wages but a struggling small business might go bankrupt if labor cost rise.

    74. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wages are actually declining"

      It's called globalism, fueled by cheap oil. It's not a conspiracy and it's not due to government action. The global mean wage is so much less than the Western mean wage that weighed averaging is the actual mechanism. In other words, in a world awash in cheap labor, you can't keep enjoying a high wage.

      The only real pressure here is when you keep going to Boomer-Mart to buy cheap products. That's the real cause.

    75. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The political machine is trying to introduce the same concept of taxpayer-subsidized wages in the US:
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-13/a-4-minimum-wage-can-get-people-back-to-work.html

    76. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not supposed to cut it - minimum wage jobs are designed as stepping stone positions - even if you stay in place, your efficiency should go up with a little experience, and so you will be worth more to the company and paid more.

    77. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the creators own it, that's capitalism. Democratic control would mean the underclass voting themselves a larger share of the wealth regardless of contribution to that wealth.

    78. Re:It's a status thing by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm from Eastern Europe, and I can't believe that 40-hours a week jobs in America can't feed and house you. I guess it really depends on your expectations about the house and the food.

      But since everyone around you has a nice house and car, it would be shameful if you don't - especially if you're married, because then it would be shameful for your wife and children, too. So you're overworking yourself for status in society, so that people don't look down upon you and your family.

      In western nations, things are a bit more expensive. So people on minimum wage jobs can easily find themselves unable to cope with the cost of bills and food.

      Australia got around this by having a minimum wage that you can actually live off. But Australia is an extreme example, because costs here are so high we've got a high minimum wage. Another way to stop employers demanding 20 extra hours per week are penalty rates (time and a half for overtime).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    79. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Then, rather than back-handedly subsidizing the payroll of all businesses that pay minimum, implement small business grants to help the ones that really need the help.

    80. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A status thing? I used to work on offshore oil rigs and it was normal to work 100 hours a week. We were paid by the hour and everything over 40 hours was time and a half. We had nothing else to do but work, so it was hard but something you just got used to.

      Now I work in an office, on a salary, and to keep things running I have no issues with working 60 or more hours. It is not about getting more money. It is about keeping my company ahead of the competition. If my company does not stay ahead, it will lose money and I will find myself looking for work. That's how we do it. I don't give a damn about status and most of you would look down on me because I am in the "dirty oil industry" but without my 60 hour work weeks your gasoline might not be there the next time you go to fill up. I have lived on the California coast (near Santa Barbara) where I often would not tell people what I did because they would not speak to me after they knew my occupation- so no, status has nothing to do with Americans who work long hours. I still find myself on drilling rigs and working close to 20 hours a day for a month at a time. That is not a status thing. It is about getting the job done and taking pride in my work.

    81. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Total bullshit.

      We can afford a social security twice as expensive. If we stopped increasing income disparity and dared to raise taxes on the rich to... levels they used to be at without the world ending.

      Germany had half a trillion Euros available literally overnight when the banks needed to be bailed out, but we're seriously discussing over raising social security benefits a few Euros per month.

      Money isn't the issue, and anyone trying to tell you that is pulling a fast one.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    82. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 1

      Are you a total fucktard or just an utter idiot?

      Unemployment benefits in Germany are based on an insurance system. I was actually technically unemployed for a few months when I started my own company, so I did collect unemployment benefits for that time. However, for the 10+ years prior to that which I was employed in one company or the other, I paid unemployment insurance premiums from my loan. It's mandatory, btw.

      No one is forced "at gunpoint", that's just such a total load of crap that I don't think I know enough english expletives to properly rage on how much nonsense that is.

      And no, the 1930s had absolutely nothing to do with unemployment benefits whatsoever. That's another huge, steaming pile of shit.

      And your final sentence is the strawman all the people with certain interest put out and it is absolute total utter complete bullshit from top to bottom. There's maybe, maybe one in a thousand unemployed people who actually want to be unemployed. Meanwhile, there's 999 people who would love to have a job, and in fact are distressed and quite often to the point of mental and physical health issues that they don't. It is unbelievably insulting and disrespectful to use the rare exception as a justification for the oppressive inhumane treatment of everyone.

      And quite frankly, FUCK YOU for playing the "entitled" card when people fucking pay out of their already small paycheck every fucking month into the fucking unemployment insurance. That's not entitlement, that's fucking upholding the other side of the fucking deal you fucktard.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    83. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 2

      see my reply to the other troll you fucked up asshole.

      I have friends who are unemployed. They would love to have a job. I have a friend who is so afraid of losing her job that she's having panic attacks and sleep issues.

      Frankly, I'd vote immediately for a law to put anyone who play the "unemployed people are just lazy" card without solid evidence into jail with forced labor for life, because it is a lie.

      The real parasites in this society are not at the bottom, they are at the top.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    84. Re:It's a status thing by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Obviously you've never attended PHB school, so here's how it works the precentage is sacred, so if your payroll goes up, then all the other expenses have to go up to keep the percentage the same; you don't even want to know about revenue vs. expenses ratios!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    85. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      An acceptable level is food, water, and basic shelter.

      It doesn't include a cell phone.

      It doesn't include a car, or car insurance.

      It doesn't include cable tv.

      It doesn't include an xbox.

      It doesn't include health insurance.

      It doesn't include luxuries.

      Minimum wage is far beyond the bare minimum to live - the argument seems to be that minimum wage should offer a middle class lifestyle. The problem is that you cannot magically create wealth by altering the minimum wage - if we could, we could simply raise the minimum wage up to $1,000,000/hour, and magically everyone could work only one hour ever ten years and pull in 100k/year.

    86. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0

      No. A reasonable size family is a luxury, not a bare minimum.

      You can always choose not to have children.

      That being said, no matter what dreams people may have of minimum wage, altering it does not create wealth or change economic realities - if it did, we'd simply raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000/hour, so that everyone would just have to work 1 hour ever ten years to have a six figure annual salary.

      Now, if you want to generate wealth, drive real energy costs down as much as you can. Get the cheapest energy you can into the hands of people, and the problems of poverty will take care of themselves.

    87. Re: It's a status thing by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      That appears to be well above the Norwegian minimum wage and yet McDonald's remains a viable business in Norway. That should be an informative data point for those who believe raising the minimum wage will destroy industries. It has some effect on prices, for sure, but when all businesses in the industry are in the same situation it still works. Further, you eliminate the underclass who now have more disposable income to spend.

      Here's an interesting article on how McDonald's functions under high minimum wage conditions.

    88. Re:It's a status thing by William-Ely · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that every time the minimum wage is raised everyone who isn't at minimum wage effectively takes a pay cut because grocery store owners, fast food chains, gas stations and every other minimum wage employer has to raise prices to match rising labor costs.

      I'm not an economics expert (obviously) so could someone explain why raising minimum wage (or having it in the first place) is a good thing?

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    89. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Silly PHBs are just that but I'll keep it in mind if I ever suffer a severe brain injury.

    90. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I think I understand what you are saying. But my country goes the other extreme. Businesses are scared to employ because of labour laws.

      Labour "protection" laws have the labour reducing side-effect - through automation, overwork, outsourcing, so-called contract workers, etc. This cannot be better than low wages?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    91. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      No. Not according to human nature and millions of years of evolution. Not unless you consider living to be a luxury as well.

      If you can't tell the difference between reasonable sized family supported through full time employment and expecting to work 1 hour every 10 years, you are likely on full disability anyway.

    92. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      But if you don't raise minimum wage, your taxes go up to cover food stamps and welfare.

      It's funny though, when you hear all the wailing and moaning you might think the cost is immense and start picturing $10 gumballs. Actually do the math and it's more like Big Macs going up by $0.25.

      But going beyond that and any moral/ethical concerns, consider what happens if millions of people realize that there is no legal way they will make ends meet in the foreseeable future.

    93. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      It certainly can be if you also have a social safety net. At least if you're unemployed you have time to look for work. And when you find it, you can support your family on it.

      Otherwise, why not pay $0.25 an hour? If all employers can reach a deal on that people will be desperate enough to actually show up.

    94. Re:It's a status thing by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Again, bull. There's never going to be a lack of demand for food-servers and store clerks. And those are jobs that don't export easily. What we're already seeing happen is the opposite - employers pushing for "temporary foreign workers", importing folks who *will* work for those cheap-ass rates and can be deported at the first sign of trouble.

      There will also be a lot more automation. Chili's has already put an automated system in 1000 of its locations, other chains are looking into similar systems. The typical fast food place has very standardized procedures and processes, so it's not too far fetched to think that they will have machines doing those jobs in a few years. I know of a totally automated convenience store too.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    95. Re:It's a status thing by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Or they have to cut employees which raises unemployment for the segments of society that aren't skilled enough yet to get anything other than a minimum wage job. Many of these jobs are helpful in getting job experience, so if they can't get any experience, they can often be stuck until they find someone willing to give them a chance.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    96. Re: It's a status thing by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Further, you eliminate the underclass who now have more disposable income to spend.

      and their expenses have gone up because everyone else has raised their prices too so . The "but minimum wage in Australia is $15" argument ignores that everything in AU is bloody expensive. That's ok if you're in the mining industry and get a six figure income for a job that can't be exported, but not so good if you're in a manufacturing company trying to compete with other places. Ford, Holden, & Toyota have announced that they're all going to be shutting down plants in the near future because it's just too expensive to operate there.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    97. Re: It's a status thing by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

      It's true, globalisation undercuts my argument that all players in an industry are in the same boat as wage regulations are only local. The counter-argument to rising prices is that it's not linear. Doubling the minimum wage won't double prices* The redistribution caused by raising the minimum wage sucks money from capital and business owners, typically those who are more wealthy. The underclass is therefore better off even if their steak sandwiches cost $18 like in Australia.

      That said, you have to do these things gradually, you can't just jump the U.S. to the Australian minimum wage without industrial chaos.

      * Overall, it actually may do worse than that in particular situations, the supply and demand equation can be unstable.

    98. Re:It's a status thing by khallow · · Score: 1

      We can afford a social security twice as expensive.

      Maybe "we" can, but we have to give up something for that.

      Germany had half a trillion Euros available literally overnight when the banks needed to be bailed out, but we're seriously discussing over raising social security benefits a few Euros per month.

      And why would you think that. What's more important? Having banks or slightly better social security benefits? My view is that if it is only a few euros, then it's not important and "we" can blow that off.

      Money isn't the issue, and anyone trying to tell you that is pulling a fast one.

      Only the ignorant would think that. The big problem is opportunity cost. There are other things one could obtain with those funds - such as a functioning society or productive industry that are more important.

    99. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It certainly can be if you also have a social safety net

      Until you run out of other people's money ?

      Otherwise, why not pay $0.25 an hour?

      Distortions in "free" market can take place in either direction - too much of union or too much of employer collusion both are likely enough. In this regard, the closer we move to a "free" market, the better it is.

      But the reason for minimum wages should not just be to make life comfortable for employees. Sometimes with a genuine rotten economy wages can go very low in spite of no employer collusion - e.g. there are very low profits to be made. In these circumstances if wages are forced to be high, companies are shut down and employees lose the 25 cents an hour that they are getting. Or, worse, automation/oursourcing make jobs unavailable in the next boom cycle too.

      Safety net has to be from taxes - of which there are very few because of the low economic activity. You could print money - but most economies either get foreign investments or imports, both of which are badly affected by printing money.

      Very low wages, if for honest reasons, have a back handed 'benefit" too. Essentials become cheaper, though it won't be the "rich" goods people are used to in the developed world. This is, to take a food example, because in better times, more opulent foods are produced more, giving them economy of scale. Hence the foods that can be produced very very cheaply if there were enough market for it, is either not produced or aren't available widely. Even foods that can promote reasonably good health.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    100. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and due to the bad economy, the Walton family is barely squeaking by with a mere 46% of the entire wealth of the U.S.

      There is no such thing as a free market when one party has no ability to exit. Also, a truly free market includes a scaling of supply to meet demand. However it would be unconscionable to start killing people when demand for labor falls.

      I keep hearing all about free markets from true believers but when I look around for actual evidence I see mostly unhealthy markets.

      Consider what happens if you remove the social safety net entirely (wouldn't want some poor slob to spend other people's money!) and minimum wage. How long are those employees that don't make enough money to afford food, clothing, and shelter going to be around? How will you like having a smelly naked and starving greeter at Walmart? Or more likely, having someone robbing Walmart so he doesn't end up smelly, naked, and starving?

      Put in language you might understand, why should Walmart get to spend other people's money keeping their employees fed? Surely they have enough of their own to manage it.

    101. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A job at 16 teaches -- or should -- one the importance of showing up at work on time, of making arrangements with one's employer for time off, of putting in a full day's work for a full day's wage, of agreeing to cover a coworker's shift, etc.

      Full-time employment in the summer -- better still, with overtime opportunities -- is a great thing for a teenager. And it doesn't need to be at a living wage: just a fair wage for the work done. Plus it looks good on the resume.

      I have noticed that people who waited until after college to get a job tend to have crappy work ethics more often than their peers who have worked since they were a teenager.

      Minimum wage should be at a level for a single person to live, sharing an apartment with a roommate, cooking their own food, maintaining their own vehicle, minimum utilities (e.g., no cable tv, xm radio, etc), and one low-cost luxury/entertainment expense, and a debt payment.

    102. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 1

      And why would you think that. What's more important? Having banks or slightly better social security benefits? My view is that if it is only a few euros, then it's not important and "we" can blow that off.

      You're confusing the abstract with the concrete. Having banks in general is not the same as saving a bunch of particular banks that gambled badly.

      There are other things one could obtain with those funds - such as a functioning society or productive industry that are more important.

      We don't spend money on either of that. If you've been living under a rock for the past decade or two, check up on income distribution. Heck, it's become so bad that even a couple of the ultra-rich are already advocating reversing the trend because they fear there'll be blood otherwise. Theirs.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    103. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and due to the bad economy, the Walton family is barely squeaking by with a mere 46% of the entire wealth of the U.S.

      I didn't say economy is so bad currently, nor that it needs to be bad in all industries together, nor for all businesses in an industry together.

      There is no such thing as a free market when one party has no ability to exit

      Yes, perfect free market is difficult to achieve. In some markets, e.g. wage/labour market as I said, it is good to get closer to free market. You haven't made an argument to the contrary, so I'm not sure why you made this statement.

      However it would be unconscionable to start killing people when demand for labor falls.

      Exactly. Which is why any approach which can even indirectly lead to business shrinking is a crime. One of those is tightening labour laws too much like what happens at times in my country.

      Consider what happens if you remove the social safety net entirely (wouldn't want some poor slob to spend other people's money!) and minimum wage

      Yes, so don't remove social safety net entirely, nor minimum wage. Like I said : "But the reason for minimum wages should not just be to make life comfortable for employees". I didn't say "Minimum wages should be abolished".

      Minimum wages and social security net has other advantages than to be kind to people. E.g. a lot of wealth in a country is created by businessmen who took risks. A country that encourages businessmen to take calculated risks is likely to prosper. Risk means high/medium chances of failure. By supporting failed businessmen and not rewarding them more than successful ones; a country encourages calculated risk taking.

      Working for salary is also somewhat like a business here - taking calculated risks helps the country as well as the career of oneself. They might not work always - so social security and correct minimum wage.

      Correct minimum wage is not infinity, nor is 25 cents an hour always guaranteed to be incorrect minimum wage like I explained in my post.

      How long are those employees that don't make enough money to afford food, clothing, and shelter going to be around?

      Which is why it is in Walmart's interest to give them enough money.

      How will you like having a smelly naked and starving greeter at Walmart?

      Not much. You are piling up reasons for Walmart to pay enough to their workers. I don't see a problem.

      Put in language you might understand, why should Walmart get to spend other people's money keeping their employees fed?

      They shouldn't get to spend other people's money.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    104. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, perfect free market is difficult to achieve. In some markets, e.g. wage/labour market as I said, it is good to get closer to free market. You haven't made an argument to the contrary, so I'm not sure why you made this statement.

      You said a free market would solve the problem. I pointed out that labor could never be a free market and you appear to agree. I further pointed out that very few if any markets seem to be sufficiently free to work as a free market is claimed to work.

      They shouldn't get to spend other people's money.

      But they do. They pay their employees too little knowing that food stamps will make up the difference because society considers just letting people starve to be unacceptable. In that way, they effectively get the public at large to subsidize their payroll. They get clothed, reasonably hygenic, and reasonably fed employees for less than it costs for them to be in that state and they do it on your dime. If they only paid half of their power bill would you be OK with paying the other half for them?

      One fix for that would be to eliminate food stamps, but I believe we agree that that's not acceptable.

      The other solution is to mandate that they pay enough that the workers don't need or qualify for food stamps.

    105. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is forced "at gunpoint", that's just such a total load of crap that I don't think I know enough english expletives to properly rage on how much nonsense that is.

      Really? What do you think happens if your refuse to help pay for the system?
      That's right the government will come and take your wealth. If you succesfully resist bureacratic attempts to take your wealth they _will_ send people with guns. That doesn't happen very often because the powerimbalance is such that they almost always can get away with just taking your wealth without the guns. That however does not change the basic reality.

    106. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that everybody deserves a living wage for doing no personal development, no effort, no commitment (at least, learning to, not saying they have to be stupid loyal) to a job is foolish. You are creating another dependent, not another producer.

      so putting in 40 hours a week at work, plus whatever time you need to get there and back, plus housework is not effort? you have a very strange view on things

    107. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      You said a free market would solve the problem

      Problem cannot be solved. Freer market reduces outrageous imbalances.

      I pointed out that labor could never be a free market and you appear to agree.

      Yes, it is like saying one can never buy exactly one kilogram of apples, accurate to picograms. I agree. Vendors cheat - more or less. An attempt to ensure they don't cheat is necessary. But the amount they sell for the price of 1 kg can be, and is brought sufficiently close for the difference to not matter. Where more cheating exists, more attention is required.

      There is one more similarity - an insistence to sell exact mass accurate to picograms will increase the price or ruin the business. Similarly an insistence to keep the labour market "FREE" can decrease wages by increasing compliance costs or ruin business.

      I further pointed out that very few if any markets seem to be sufficiently free to work as a free market is claimed to work.

      In my country, for all its faults, there are a lot of markets where all stakeholders seem happy enough. That is sufficiently free for me. Some are not, we are working to change that. What is so difficult to understand about that? Purists can find faults with any market, with zero relevance.

      But they do. They pay their employees too little knowing that food stamps will make up the difference because society considers just letting people starve to be unacceptable

      Good for you - something you can work to change. I never claimed everything is perfect.

      If they only paid half of their power bill would you be OK with paying the other half for them?

      I already said other people paying for them is not OK. How does this statement help?

      The other solution is to mandate that they pay enough that the workers don't need or qualify for food stamps.

      Specifically for Walmart? Maybe. Generally? Not without cutting your nose to spite your face.

      This could cause Walmart to automate more. Some businesses could start outsourcing more to other states / countries. New labour intensive businesses don't start up. Which is why correct minimum wage could be very low at times - and this could be good for the workers if you put on myopia curing glasses for a moment.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    108. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By whom?

    109. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the creators own it, that's capitalism.

      So, what do you call the model where the creators own nothing, but somewhere a board of directors and some filthy rich stock owners are playing golf while never doing a single day of hard work?

    110. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now would cost me pushing $30 to fill it

      Which is still insanely cheap compared to what it would cost in most of the rest of the world.

    111. Re:It's a status thing by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      It doesn't include health insurance.

      Because poor people don't get sick right? Otherwise I agree minimum should be minimum. I would include in the minimum the healthcare and two working parents being able to afford two kids. The first because if you aren't healthy you both have increased expenses and can't work. The second because it is a fundamental need to have the ability to reproduce (whether we should all chose to have 2+ kids is a good idea for the planet as a whole is a different thing). Minimum wage should vary with the cost of living locally. There are a lot of people stuck living in crappy situations in cities because that is where the jobs are but minimum wage in NY doesn't cover what it does in Butfuck Idaho. It is a complicated problem because social programs are available in cities people live there, but it would be cheaper to care for those that need the programs somewhere where housing and food is less expensive. Jobs will attract people to other areas but often rural/suburban areas are short jobs already.

      The wealth is there it is the distribution that is off. The median income is something like $20 an hour. There are roughly 30M people working at or very near to minimum wage in the US which of course means they helped lower that average down to that $20 an hour. That is the wage earners how about the people that don't make their living based on wages? Should companies management be pushed to make higher profits every year while they aren't able to pay salaries that adjusted for inflation match the 60's? If the shareholders get a raise every year shouldn't the employees that are actually working to make it happen? At any rate the money is there without going to your ridiculous suggestion of just arbitrarily printing more money. It is just us with the 3 TVs 2 cars and xbox don't want to give up one of them to the guy that gardens our house and babysits our kids.

    112. Re: It's a status thing by livid_gnome · · Score: 1

      Of course you pay approximately 60% more for a big mac in Norway as compared to the U.S.

      http://www.economist.com/conte...

    113. Re:It's a status thing by Tom · · Score: 1

      Oh wow.

      You ignore everything where you're wrong to the degree of insanity and argue on the one point where you think you can win on a technicality?

      I consider you mentally unstable. Get help.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    114. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, corporate welfare is good, but welfare for the working poor is bad. I get it.

    115. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many supervisors do you think McDonalds has in a store anyway?

      Lots actually - it is a legal dodge to let them not pay for hours worked over 40. Most McD's generally has supervisors and part timers with nothing in between. The rare lone franchisee might handle if differently, but the vast majority are like congress. Your guy is good, but everyone else's is bad :p

    116. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not specifically for Walmart, for every company that pays too little to actually maintain their employees. They all have the same unacceptable dependence on public tax money to subsidize their payroll.

      If they really can't afford to pay enough to maintain their employees without depending on food stamps to make up the difference then their business isn't economically viable. Corporations don't do 'the right thing' unless the law or reality mandates it. They will never pay enough money to maintain their employees willingly.

      One other potential answer would be the basic income. Write everybody a check for enough money to provide for their basic needs. That would make the minimum wage irrelevant.

      Unless you have some amazing insight to offer, those three solutions I suggested are all that we have available. One of them is unconscionable. One of them is seen as quite radical and would see incredible opposition from the Right. That leaves setting the minimum wage to at least a living wage or don't solve the problem (and continue to pay Wallmart and companys' employees for them).

      So which will it be?

    117. Re:It's a status thing by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      The shareholders put their money in the game.

      If everything goes under the workers can go work somewhere else.

    118. Re: It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man you are fucking stupid. Why use communist as an insult here? Scared of what you don't understand? The parent poster was talking about socialist programs/changes, which a lot of countries around the world have decided are a good idea.

    119. Re:It's a status thing by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      The shareholders in his example would be the taxpaying citizenry.

      Clearly the employees are the one who generate the profits.

      Not completely true. If the employees could generate profits without the company, then they would.
      Some can, and some do!
      But for those that can't, the company is necessary. And those who can create successful companies deserve big rewards, to get them to create more.
      Of course, that doesn't mean that every rich person can create new companies, or deserves big pay.
      I see a lot of "I don't like big companies, so lets beat up the small companies!", and I think that is very bad for all of us.

    120. Re:It's a status thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Except they don't own guns and they keep voting for people that want to ban them. So... yeah, not going to happen.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    121. Re: It's a status thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Globalization isn't the only thing that undercuts the argument, monetary and trade policy destroys it as well.

      We can very easily make the minimum wage whatever we want... we just print enough dollars and it won't matter.

      People speak of a "race to the bottom" when it comes to labor... but the real thing to fear is a race to the bottom with inflation and aggressive monetary policy to gain international trade leverage. The rest of the world has kind of cringed as China has done it (and the US did it as well, with a 2 trillion+ injection through "bailouts"), but if everyone went down the same road, it could be devastating on the entire world economy.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    122. Re:It's a status thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't go so rural that you can't get high speed internet.

      A better fix is not to work for a large multinational corporation.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    123. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You speak about evolution, yet insist we need to get rid of social darwinism and eliminate natural selection in the economics of families?

      What point are you really trying to argue here?

    124. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Health insurance is gambling. It's a hedge bet against future calamity, and that is a luxury, not a necessity.

      The problem you have is that even if you taxed the 1% at 100% of their wealth, redistributing it to the 99% wouldn't make a dent in changing wages, not to mention destroying all the jobs created by the 1%.

      Wealth is not created by redistribution - reducing the real cost of energy and improving productivity is the key. If you don't truly understand the cause of the problem, all attempts to solve it will fail.

    125. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Since I'm apparently arguing with social darwinists, I put it in language they could understand.

    126. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      REALLY?!? I thought gangs with guns was a huge problem we had to solve. Now you're saying they have none and can't get any (even through robbery)?

    127. Re:It's a status thing by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Funding education isn't a pure solution, as much as we don't want to think this, but we have already reached a point where many areas of the US where education no longer helps. To many people have unneeded advanced degrees and the only available jobs for them are low paying ones. This slowly bumps up the minimums to get those jobs, so they now require bachelors degrees when high school diploma was all they needed a decade ago. However these jobs are not paying any more than they used to (barring inflation and changes in minimum wage).

      Our system was just not built on having a large percentage of jobs (up to 60-70%) that are ones that need huge amounts of education or 'creativity'. Our economy was original designed as a huge sort of pyramid scheme. The bulk of people have low paying jobs that don't require much education and those with education get increasingly get the better paying, but more scarce higher tier jobs until you get up to things like CEO's with (in the old days) 20 or 30 times the income of the grunts. However these days a CEO often makes 200+ times what a grunt does and the grunts still make about what they have, wages having been basically stagnant since the 70's outside the higher ranks of companies. And we have a high enough portion of the population with some sort of post-high school education (40+% or so going to college now) that the grunt jobs now require these levels of advanced education.

      Since we can all be sure the CEO's are not giving up their huge salaries and parachutes any time soon, but without that our system is eventually going to fail as ever higher rates of education bump up requirements for even basic jobs that don't pay well.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    128. Re:It's a status thing by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Having known a few McD's managers when I was in high school, I can imagine why... Part of that 'responsibility' can include being moved to other McD's locations at the whim of the higher ups.

      One of my classmates in high school was made a manager for the local McD's and before she had graduated from high school they had already shuffled her off to another location ~17 miles away, with no real warning. She couldn't refuse without losing her job. Even as a manager my classmate was not paid very much, she only made about 25% more than the typical line worker... Though she did get a good bit more hours than the typical line worker.

      I'm from a small town, 50% of my high school worked at the local McD's... For about 2-5 hours per week. My classmate as a manager was getting around 25 hours, but with so many people wanting a job no one got many hours. These days High School kids find it hard to get a job there and if you look at who works there it is almost all adults, many with associate degrees or more.

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    129. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just LOVE these kinds of ignorant arguments.
      An xbox cost a few hundred dollars and provides many hundreds of hours of entertainment at pennies an hour. Video games can be one of the cheapest forms of entertainment.
      I don't buy in that people who work full time need to just work 16+ hours a day for a bowel of gruel and a cold cot and should say 'thank you master' when they get it.
      All humans are deserving of some small measure of entertainment and happiness.
      Cell phone?
      Really? They are cheaper than land-lines now and are the cheapest way to have 24/7 email access.
      Have you tired to get a job recently? No phone, no email, no job.
      Imagine an IT or other formal professional person who had their job outsourced applying for jobs without email or phone numbers. Many of these people you can meet any time you want. They serve you at starbucks.
      Healthcare.. Yea' I want to live in a country that lets little kids that are involved in a hit and run just die because daddy lost his job.
      If your idea of luxuries are things with one time costs of a couple hundred $$ or less every few years you don't really understand what luxuries are. Remember the RNC where Cindy McCain was wearing $300,000 worth of clothes and jewels? Debate what she did to 'earn' that, but to understand 'luxuries' that is a good place to start.

      You are right, you cannot 'magically create wealth'. Labor creates wealth. Mining raw materials, fashioning them into goods, and maintaining and servicing these goods create wealth. No magic involved, just labor. The problem is that you are directly equating 'wealth' with 'money'.
      Wealth is real, money is an artificial construct created to easily allow people to allocate and transfer goods and services without having to barter. If we raised the minimum wage to something closer to what the basic needs are almost nothing would change for anyone at all; Except less people would need welfare reducing government spending, and corporations would now have an incentive to keep CEO pay in check, and consumer spending would go up stimulating production and jobs and tax revenue, but yea' nothing would happen you care about.
      The problem is that money, actual dollars, are artificially limited, the Fed has only printed so many of these in a bid to keep natural inflation in check. However, over the last 30 years or so the top percent or so of the people in this country have essentially taken many hundreds of billions out of circulation.
      If you want a demonstration, try playing the game Monopoly (TM) with some friends. While keeping the rules and prices in place take 80% of the money out of the bank, put it in an envelope, and write 'CEO compensation invested in oil futures and misc derivatives' on it and leave it out for the remainder of the game.

      What you will find is that no one can possibly win the game anymore because the basic services provided by the system ($200 when you pass go) no longer function because the bank gets depleted and there are not enough actual bills in circulation for the system to work. It does not matter how long you play (ie work). It does not matter how smart you are, nor does it matter how lucky you are. The system fails. Everyone playing ends up a loser.
      But the CEO won right? No.
      Eventually the system itself fails and that CEO suddenly wonders 'Where are the consumers for my goods?' Later, he wonders 'Why is my favorite shop closed?'. Then he wonders 'Why is there no newer, better iPad for me to buy?'. These things do not exist for a market of 1. Eventually if allowed to continue there will be a man who is so rich he truly matches the great Kings of a thousand or more years ago. All of whom had to shit in a bucket, clean their asses with a rough rag, never had a hot shower, never ate anything out of season, and eventually die a horrible and painful death surrounded by smelly illiterate idiots who worry about angering wood spirits.
      If you are at the top of the economic pyramid, it does not matter if you have 100 million or 100 billion

    130. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't reach the last paragraph of my post.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    131. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      So that's your vote for continuing to pay Walmart's bills for them?

    132. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No. Read it again, maybe?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    133. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You are right, you cannot 'magically create wealth'. Labor creates wealth.

      Let's be more specific - labor, leveraged by capital investment taking on risks, improving productivity or lowering the costs of inputs, creates wealth.

      You can't just assert that a billion ditch diggers creates wealth - not only do you require labor, you require a product that is in demand, and an improvement over alternatives in either efficiency or productivity. It needs to be the *right* labor, and the way we figure that out is through capitalism and the free market, not government mandates, taxes and subsides.

      The idea that you can magically redistribute the "excess" wealth of any given income bracket and create wealth is a misunderstanding of how economics works - redistribution puts fingers on the scales of the free market, and does nothing but destroy wealth.

    134. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      You used language they could understand, but made a point that invalidated your proposition :)

      Human nature and millions of years of evolution did just fine without a minimum wage - the idea that we should now eliminate natural selection as a force through some sort of assertion of positivist rights is anathema to the idea of evolution, and more akin to some benign god looking down from heaven :)

      Or are you asserting that if australopithecus had had a minimum wage, evolution to homo sapiens would have been faster? :)

    135. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      It also did well clubbing the rich guy over the head and feeding the tribe on the spoils. Be careful what you wish for...

    136. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you maybe don't want to pay Walmart's bills for them but you're totally good with paying McDonald's?

      You're starting to remind me of the way Ronald Regan never actually answered a hard question at a press conference.

    137. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that exactly what the wealth redistribution you propose is? Just another clubbing of some rich guy, feeding on the spoils, and then moving on to the next one, until finally there aren't any more rich people to plunder, and the tribe wonders who moved their cheese? :)

      I'm not saying there aren't rich guys who haven't famously deserved to be clubbed in the past, present and future, but when you make a general rule out of it, rather than an occasional exception, there are in fact unintended consequences :)

      I guess so long as the rich guy had spread his seed sufficiently before being clubbed to death, though, evolution didn't care :)

    138. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, what I am proposing is that we make the rich pay what the work costs to produce and stop sponging off of the public to keep their worker units running for them.

    139. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No, try reading my post again.

      Not sure of Reagan, but if you keep misinterpreting answers you can think so of anyone.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    140. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      OK, how about rephrasing or just pick one of the answers provided. Either that or you have chosen a non-answer with no proposal as to how that might happen. I interpret that as do nothing, keep paying Walmart's bills for them.

      But as for the rest, why would I want MORE non-viable businesses to pop up and expect me to pay their bills for them? We have too many already.

    141. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      It is already phrased very well.

      Specifically for Walmart? Maybe. Generally? Not without cutting your nose to spite your face.

      This could cause Walmart to automate more. Some businesses could start outsourcing more to other states / countries. New labour intensive businesses don't start up. Which is why correct minimum wage could be very low at times - and this could be good for the workers if you put on myopia curing glasses for a moment.

      Yes, more non-viable businesses should not start up. If you think it contradicts me in any way, you are mistaken.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    142. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      If raising the minimum wage makes a business not start up, then it wasn't viable because it couldn't pay the actual cost of it's labor without getting the public to pay it's payroll for it.

      But the only meaning I can get out of that quote is not to pay Walmart's bills (but no suggestion how not, please choose from raise minimum wage, let the employees starve or basic income) butyou seem OK with paying the other minimum wage employers bills for them (else, choose from raise minimum wage, let employees starve, or basic income). Then you give warnings of possible pitfalls for raising minimum wage.

      So do you support basic income, yes or no? Do you support raising the minimum wage, yes or no. Do you support let the employees starve, yes or no. Do you support continuing to pay businesses bills for them, yes or no.

      If you answered no to all of the above, what specifically do you suggest instead?

    143. Re:It's a status thing by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Wages haven't kept up with productivity. Business Week this week had an article on the minimum wage and said it would be something like $17 an hour if it had kept up with productivity gains since it was introduced. I'm not suggesting taxing 1% 100% or if I did would I suggest distributing it to the other 99%. It would be more like tax the 1% at 50% and distributed it to the bottom 20%.

    144. Re:It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      If raising the minimum wage makes a business not start up, then it wasn't viable because it couldn't pay the actual cost of it's labor without getting the public to pay it's payroll for it.

      Depends on
      1. what the minimum wage already is
      2. what profit business in general is making
      3. how much is minimum wage is being raised

      If (1) is high enough with normal (2) and (3)

      OR (2) is low enough with normal (1) and (3)

      OR (3) is high enough with normal (1) and (2), this statement of yours is false. There are many other combinations in which this statement of yours is false.

      Then you give warnings of possible pitfalls for raising minimum wage

      You haven't argued against the pitfalls at all. Pitfalls are definitely worse for everyone. I don't see what business you have to repeatedly ask me for the same argument.

      So do you support basic income, yes or no?

      Yes

      Do you support raising the minimum wage, yes or no?

      Depends. Seems a very stupid question though - if the answer to this is "yes", without any "depends" that is a support for infinite minimum wage.

      Do you support let the employees starve, yes or no

      No

      Do you support continuing to pay businesses bills for them, yes or no

      No

      If you answered no to all of the above, what specifically do you suggest instead?

      If you think so simplistically as expect a yes or no answer to "raise the minimum wages?" question, I suggest nothing to you except point out to you that it directly implies supporting infinite minimum wage.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    145. Re:It's a status thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      It is interesting how much your "well off liberal" rhetoric overlaps with "fox-type conservative". You are both afraid of some dark skinned boogyman. Except, your plan is appeasement, while the conservative plan is self-defense.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    146. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Of course wages haven't kept up with productivity - if they did, we'd never generate excess capacity to improve things.

      Should hard drive costs keep up with hard drive size?

      Should computer costs keep up with processor speed?

      The whole *point* of productivity is that you get *more* stuff done for *less*.

      In any case, your proposal of wealth redistribution destroys wealth - it doesn't create it.

    147. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Wealth is created by increasing productivity - the same cost produces more goods.

      You seem to be opposed to the idea of increasing productivity, where the "work costs" go down, and we still produce the same or more - this is one of the main drivers of wealth creation.

      Imagine for a moment if you had locked in productivity increases in say, hard drive capacity, and their "cost" - how much would you be paying for your 2TB hard drive if we used 1980s pricing?

      Imagine for a moment if you had locked in productivity increases in say, processor speed, and their "cost" - how much would you be paying for your 2.5Ghz CPU if we used 1980s pricing?

      What you propose is the destruction of wealth, which is bad for *everyone*.

    148. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      I have been fairly clear that I am talking about raising the minimum wage to the point that a full time employee with an average family will no longer require or qualify for public assistance. That is, to the point that the taxpayer is no longer burdened to make up the difference between the full time employee's income and what is required to live reasonably. In other words, to the point that our objection to paying a company's bills for it no longer applies.

      Reasonably does NOT mean McMansion, 100 inch plasma and 2 new cars. More like habitable home, serviceable used car, and a budget model TV from a discount store.

    149. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      No. I have no such fear and I had no particular complexion in mind. I was also picturing the standard southern redneck equipped with rifle rack in the pickup truck though to be honest, I have a hard time imagining that they have any problem with access to guns.

      Perhaps your fox-type conservatism can't picture a liberal (not so well off but doing OK) who supports the 2nd ammendment?

    150. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      Not at all. If they can do more with less workers, so be it. But it costs X amount for an employee to continue living so they can continue working. Just like it costs X amount (in aggregate) to keep a truck running. Just like it isn't reasonable for a trucking company to only spend X/2 on their trucks and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference for them, it isn't reasonable to pay an employee X/2 and expect foodstamps to make up the difference.

      OTOH, if they want to provide the employees with power tools to increase productivity, that's fair enough.

      What I expect is for the wealthy to quit expecting the middle class to pay their bills for them.

    151. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      The fair wage for full time work is a living wage. Full stop.

    152. Re: It's a status thing by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      No you've not been clear.

      Reasonably could mean that but I don't see the purpose of explaining meanings of random words. I didn't see this word in your previous post.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    153. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Not at all. If they can do more with less workers, so be it.

      So, what you're saying is we should have more unemployment so that every employed person can enjoy a certain lifestyle, and we leave the rest to rot?

      What if they can do more with the same amount of workers living in another country with lower living costs?

      But it costs X amount for an employee to continue living so they can continue working.

      You're forgetting that improvements in productivity means that the "costs X" goes down too.

      That being said, surely you aren't suggesting that a minimum wage jobs literally stops people from *living*, though - you're arguing for a minimum lifestyle for anyone who is employed.

      What I expect is for the wealthy to quit expecting the middle class to pay their bills for them.

      You do realize that the "wealthy" are the ones paying both the salary, and for the majority of the foodstamps and welfare programs out there, right?

      Can you imagine how much more money everyone would have if we didn't have government redistribution schemes destroying wealth? Isn't that the real win-win-win?

    154. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      If by certain lifestyle you mean eating daily and not collecting foodstamps, and if by rot you mean looking for work while recieving unemployment, then yes.

      What if they can do more with the same amount of workers living in another country with lower living costs?

      Fine, and they can pay enough import duties to cover the unemployment.

      You're forgetting that improvements in productivity means that the "costs X" goes down too.

      When is the last time the cost of living EVER went down?

      You must really enjoy paying Walmart and McDonald's bills for them.

    155. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      Fine, and they can pay enough import duties to cover the unemployment.

      Letting a bit of nationalism get in the way of wealth redistribution to the poor? :)

      When is the last time the cost of living EVER went down?

      Well, typically what we've done is get much more for the same cost, and raise our standards. Imagine what the cost of a cell phone, computer, xbox, and car might have been in the 1910s :)

      Six of one, half dozen of the other.

      You must really enjoy paying Walmart and McDonald's bills for them.

      Don't be fooled for a second - increase taxes on walmart or mcdonalds, or raise their labor prices, and all you do is transfer that to the consumer. The fairy tale belief that you can somehow get magic money out of "big corporations" without affecting consumers is fanciful and unbecoming :)

    156. Re:It's a status thing by sjames · · Score: 1

      But it isn't equivalent. If Wallmart is sucking down the corporate welfare, the public (including the wealthy why DO pay their people adequately) have no opportunity to withdraw support for their unsustainable business model. That and it removes downward pressure on the profits they take.

      I'm not really proposing raising labor costs for Walmart, I'm proposing that they actually pay it themselves for a change.

      Don't forget in all of this the positive stimulus to the economy. Consumers with money make the economy go. Meanwhile, you'll be hard pressed to find an economist who doesn't believe externalities should be internalized. Raising the minimum wage is sound economic policy.

      Cellphones cost $0 in 1910. Imagination is free.

    157. Re:It's a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats how it is in the US Military too. The leadership goes out of their way to support the lower ranks, and are the first to sacrifice so the lower-ranking soldiers dont have to go without. "Leading by example" and "selfless service" are at the very core of military service. That sort of thing requires discipline and actually caring around your fellow human beings, so its the kind of thing that could never possibly exist in society as a whole.

    158. Re:It's a status thing by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

      If Wallmart is sucking down the corporate welfare,

      So, you'll champion the premise of indirect welfare, but pooh pooh the premise of indirect taxation? :)

      Here's the deal, you get rid of all the market manipulation by the government, and stop generating a class of dependents, then the market will sort out where to allocate scarce resources. In either case (redistributive taxation, or redistributive welfare), the government is destroying wealth, and hurting us all.

      Consumers with money make the economy go.

      Wrong. Consumers with more wealth make the economy go - redistributing money is a non-trivial drag and manipulation of the economy causing waste.

      Cellphones cost $0 in 1910. Imagination is free.

      Very well, let's adjust the current poverty level to 1910s technology, and realize just how rich the 99% are compared to their forebears :)

    159. Re:It's a status thing by nobodie · · Score: 1

      Your ideas about housing costs are... quaint.
      I bought my house, which is three houses down from one important bus stop (Stright to work for me) and two blocks away from three other bus stops that take me north, south and higher speed to the north for $70,000. I'm bicycle distance from cultural/restaurant/tourist areas in one direction and downtown in another (museums, aquarium, restaurants, music festivals, etc.). Its the fools that live in the burbs that are paying 250-500,000 for houses without public transit. My son walks to school in the morning and afternoon, plays outside with neighbor kids after school and generally has a great life. Screw the burbs.

      --
      Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.
    160. Re:It's a status thing by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      I'm seeing far more liberals (on the internet, generally pretty wealthy) that are pro-guns, so not that hard for me to picture. But I will grant you the average conservative probably wouldn't get it.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  32. Etremely difficult for a programmer by Flammon · · Score: 1

    Programming 60 real hours in a week is extremely difficult. Try this. Start a timer when you're doing some real work, not goofing off on /. or procrastinating. Trust me, if you can clock 60 real work hours in a week, you'll be mentally exhausted and will have no motivation to do anything for 2 to 3 days.

    1. Re:Etremely difficult for a programmer by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      Programming 60 real hours in a week is extremely difficult. Try this. Start a timer when you're doing some real work, not goofing off on /. or procrastinating. Trust me, if you can clock 60 real work hours in a week, you'll be mentally exhausted and will have no motivation to do anything for 2 to 3 days.

      Quote from a Microsoft manager: "You can make people be in the office for more than 40 hours a week. You can't make them work more than 40 hours a week. "

    2. Re:Etremely difficult for a programmer by qwijibo · · Score: 1

      I've been programming for most of my life and I find it to be relaxing. It's mentally challenging, but physically restful. I've felt like I had plenty of energy after working 80 hours a week doing programming. I would equate it to playing a video game - how many video game addicts say they gotta stop after 40 hours a week? There are lots of people who can easily put 60-80 hours a week into a game.

      OTOH, 40 hours of project management drained everything from me and took longer than a weekend to recover from. It's just a matter of how a particular type of task affects the individual.

    3. Re:Etremely difficult for a programmer by Bengie · · Score: 2

      I spend 40 hours a week at work and about 30 of those in front of a computer and at most 1/2 of that time actually programming. The rest of that time is clearing my mind so I can think strait.

      During my most productive days, I may spend 3 hours actually programming, and I will be completely burnt out from it. Mental work is quite draining.

      I've recently developed a strange kind of insomnia. If I do not get mentally worked during the day, I have a very hard time getting to sleep. Can take me hours, leaving me with under 5 hours of sleep, and I hate taking drugs of any kind. My mind gets stuck in a creative mode and I can't stop thinking. It ultimately stems from boredom. I cannot get bored, otherwise I can't sleep, I need to challenge myself.

      I've posted earlier that I don't like vacation time much, and this is partially why. I must keep learning and must be challenged, otherwise sleep eludes me. My job helps me in both of those areas. I do a lot of thinking and research for my projects. I almost have to work, otherwise I would go crazy. I do have a hobby, but it's nearly the same as my job and is unfortunately expensive. My work pays for the resources I need, but at home, I have to pay myself. Server hardware is expensive.

    4. Re:Etremely difficult for a programmer by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Programming 60 real hours in a week is extremely difficult. Try this. Start a timer when you're doing some real work, not goofing off on /. or procrastinating. Trust me, if you can clock 60 real work hours in a week, you'll be mentally exhausted and will have no motivation to do anything for 2 to 3 days.

      Exactly. I have come close on a few occasions, maybe managing 50 hours. This was coding a new Javascript API, based on exactly matching an existing system that had no documentation but had a critical design flaw that meant it needed completely rebuilding.

      By the end I was seriously getting diminishing returns, I would work 4 hours late after everyone else left (by that point I needed peace to concentrate) but even in those ideal conditions I would probably only get 2 hours work done. I also realised recently when looking back at what I did the next day in my few effective hours the next morning that after 12 hours straight at work the code I produced was pretty awful.

      I only did this because I was scared that I would be pulled off the project by my boss who at the time I did not get on with and was looking to undermine me (I had been there before him). Eventually I delivered something that worked though, he realised that nobody else in the company could have and now we generally get on better.

      Now I generally do 9 - 5:30. I will put in more hours if the company needs it, but it has to be a need not just that the boss or the client wants something unrealistic.

      For instance I recently had to deal with a cloud hosting provided deleting all our network storage on a Sunday night so I had to liaise with them getting the backups restored (they were terrabytes in size and it took too long as their backup provision was too slow) . This took about 36 hours straight of work on the phone to them and then checking stuff, remounting disks, copying data and stuff but after everything was back up I went to sleep for almost 2 days straight so still ended up doing close to a normal number of hours that week.

      This was exceptional though, if I did nothing the company would have gone under. Most of the time when IT companies expect you to work silly hours it is not because you are doing disaster recovery, it is simply because someone screwed up quote or in some cases where the boss wrongly thinks that simply maximising the number of hours he gets people sat at their desks is in his interest even though they lose motivation.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  33. Another variation by goldstein · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of an experience I had years ago when working late. An older employee stops by and says "Bob, you are here because you don't have a wife. I'm here because I have a wife."

    1. Re:Another variation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That made me laugh. Because it is true.

  34. 12-hour days by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

    Some of my co-workers brag about working 12-hour days, as if to say they're more valuable than the rest of us. I think it's important to be able to do that in an emergency, but it's no way to operate for any length of time. I don't care who you are or what you do — nobody puts out quality work for twelve hours a day, at least not for very long. And this is especially true when it comes to code. The very best coders can write truly great code for about six hours a day, tops, before they're mentally exhausted.

    1. Re:12-hour days by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      I did as a lumberjack. This required about 10,000+ dietary calories per day though... Chopping down trees, moving wood, and burning doesn't require anywhere near the same order of mental strength as programming. At first I could only do the work for 2-3 hours a day, but my body became stronger and by the end of the summer I was able to do 15 hour days, and I liked working long and hard. My dad received a grant from the forest service to put in fire breaks the summer before I went to college. This was an effort to encourage private landowners to create firebreaks so that the Gila National forest could be left to burn during a fire, without as much pressure on the Forest Service to stop it because private property was threatened. His land borders the Gila on three sides.

      For programming (and other mental jobs), I 100% agree with you based on my experience. I try and do about 20 hours a week of actual coding, 10-20 hours of business development and sales, and then about 10-20 hours per week of construction. That helps me keep my balance. Thankfully, I am self employed as a software developer and have rental property. The most I was ever actually able to code at a "job" was about 30 hours a week - the other 10-15 were usually spent in meetings, design, talking with customers and helping other people work through their problems (also meetings, but super informal.)

      I think people are different. With the right amount of physical training, my body could handle 12 hour days at lumberjacking at 19 years old. Maybe I could do that again at 30, but I'm not sure. Maybe someone else would be very happy programming at their job for 60 hours a week. One of my buddies programs 40 for his job, and then does at least another 20 on his personal projects. He might take a 60 hour per week deal if his work offered him 1.5-2.0x his current salary, and be totally happy. I'm not sure, people are different.

  35. Management's Idea by sir-gold · · Score: 2

    The Papa John's Pizza franchise in Minnesota (PJCOMN corp) would pay it's general managers (GMs) a salary based on a 40-hour work week, but required that all GMs schedule themselves for a minimum of 50 hours per week.

    At the store I worked at, 2 of our shift leads quit at the same time, leaving only the GM and one shift lead to run it for over a month. This meant that both of those people were working 60+ hours a week. Because shift leads are paid hourly, and GMs were paid fixed-salary, the shift lead ended up making more than twice as much per week as the GM.

    In other words, people on salary who work more than 40 hours a week are simply being taken advantage of by their employer, and the employer loves it when you work 60 hours for 40 hours worth of pay

    1. Re:Management's Idea by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 1

      FYI, I worked for a Papa John's in Honolulu, and the manager there said the same thing; that she is expected to be on the schedule 50 hours per week, but is usually there longer than that.

      --
      Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
    2. Re:Management's Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who can't tell it's from its shouldn't complain.

    3. Re:Management's Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the real dilemma. People who contribute are rarely compensated appropriately.

  36. 2 peoples jobs? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Umm where i live 40 is a single person, so 80 hours would be 2 people, not 60 hours. Where do you live that 30 a hour work week is normal?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:2 peoples jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anywhere else in the world BUT the US, of course.

    2. Re:2 peoples jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe 35h/week is common, and in Australia it ranges from 36.25h/week (government) to 38.5h/week (legal maximum under the Fair Work Act).

      I work 70h/week, but it is only for two weeks at a time and then I get two weeks off (well, it is a 15/13 split).

    3. Re:2 peoples jobs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where OT is time-and-a-half?

    4. Re:2 peoples jobs? by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Once you count all the meetings that are not duplicated, 60 hours a week at my full productivity would yield more output than 2 guys doing 40 hours. Loads of meeting distract as well as displace productive ouput.

    5. Re:2 peoples jobs? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not as low as 30 hours, but 35-38 is standard in most of the (non-US) world.

      I'm Australian and most full time jobs I've had are 37.5h per week. Paid vacation is a standard 4 weeks per year, plus 10 public holidays (so 30 days/year in total). In some industries, working beyond that isn't permitted. In others, it would count as overtime paid at 150-200% of the normal hourly rate, so people take on the extra hours when they need a bit of extra cash.

  37. Or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or making mad overtime bank.

    Thanks union!

  38. Only 60? LUXURY! we worked 84+ by redelm · · Score: 1

    (with apologies to Python's 4 Yorkshiremen) ... now the youngsters only work 72 hours per week plus turnover. For safety reasons, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

    But seriously, what matters is the reason. For the right reasons, long hours are fine. For the wrong reasons or in the wrong environment, 40h can be too much. Decide what matters most to you and follow it.

    Then you won't be getting up half an hour before you go to bed!

  39. Re:Stop Sniveling! by sir-gold · · Score: 1

    Why do people blame Obama for this? It's not his fault that the rich bankers built themselves a house of cards. He isn't the one who invented balloon payments, or gave home loans to people who clearly couldn't pay them back.

    The only thing he did wrong was trying to bail out the banks instead of just letting them fail

  40. Clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have no idea. Step outside of your cushioned office and onto, say, a factory floor. Sometimes merely existing in a hostile environment (heat, insane humidity or near zero humidity, noise so loud that even "jawjacking" ends up being too much effort, constantly dodging forklifts, confined spaces, etc) is honestly real work.

    And waiting / watching / observing is still "work". It's focusing your attention on the task at hand, ready to respond at a moment's notice, plus not to mention thinking up solutions on-the-fly and meetings with the myriad of by-standing managers about "what the problem is".

    And no, it's not about "getting it right the first time". Sometime the environment itself or how people act is incalculable ahead of time.

  41. It might not be the job ... it could be you by petes_PoV · · Score: 3, Insightful
    60 hours a week, huh? And how many of them are spent goofing around - talking to colleagues (and preventing them from working and getting home on time). Updating your FB page every 5 minutes, checking for new cat photos, tweets, that last-second bid on ebay (that you watch like an eagle for the 10 minutes leading up to it), spending a day or two checking out holiday resorts before booking, or buying christmas gifts at Amazon.

    Then there are the people who really do need to spend 60 hours working - to achieve what everyone else manages to produce in 35. Slow, incompetent, indolent or simply easily distracted? You choose.

    Finally we have the individuals who actually prefer to be at their job - rather than at home, either on their own, getting an earful of "verbal", or simply staring at the wall becuase they have no friends and less imagination about what to do with the empty voids between sleeping and working.

    There are plenty of people who work these long hours for the reasons above. Whether they brag about it, or whether others see them as the pathetic specimens they are would depend. But if you do work tose hours, maybe it's because it's either your own fault or it's your way of escaping.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:It might not be the job ... it could be you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do prefer being at my job. I take pride in my work, I rarely spend any time doing the slacking off you described. I also do have little to do outside of work, being a young guy who moved to a boring town that has an obscenely high median age. Pile on a chronic illness that inhibits most activity outside of work, I damn well better enjoy work. Pathetic, I don't think so. Making the best of a bad situation, sure, where the best happens to be going to work everyday.

    2. Re:It might not be the job ... it could be you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are saying that lots of people work 60 hours a week because they are not, in fact, working all those hours but have built a habit of goofing off at work and put in the overtime to cover up for that fact. One wonders how many productive hours they actually put in. In a big corporate it can go as low as ZERO.

    3. Re:It might not be the job ... it could be you by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Being at work and actually doing work are not the same thing.

      Sure, many people might prefer spending time at work. That's fine.
      But insisting that people stay at work, even when it lowers their productivity, health, live quality, etc. is when there's a problem.

    4. Re:It might not be the job ... it could be you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Updating your FB page every 5 minutes,"
      Grounds for immediate termination.

      "checking for new cat photos,"
      Grounds for immediate termination.

      "tweets,"
      Grounds for immediate termination.

      "that last-second bid on ebay"
      Grounds for immediate termination.

      "spending a day or two checking out holiday resorts before booking"
      that one you might be able to sneak by. Just don't hit the same place too often or it will stand out in the log.

      "or buying christmas gifts at Amazon."
      Again you could sneak by on this, if you don't do it too often as there are legitimate business purchases on Amazon.

      Some of you people must have really tolerant employers. People were I work are using there smart phones to evade the rules by staying off the companies network, but there is a new policy coming out soon that may put some controls on that too. Or at least try. How they can stop it without a jammer I can't guess.

  42. Even if you're a PhD student by zeblanton · · Score: 1

    in which case it is mandatory, thus impressing nobody and depressing you.

    1. Re:Even if you're a PhD student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS! I worked around 35h/week doing my PhD for the first two years and then around 45h/week on the last year (only 3 years here in Australia). I completed it in exactly three years (to the day) and it was passed by international reviewers with only minor revisions.

      Just because a supervisor is demanding things doesn't mean you have to do it, provided you have external examination. Here in Australia the supervisor(s) need to OK the thesis to go out for examination, but there are dispute processes that can be followed if the student thinks they are ready and the supervisor is trying to get that last bit of blood out of a stone. I guess if your supervisor/adviser is your examiner (US?) then you're screwed.

    2. Re: Even if you're a PhD student by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you didn't have anything published within the three years? In the US with engineering and science PhD's students are supposed to give research output for around 6 years, and research is basically a treasure hunt where 40 hours a week gives you little sense of progress. In other places the standard is often said to be 3 years, but often extended so that the student gets more done before graduating. That is if you want to start an academic career though. If you just want to graduate (which is not very meaningful these days) you may just coast along taking up less challenge.

  43. Historical Perspective...? by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    Didn't this use to be standard?

    I mean, this author is generalizing from his experiences at a graphic design company to the entire American workforce. Does anyone else see a problem with this? Historically, everyone used to work a ton on a farm or in manufacturing. Maybe it makes sense for people to work a ton on a farm, or in (industrializing, pre-robot) manufacturing. Maybe it doesn't make sense for people to work a ton at paper-leaf.com.

    I don't think it's possible to generalize accurately. I'm totally happy, and productive, working 60 hour weeks split between programming and construction projects.

    1. Re:Historical Perspective...? by swb · · Score: 2

      I think farm work traditionally has long days during planting and harvest periods, but in between is a lot less time intensive than we think. I don't think there's a shortage of work to be done in between, but a lot of it is dependent on daylight. You just can't get much done in a field in the dark.

      In climates with anything approaching winter, there's even less to be done. Livestock may need tending, cows need milking, but there's no field or garden work to be done. I think a lot of winter work now involves machine maintenance.

      And I'm sure there's a lot of variation depending on the era; technology substantially changes the labor equation.

  44. Definitely have to know when to push back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or else they will just use you as such. There is a huge push at a lot of companies, specifically DoD contractors, to use a lot of sweat equity. They bid and win contracts based on that and it's up to the worker to make up the difference.

    However, this also depends on the job market in your area. In areas like SoCal this is all easier said than done and there are dozens of people that will take your 60 for 40 hours of pay job and "they" know it.

  45. It's over 9000... by lorinc · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's also my reaction. I regularly do between 50 and 60 hrs a week by working 11 - 12 hrs a day the whole week (and nothing the week end cause I would otherwise go insane), I've been doing occasonially 70 hrs (that is, add 10 hrs during the WE), and I think my max was around 80 hrs for some relly tough deadline near the end of my PhD. Right now, I finished a hard period, and I'll be calming things down to around 40 hrs a week in the few next month to regain some health. Seriously, 60 is hard, around 70 is just insane, and over that is ruining your health more quickly than anything else I've ever seen.

    I've never met someone who was at work before me in the morning (8am) and still there when I quit (9pm) every day, and I'm "only" doing between 50 and 60. Of the friends that say they do big weeks, most of them try to call me before 8pm, so they're lying. So yeah, basically people count commute and lunch when they say over 60, and I am pretty sure not a lot of people have experienced a real 60 hrs week of work, without counting lunch, commute and pauses (which makes it around 14 hrs a day when you add these moments).

    And anyone who has a kid and says he does over 50 is just lying...

  46. Hours worked is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed it can. the Bureau of Labor reports that the percentage of people that are poor in the US AND working at least 1000 hours per year is just 4%. Considering a full time year is 2000 hours, the % of those that are poor and working full time is practically 0.

    Also, the average hours worked a week for a poor person in the US is 16.

    So, being poor in the US is largely because you can't find work.

    1. Re: Hours worked is the key by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Source?

    2. Re: Hours worked is the key by jordanjay29 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    3. Re:Hours worked is the key by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      the Bureau of Labor reports that the percentage of people that are poor in the US AND working at least 1000 hours per year is just 4%.

      From your link, the US population is quite large, and their 4.2% is 10,382,000 people (adults in the labor force for half the year) below the poverty line in 2011. This includes 4,375,000 people working full-time for the full year and 3,190,000 people working part-time for the full year. Even in the most generous interpretation, that's still 4 million hard-working Americans showing up for work every day, putting in a full day, and still going home to poverty.

  47. topper by johnsnails · · Score: 1

    In sure somewhere in here is a relevant Dilbert... http://search.dilbert.com/comi...

  48. I have a 39.2 hour work week by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    I also turn OFF my cellphone and refuse to even look at email after 5pm. Those that deserve the badge of honour are the ones that have the balls to stand up for themselves and force their employer to not be assholes.

    Why 39.2? because I go home 10 minutes early every day but get paid for it anyways. IF they can stand around smoking outside the office 6 times a day on the clock, then I can take a 10 minute "smoke break" at the end of the day.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I have a 39.2 hour work week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have the balls to stand up for themselves and force their employer to not be assholes.

      ..................and you're fired for insubordination. Good luck ever working again when rumor gets around that you stand up for yourself. Your only hope is to join the army and get killed in boot camp, because you have no future.

    2. Re:I have a 39.2 hour work week by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      AWESOME! because I already have 3 other job offers lined up. Good luck replacing me, oh and someone keyed the shit out of your car in the parking lot.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:I have a 39.2 hour work week by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I also turn OFF my cellphone and refuse to even look at email after 5pm. Those that deserve the badge of honour are the ones that have the balls to stand up for themselves and force their employer to not be assholes.

      Why 39.2? because I go home 10 minutes early every day but get paid for it anyways. IF they can stand around smoking outside the office 6 times a day on the clock, then I can take a 10 minute "smoke break" at the end of the day.

      In Australia the standard work week is 37.5 hours. It used to be 40 but businesses complained about paying for lunch breaks, so it became 37.5. Seeing as few people in Australia actually get paid by the hour (most are salaried, so they negotiate a per annum sum) it didn't make much of a difference. Realistically it was a pyrrhic victory for angry businessmen.

      As for leaving 10 mins early, hell as long as all your work is done it doesn't matter. Same with staying back an extra hour or 2 on occasion because something needs to get done, OTOH on occasion I'll say "Boss, I need to leave a few hours early to go to the doctor/mechanic/accountant". It should all equal out in the end.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  49. In praise of idleness by dogganos · · Score: 1

    Many people here need to read 'in praise of idleness' from Bertrand Russell'.

  50. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Obama's fault for not taxing the rich bankers to provide jobs for the poor. It's Obama's fault for continuing wasteful wars while unemployment is rampant. We need a New Deal and Obama is failing to provide it.

  51. Re:How much time is spent producing a work product by Golthar · · Score: 0

    Meant to click insightful. Undoing moderation

  52. Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Comments like this are why I used to come to slashdot, to enjoy the community, the sense of humour, the collection of technical stories all in one spot...
    .
    now the ops are fags (used "fag" as a technical term... I voted pro-gay on prop 8) and the mods are drones, but the community was so awesome. Now with this new UX design on the front end of the site I cannot concentrate on the content long enough to enjoy it. This doesn't matter any more, because the majority of the community is leaving because Dice doesn't want to admit that they bought a website with a highly technical user base because their ads monetized well here, but they dont know how to run it because Dice is fucking clueless about technology.
    .
    Now, I post messages like this to raise awareness about "www.altslashdot.org", where I am migrating my account to be able to have a sane fucking experience with all the people who made slashdot awesome... so FUCK BETA!"
    .
    I hope this helps you in your career and I leave you in the care of the internet.
    .
    Regards,
    .
    - Anonymous Coward
    .
    P.S. - F. U. C. K. B. E. T. A.
    .
    P.P.S. - Captcha = honest
     

  53. Re:How much time is spent producing a work product by geekoid · · Score: 2

    "I don't doubt there are people (young, single, apartment renters) who spend 60 hours a week at work, but I suspect that all those 60 hours aren't spent actually producing a work product."

    So you argument says 'You don't believe it, and if people say it is happening, it's not happening"

    Well done, sharp thinker!

    "There's a lot of time spent in IT waiting. Waiting for builds. Waiting for downloads. Waiting for installs, updates, restores, data transfer from box A to box B. And waiting is just one category -- there's yakking with co-workers, Google searches for work-related information that end up in some Wikipedia page 6 times removed from what you started looking for. Trips to the cafeteria, vending machines, smoking cigarettes."
    Sound like you are projecting you lazy ass onto others.

    Who the hell doesn't nothing else while A build is happening?
    A) Builds are really fast.
    B) There is documentation to be done
    C) This isn't 1985. You can build and work on other code.
    D) Yes, there is some communication between workers. This is a great way to exchange information. So what?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  54. It's a sign you need to do something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got the hell out of tech. Great hobby.

    Shitty career. Get out. Tell your kids to follow the money. Teach them about finance so they can make their money work for them instead of being wage slaves.

    -- EE with 20+ years experience, now much richer working in finance and technical business development, 9-3pm.

    1. Re:It's a sign you need to do something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is enamored with money like you are, asshole.

    2. Re:It's a sign you need to do something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before you judge, I'll be retired before my 45th birthday and will spend my days working on things I enjoy, and spending it with my kids.

      Money is a tool .. nothing more. I am not in love with money, I am in love with my freedom.

      Keep working though. Harder and for less money! I need my dividend cheque. If that makes you angry .. ask yourself why. I did.

  55. Re:Stop Sniveling! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Letting them fail would have been a disaster.
    This isn't an Obama thing. Previous administration new it, economist knew it. The problem is banks are allowed to have their fingers in too many pies.

    You could have bank collapse and take a whole serious of commodities with it. Five the price up, and/or collapse of several industries.
    At the time I though they should just fail, but I know some experts in the field, and talking with them gave me some information that made me reevaluate my position.

    OTOH, all the loans sold under false pretenses should have the loan done away with and full ownership returned to the person who borrowed.

    That would have been a long term market force that would have made the financial institution police themselves in the future.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  56. Management Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A regular 60 hour work week is a failure of management.

    I say that and I'm a manager. If I screw things up bad enough that my people need to work 60 hours on a regular basis, I probably should be doing something else instead of that job.

    Of course, there are also the people that just have to squeeze their "resources" to the breaking point. That's a failure of a different kind, more of a failure as a human being than as a manager.

    1. Re:Management Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not always within the manager's power to avoid the regular 60 hour work week. Often head count limits are decided by people way farther up the food chain.

      When I was a senior manager at my last company, there was an edict from on high (C-level executive offices) that my department be reduced from 65 to 45 people within 6 months, but the schedules and product release dates could not change.

      Losing 33% of your bodies while retaining the same amount of work can only result in a regular 60 hour work week. As it turns out, I volunteered to be one of the 20 people let go and I haven't looked back since.

    2. Re:Management Failure by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The poster you replied to did not specify what level of management had failed. He is correct that a regular 60 hour work week is a management failure. As previous posters have pointed out, numerous studies have shown that working more than 8 hours a day yields progressively lower productivity. So that a person working somewhere between 10 and 14 hours a day for any length of time is less productive than someone working only 8 hours a day (I no longer remember the number of hours a day where that change occurs).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  57. A 60hr work week would be nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I normally work 70/wk average. Last year, I had a 3 month run averaging 90/wk, peak was 119 hrs. Yes, organizational dysfunction was at fault, but I've very rarely worked at jobs without such dysfunction.

    1. Re:A 60hr work week would be nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be insane. I worked 100+ hours/week for 1 month (and was properly compensated) but even so i would avoid doing that on an ongoing basis. It ruins someones health. It's not worth if for any amount of money.

    2. Re:A 60hr work week would be nice. by neminem · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It would be worth it for a sufficiently large amount of money. Namely, enough money that after a few months of it, you could quit and never have to work again. The chance of getting that much money are roughly 0%, but still. For a few hundred thousand a year, I'd work hundred hour weeks, why not? Wouldn't do it for anything less than that, though.

  58. This was a big part of the financial crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having seen what the long hours do in the financial industry I'm quite comfortable identifying the long hours as a major cause leading to the 2007/2008 crisis.

    There were other, more nefarious causes as well.

  59. What a bunch of wusses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I completed my general surgery residency we were working 90-100 hours per week. 60 hours per week would have been a piece of cake. I lost all of my sympathy for people complaining about how hard they work, even when it's 60 hours per week. Even today's residents that are limited to an 80 hour work week are wusses.

  60. Some love overtime pay by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    I don't get overtime pay, but I do get "incentive" pay for anything over 32 hours per week. Since my job can't be done in bad weather, I kinda like having my base salary during those slow times. In good weather I can double my pay with only a little bit more effort.

    I like to joke that I'm paid twice a month weakly. I'll never make what I think I'm worth; it would drain the Federal Reserve Bank!

  61. Unless you are a teacher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then 60 hours per week is a normal work week.

  62. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have become a Yanky football player and gotten a scholarship and bullied your nerds to do your assignments whilst you are off on a fratternity booze up.

    1. Re:Yeah by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Should have become a Yanky football player and gotten a scholarship and bullied your nerds to do your assignments whilst you are off on a fratternity booze up.

      Yeah... professional sports isn't a career path either. They're a pyramid with very few spots at the top.

  63. Known Fact. by erfunath · · Score: 1

    Overworking is the reason why we had all those 40-hour-workweek iniatives in the late 1800s. It applies to all industries. I happen to be a teacher, and you can expect 60-80 hour weeks as a matter of course (no pun intended). I fully agree that organizational failures show up as overwork in this fashion, and have to look no further than schools.

  64. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In this country if you finish at 6 o'clock they think you are a stupid that is not grateful with the company and the job you have. The bosses expects you work 1 hour for free after all. So this article is again made for a guy with PhD. and is a boss of his own company, who has a huge muzzle for imagine a fantasy world for himself.

  65. Re:How much time is spent producing a work product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHO THE HELL DOESN'T NOTHING ELSE!

    ^ educated dude right here

    "D) Yes, there is some communication between workers. This is a great way to exchange information. So what?"

    This doesn't even make sense but I'm including it to get around Slashdot's shouting filters.

  66. Right, because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    working conditions are so much better in socialist workers' paradises like Cuba and North Korea.

  67. I get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time and a half for over 40 double time for Saturdays and triple time for Sundays and Holidays.
    I work 7 days a week 12 hours a day and have never been happier.

  68. I work 65 hours a week for $3400 every 4 weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $13 an hour in the clear, $170 a day in the clear, taxes, taxes, taxes +

    I earn about $80,000 a year, but I put 10% into 401k and when I get older the US Government will pull a Cyprus and confiscate that before I am dead. Oh and the Social Security I am paying for which is a large chunk of my pay will not be there when I reach retirement.

    So I am fucked. M.S. Degree and I waste my time on slashdot.

    I have no life (hey I am posting here), and I get loaded on the weekends just to deal.

    I am a corporate jesus christ, crucified on the corporate cross for the sins of those inbred "new world order" fucks who run the world.

    1. Re:I work 65 hours a week for $3400 every 4 weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have joined the military instead, loser. Then everyone would love the shit out of you just for being one of the troops.

  69. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why won't people wise up and elect Hitler's ghost?

  70. Four weeks vacation minimum!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And in the eight years I've been in the work force, I've never had more than two as a salaried full-time employee. Sick days (4 per year) would count against this time if exceeded.

    Where do you work? Can I work there?

  71. Re:My Boss by captjc · · Score: 1

    Where I work, the corporate policy for salaried workers is 45 hours. We recently got some new hires and they told us that they got a pep-talk from the boss when they were hired that they are "expected a minimum of 60 hours and that 80 is normal". Of course, this is the same boss who drones on and on about how much he loves the Chinese work ethic. That they will work from 5 in the morning until 11 at night, they eat while working and take all their business calls after hours to ensure productivity. All this for a fraction of the pay of an American worker.

    Needless to say the office has become hell since this guy took a more direct role in our affairs. Lots of good people were fired, even more have left for greener pasture$. Apparently engineers with family lives are make for worthless engineers.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  72. Try 24/7 Infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am always ON. NO OFF. No hour, day, month or year of OFF.

    Try to live that Ass Wipes!

    I know ... YOU ... can't.

    I ... WIN ... Butt fuckers.

    1. Re:Try 24/7 Infinite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why aren't you working 26/8? Lazy.

  73. management by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "or maybe he/she doesn't care"

    Correction: or likely he/she doesn't care

    Silicon Valley has created the collegiate work environment. People in their 30's are working like they are still in college: opinionated, cram, cheat, and credit chasers. College kids do this all the time: pull all-nighters, work last minute and half asleep. And from what I see, done with a unprofessional attitude too.

    A salary is a side-effect. This is unhealthy, unproductive, inefficient (from what I've seen) ans just plain stupid. People need to realize, unless they are working overtime, they are effective reducing their salary 20-80%.

  74. Re:Stop Sniveling! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Or we could force your boss to not be such an asshole.

  75. 60 Hour week = by hackus · · Score: 1

    Yourself Inc.

    No WAY would I work those hours unless my name was on the front door.

    Don't do it for anyone else except yourself.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  76. Welcome to RIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to know why RIM ended up a dysfunctional shithole? This, exactly. 60 to 90 hour workweeks.

  77. Sometimes OK in the short term by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Long hours make sense during maintainance shutdowns, tight change windows or when things go seriously wrong. It's only making a habit of it that's the problem.
    However it's not something you should do for free.

    1. Re:Sometimes OK in the short term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are exactly the circumstances, where I would *not* want overworked, tired, stressed people handling the job.

    2. Re:Sometimes OK in the short term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you don't make a habit of it...

  78. work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if your doing somthing u like, then you never work a day in your life.

    1. Re:work? by Justpin · · Score: 1

      Pfft... Until you start getting bored and tired of it, and lose your outlet for frustration and stress. I happen to know a lot of musicians, skydivers and dispatch riders. Musicians in orchestras, if they aren't the lead chair they get maybe two or three bars with one or two notes. You get sick of the same set over and over and over and over again. Travel to a new city same set over and over. Skydivers... some become instructors, some become tandem masters. But have a look at the many youtube videos of tandem jumps. A lot of them have forced smiles because they are so incredibly bored out of their minds having done it 10,000+ times. Dispatch riders, I've been one, I used to love riding motorbikes.... I don't anymore...

  79. Time isn''t the issue by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    Some people brag about working long hours but may just not be good time managers or may not perform efficiently with their jobs. Many jobs work in "waves" of activity with requirements for more hours when the shit hits the fan and time for slacking or working on discretionary projects when things mellow out. I've worked in such a job. It's actually pretty fun to work in this atmosphere. The bottom line is to get the job done. If one is constantly working long hours, it can be a result of several factors. Perhaps someone just likes working long hours. Perhaps they don't have a good family life at home and work is their escape. They could be stupid and it just takes them a long time to get stuff done. It is possible for their management to be under-staffing. In that case, adapting to the situation by permanently working long hours masks the problem of under-staffing. However, if one allows this to continue, it'll likely become status quo. There's really no "one answer" to this situation. In my case, I worked in a small engineering team for "one of those big computer companies" and really enjoyed my job. Most of the time (in my case) I didn't have to work 40 hours to get things done. This was primarily because of effective time management and experience with my skill. YMMV

  80. And Yet Most People Get and Take Vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somehow we get along without the law getting in the way. Maybe reality is different from your world view.

    1. Re:And Yet Most People Get and Take Vacation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people don't even have full time jobs.

  81. Cords 0,0,1 by netglen · · Score: 1

    American workers get zero vacation days when they start a new position unless they were smart enough to negotiate a week or two during the hiring process. Even so, with these high pressure 60+ hour/week jobs, they frown on workers who dare to take their accrued vacation times. Some of these workers would rather lose their vacation time then appear to be "slackers" to their managers. In contrast workers in certain other countries are given a boatload of vacation from day one.

  82. obama economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    obama economy is not a disaster. if u really look at the numbers and facts the economy is better than it was 6 yrs ago .I remind u that bush left office with americas 3 big car manufacturers (huge employers) and a few large banks on the brink of bankruptsy; and employment is slightly up.The disaster is the american system of government and the roadblocks put up mainly by the conservative repubs. america is run by multimillionairs and large multinational coorporations.(pharmaceutical industry supports the dems and the big oil companies support the cons). It may be up to the marijuana industry to save america.

  83. Not me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work as a Software Engineer for a Fortune 100 company, I earn over $100k a year. I work about 5 hours a week. My boss has no idea.

  84. want to opt for the french approach by schlachter · · Score: 1

    As an American, I'd rather work 40hrs/wk and would happily take a lower salary to do so. Wish it was feasible (without working for myself, which in and of itself wasn't even an option until Obamacare passed due to the inability to get healthcare coverage for myself + family). So many people I know would consider this lazy. But it's not. It's just another way to live. A better way, in my opinion.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:want to opt for the french approach by schlachter · · Score: 1

      oops...mean to say I'd rather work LESS THAN 40 hrs/wk. I CURRENTLY work 40 hrs/wk.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    2. Re:want to opt for the french approach by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for you, but this matches my feelings. Its one reason I have left the world of 'IT' recently and started a company well away from technology (well, a franchise) where I work in the morning and prospect for work in the afternoon when I want to. Money is tight at the moment but I'd never go back even if I have to live off left-over rice.

  85. 60 hour weeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or you like what you do and find that most of your work is fun and engaging. Importantly you work for yourself and can avoid most of the productivity destroying process and team-stroking that has taken root in many corporate environments like fields of poison ivy.

    In most IT environments, it takes 60 hours to accomplish 10 hours of work. 60 hours of meetings, sign-offs, jumping through hoops of one unaccountable team after another - each stoutly protected by "the process" from every having to actually contribute anything to outcome beyond their approval.

    So 60 hours/week is not a badge of honor - its the pleasure of controlling your own destiny, being alive and shaping the world around you

  86. I don't mind it by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    I get paid by the hour though.

  87. ...or maybe you're just doing an upgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ^^^^

    I'm salary. I'm happy with my salary. I like my job! Most days/weeks I work from home. However, I do get deployed to do major upgrades at hospitals w/i my region. My company pays me extra to do them but it usually means Th-Wed is 18 hour days that week... I usually get home and sleep for 3 days and than have a lull for a couple weeks till I do it again. Is my company expecting the work of 2 people? No, they are paying for all my expenses during those upgrades and compensating me well for my time. I'm not doing this every week.... if you are than, YES, you are being overworked!

  88. I did the opposite in my interview... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    When I interviewed for my current job, I told them I worked 40 hrs a wk in my prior job and that if they were expecting more than 45 hrs a wk from me than it wouldn't a good fit. I've since been there a long time and I've rarely worked over 40 hrs and never over 45 hrs.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  89. Management's ideas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you're just working salary for the wrong companies....

  90. 100 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am working ~100 hours/week (varies between 80 to 120) and getting only ~750$ in Turkey.
    What should I do then?

  91. Overwork = failed business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really funny how this overwork badge of honor is prevalent among startups which is also the sector in which most business failures occur. Somehow they think that because one in a million startups win the lottery and make millions/billions, that is an excuse for being stupid and wasting the effort of everybody involved in their business. Occasional sprints can be productive as well as helping make key wins in your business, but routine overwork destroys businesses and destroys people's lives.

  92. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Letting them fail would have been a disaster.

    Not taking the bailout as an opportunity to split them up and making the pieces no longer too big to fail was moronic.

    --
    Fuck Beta. And fuck you if whine about people saying Fuck Beta.

  93. 60? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hrmm what about 3 week on 1 week off FIFO mining work...
    3 weeks of 12 hour days (84 hour weeks).

    I can tell ya working on a drill rig for three 84 hour weeks in a row can be pretty exhausting.
    Maybe it's so much easier than all this hard IT work because you have to run all day instead of sitting on your arse.

  94. Working from home changes things a bit by tdelaney · · Score: 1

    I work from home ~95% of the time. I try to stick to a 40-hour week, but quite often I push into 45 or 50 hours.

    The thing is, I don't have a commute. I start working almost immediately after waking up; eat breakfast while going through emails from the US; take a few breaks during the day (including for lunch), and usually finish around 3pm.

    But if I'm heavily involved in something (I'm a software developer), I might keep working until 5pm, or even dinner. If I do that a couple of times in the week, I've hit 45+ hours.

    I had a commute, that would be 40 hours a week *plus* 5-10 hours depending on traffic. Plus as a contractor I'm billing for all the hours I work ...

  95. This is not the only way by hamvil · · Score: 0

    I work 36 hours per week, I'm the only one working in the since my wife decided to concentrate on our two kids. I can afford a mortage that is buying me a 350 kEuro house in 15 years. Thanks to the local wellfare I do not have to worry about thing like health insurance and taxes for education up to the university (included). I do not own a car, but I also do not need one because public transportation is more than enough (and for holidays I can always rent one). Ok, the country is Italy, but I;m living in a region (bozen) that stills has AAA rating and sub 4% unemployment. If in you country is different, then you are doing something wrong.

  96. Japan! Karoshi by Justpin · · Score: 1

    A lot of this badge of honour BS sounds a lot like my Japanese friends. Where they are made to feel guilty if they leave on time as betraying the country. As a result there is something called Karoshi death from overwork, people literally dying at their workstation. I've done some crazy stuff in my time. Working in accounts around tax season 100+ hour weeks were normal but then we got time off in lieu. Working for myself I maxed out at 126 hours a week when my company was first starting up, this went down to 90 and then 56 as I bought in more and more staff it fell to 45 after I got enough staff. However being squeezed by inflation and tax increases I found myself saving money by letting staff go and covering more for myself. I found myself back at 80+... I realised my company was untenable and I was trading my health for my business. I threw in the towel and shut the company.

  97. 60? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like a pretty light week compared to my truck driving days that usually worked out to be around 15-20 hours per day on average which ended up being around 130+ hours per week. Yes it's illegal to drive that much, but hey if you want to make bank you have to doctor them logs then drive yourself into the ground and it's not fun. To top that off my average over the road time was 45 to 90 days before I would take a couple days off depending on my current location. I usually waited till I was around Florida, Cali, or Mexico.

    It was worth it I'm not even 30 I have zero debt and my current driving job is a 3 hour daily trip. I saw my parents get in debt to banks and I said to myself no fucking thanks I'll pay cash or I won't have it.

  98. What's with the title by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    Imagine

    "Your 60-hour police work is not a badge of honor" and then in the text: "it's a sign that favelas are screwed up organizationally".

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  99. Time is more than money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only work 4 days a week as a programmer, and have the last day off from work, free to do fun stuff on my own - which often involves programming - on projects I decide:). Sure I earn 80% of what I could, but I have much more quality in life generaly. I would suggest it to anyone feeling time is worth more than money, and especially if you have a backlog of ideas that you never have the time to do otherwise.

  100. Says who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm a consultant, or work in Japan - or both! The horrors. Seriously, 60 hours a week is nothing. I've done 80 and more for months on end. It sucks, but the good thing is that after that, 60 feels like cake.

  101. Depends on the pay by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
    I am not over worked if I am getting paid hourly, plus overtime, plus whatever else.

    Give me a 2x,3x,4x,5x multiplier on an hourly wage above $25 an hour and I'll gladly work 60-80 hours a week for 6-12 months straight.

    You want me to work that on a salary that is less than $80-100K? How about no. Happily I am in a good place in life right now. After working my ass off for 20 years, work now is an option not a requirement.

  102. A haven't read anyone else's comments yet, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work 60-80 hour weeks, as a system and network administrator, for two reasons. 1) I had nothing better to do and 2) I loved it.
    Besides, if I was working at 4am on Sunday, I could spend time contemplating changes, or different approaches, without having to worry about any walk-ups or phonecalls interrupting my train of thought.

    If you want a 30 hour week, move to France.

  103. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest load of nonsense we were ever fed. Failure of the banks would've meant everyone would go OMG NOOOO for about a week, then suddenly notice hey wait, everything is pretty ok after all. The bankers would've been the ones crying the most. It's like when the US lost its AAA credit rating - everyone acted like it was a major emergency - and then nothing happened.

    The bailouts were a simple cash grab, nothing more. Where are all those jobs they were supposed to create, by the way?

  104. citation needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    got a link to that study please?

  105. Re:Stop Sniveling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me help you fix that. The Bush collapse was the worst since the Great Depression. Obama has managed to pull a slow but steady recovery out of what could have been a catastrophic nosedive.

    Sadly he has managed to do nothing but bad things in the areas of personal liberty and privacy, but economically he could have done much worse. Especially considering that the opposition party has been willing to do almost anything to make things worse than the already were.

    (captcha: Truths)

  106. Re: Trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Netcraft confirms that Natalie Portman just poured hot grits down my pants. You received this troll because you posted on slashdot. To unsubscribe, please visit http://goatse.cx/unsubscribe/ and thank you for using Slashdot Beta!

  107. I also share 'Strange Ranger's views on this.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Why should we care about that?
    I am not responsible for my co-worker's happiness or contentment. They are responsible for their own happiness and contentment.

    If you are happy being 'another brick in the wall, then bully for you! But at the same time, you should not resent others for the choices you made.

    If you want a valid target for your resentment, look into a mirror.

    I'm strictly mercenary in attitude when it comes to 'work'.
    You get my time, abilities, effort, and motivation for 'work' for a negotiated pay, and in proportion to said pay.

    That means that at scheduled quitting time, I go home, unless my employer can offer enough extra pay to convince me to stay longer....no matter what else is happening.

    That also means that any time off(vacation, or whatever) I take, I also take as needed(the time off being part of the negotiated pay for the job), again no matter what else is happening.

    That also means, that while I'm at 'work', I work. That is also part of the deal, often overlooked in my experience. But that is a separate issue that will cause the resentment you speak of.(and justified, IMO)

    I view my job as a way to have money for living life.

    Your approach seems the opposite to me:
    "I have a life in order to work."
    (note: I am not claiming that is your viewpoint- only that is how I see your viewpoint just from your comment, and probably does not actually represent your viewpoint-just trapped by that attitude/viewpoint)

    In a nutshell, instead of resentment, you should try contemplation instead. Think about it. It's your life, maybe you should take it seriously, and try to enjoy a little of it.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  108. working hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't have a 80 hour work week as a heart surgeon you will likely do harm as your ongoing competence suffers.

  109. Building Cheops' Pyramid by Summitlake · · Score: 1

    Gee, look at me! I get to spend 96 hours a week helping thousands of us build our Pharaoh's pyramid. I get all the millet I can eat. I will be provided for, and history will remember and honor my family. It's all about me, and no one will remember the pyramid.

  110. Re:Trolling by Life2Death · · Score: 1

    Maybe if you werent using the beta, it would cut time.

  111. Times have changed! by rhalstead · · Score: 1

    I worked those hours because I liked my job! My boss was well aware of the work I did. As a result I was given great flexibility and freedom as well as advancements...and pay. I worked for good people and had good people working for me. 20 years ago, I spent as much time logged in, working from home as I did at the plant, often more. OTOH I sometimes went to work at 10:00 and left early to make up for it. They knew they would get another 6 or 8 hours of productive work from me at home.

  112. This is not always the case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But most of the time. These same people that complain they have to work as wait staff or other low paid jobs are the same people that spent all their 'hard earned' money on alcohol and cigarettes as soon as they clock out. They group together with others of the same mindset and reenforce their beliefs that the system is setup against them. I even heard one genius complain - "It is tough being a white male in America." I am glad I am white. I would rather be white than black for sure. Not that it is better but is sure is easier.

    This could be debated for days. The simple fact is no one is slapping the books out of their hands when they try to learn something - no need, they seem to be allergic to books.

  113. I try to do that too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Granted, I make more than minimum wage but one thing never changes. It is easier to make money than to save it. If you can make it and save it ... well, if I have to explain that, you probably would not understand it any way.

  114. I agree on the pride comment, disagree on the brok by CentristReview · · Score: 1

    I totally agree on the pride thing... I have a small business myself and I work over 60 hours a week, but that's of my own choice, and how I like it. I'm just a project driven person - even when I don't work 50+ hours a week, I find projects to work on to keep me from getting bored. But while I understand that networking is good for my business, I do very little of it... I just can't stand most "startup culture" people. Nearly all of my clients are regular small business people, and while I'm a lot younger than them - I enjoy their company a hell of a lot more than those who have pipe dreams of slapping together some startup, taking a pile of money to develop some new app or website, then selling to Google or whoever. I'm much more in tune with the people who have an idea, and love it so much that they make a living out of it... and (like the Snapchat people - who I have a great deal of respect for because of this) wouldn't sell it to anyone, even for a billion dollars.

    --
    "We must hold the just balance and set ourselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand, as
  115. EITC is the wrong solution by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    "Many" economists may believe that, but certainly not all - probably not even the majority.

    If you are going to pay someone a benefit, do so: send them a check or a bank transfer every month. Hiding subsidies and benefits as "reverse taxes" has lots of problems, but the biggest one is that it is a deliberate attempt to hide welfare benefits so that no one can be entirely sure who is receiving how much. It also adds to the complexity of tax returns and expands the IRS bureaucracy - both of which are goals that benefit only the existing bureaucracy.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  116. Re: We would have DREAMED of working 84 per week! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We paid for the privilege of working 29 hour days, 12 days a week!

    In case you haven't seen it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtSw3daGoo

  117. The "Quit rate" is rising by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Per the BLS, the quit rate is continuing to rise.
    http://www.bls.gov/news.releas...

    I'm hoping that employee abuse will be forced to decline as a result.

    My last job before I retired, they worked us 70+ hours per week (multiple heart attacks, divorces, etc) with the implied promise we'd pick up SAP skills and have nice jobs after the implementation. Then (as happens with MANY SAP implementations), at the end they laid 95% of us off and upgraded Infosys (who had been "helping") to support the entire project.

    I had to work thru it since I was so close to retirement (and they were paying us very well and providing free lunch and dinner while working us in 20 day long "weeks" of 12 hour days ) but my advice is- if Infosys is brought in to "help", start looking for a new job. Many of the people let go have not found work and it's been over a year.

    I met a ex co-worker on the plane back from Winter Park last night and she said the conditions are better (40-50 hour weeks for six months now) but Infosys has been a challenge to work with. They are very literal and they never ever say no to anything. They just say they'll "do their best" and you have to understand that means "no, I can't do this." Upper management still plans on this as a "yes." so there have been repeated failures to meet targets.

    Get your certs and find a new job if your employer is abusing you. You don't have to take it right now and sometime soon we are going to have another 6-18 month long downturn. The current cycle is 62 months long-- that's historic in length.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  118. Where's that guy from the Google Bus thread... by arctus · · Score: 1

    Who told me that until I work a 70+ hour week I'm not even trying...

    This is definitely a problem, this is the D measuring contest of the IT world.

    If anyone ever says this to me in real life I'm going to laugh them out of the room...

    I "work" around 44 hours a week, I do about 20 hours of actual work, browse Reddit/Imgur/Hackernews/Slashdot the rest of the time...and I make 60K.

    I am fine with this, I am never joining this D measuring contest in IT, so I hope you all die from work exhaustion soon....

  119. Jobs & Money! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gosgog:
    In 1989/90 & 1991
    I flew 10 passenger tour airplanes (1946 - '51 old airplanes) in Hawaii. Maui tour or just Big Island tour $90,00 a day. 6 Island tour $125.00 a day, Hours, 6am to 6pm. Plus narration by us pilots. If you were good you might make $25 - $100. extra in tip money & that depended on nationality of Tourists. (Best tippers - Mexican, German, U.S., & Aussies...worst Canadians, N.Z. & some others). You're based in Honolulu (Expensive rent etc & you need wheels). 1st year I had $4000.00 savings (& I worked virtually 7 day week 'cause we had some no show pilots & I'd get most replacement calls!). Gulf war pretty much wrecked the tour business from U.S., Germans came, some ot the others, so I flew a fair amount of freight too but not tips for that). By 91...cost of living was breakeven & finally tripple bypass ended that!
    Now I live on SSI in S.E.Asia...if I had to go live back in the U.S., unless I went to bank robbing, I be living under a bridge probably, for free room, food & healthcare courtesy Uncle Sam.

  120. It's not a status thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really. A 40 hour a week job won't cover rent/food in the slums. To support this 2 bedroom apartment in the bad part of town, and pay for food and bills alone would take 60 hours per week of work. I haven't bought new clothes in years, I haven't seen a doctor, I desperately need some dental work done, and in this position you drive (you have to drive in America, our public transportation is abysmal, oftentimes on purpose (in my city, st. Louis, the free, federally paid for expansion that would have quadrupled the size and quality of the system was shut down because white suburbians were afraid black people would come to their neighborhoods)) whatever you can afford to drive, even as it busts up on the road and hardly gets you around.

    In places like this, having a nice pair of shoes is a status symbol because it is the best anyone can do.

  121. Re:My Boss by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, if the good people are being fired or leaving, it's just a matter of time until the whole shithouse comes crumbling down.

    Of course, the psychopath who caused the problem will not be blamed he will just be promoted or transferred to another cushy job.

    Start looking for another job, as soon as possible.

  122. True that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Coward above has the right of it. The solution really is that simple - stop putting in 60+ hour weeks. Stop lying to yourself about how much your boss cares about your personal comfort, health or success. He doesn't.

  123. Just another naive libertarian moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck finding a full time job in America, Chuckles. There aren't many to be had, especially if you worked a long time in a stable job that got shipped overseas. I guess all those people who didn't have time or the ability to get good educations should just die already amirite?

  124. That's how it's supposed to work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your case it how it's supposed to work. What often ends up happening is people are working overtime every week, like in my company, a 60 hour week is normal for a salaried worker.

  125. Your analogy is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never gotten 4 weeks in my 10 years in the workforce. You must work in one of those cushy "government/union" jobs I hear about. I've been at my company, a fortune 100 company for 3 years, could shut down the company with a button push and I get 2 weeks a year and substandard pay. (Yes I'm looking elsewhere) Point being, a personal analogy about how great you've got it does not translate to everyone else.

  126. Its all up for interpretation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my last organization management would typically either report that you are doing the bare minimum (40 hours a week) and are not dedicated to the organization (you're only willing to do the minimum), or they would report that you work the extra 20 hours because you are incompetent and it takes you 60 hours to complete the same work that a skilled engineer should normally accomplish in 40 hours.

    It all depends on how you respond in company surveys and whether or not the management wanted to grant you a raise or bonus. 60 hours a week would be interpreted differently based on the objectives of management but typically it meant that you were either highly motivated or highly incompetent.

  127. Context matters by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Was it two weekends or two months? How were people with family or other commitments treated? Was hard work rewarded with bonuses, comp time, cool parties?

    I don't think it's reasonable to expect any manager to get timeline of a half a year project down to a couple of days, or hire people only needed for 10 days per year. As long as corporate culture is heathy, hard work CAN be a badge of honor.

  128. Multiple jobs by phorm · · Score: 1

    Actually, working 60 hours a week is pretty easy, especially for people with multiple jobs. Part of this is a side-effect of employers preferring part-time jobs over full-time. This results in people needing to work two jobs to get decent hours, because each job is only 25-30h and won't pay the bills, but cumulatively the two jobs may be 50-60h+, and end up with back-to-back shifts and little time for more than sleeping in-between.

  129. Crunch time vs. Org Breakdowns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My Dad ran a successful organization, and he supported a reasonable work week. He would say "If I can't count on you to get your job done in 40 hours, what are you going to do when we need you to get us through a crisis?"

    And sometimes there are legitimate crises: Hitting (or recovering) a critical deadline or pulling off a customer win against tough competition. Key is that this can't become a common expectation or operating mode. Operating in crisis mode all the time is what's an organizational crisis.

  130. robbing us of lives and our kids of parents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I re-entered high-tech after staying home for 13 years to raise my babies, I was told I could work "part-time". Lucky for me, a friend from England forbade me to do it unless I was paid hourly saying, "Your hours will certainly scale up so at least this way your pay will scale too!"

    Whew! She was soooo right - part -time in Sillycon Valley is 40 hours/week so at least I got paid very well but I sure missed my kids.

    And no, I didn't stay. I lasted for 6 months before quitting bigCO.usa. I started my own company so I could have flexibility to be with my teens (just sold if for a great price too!!!). Screw 'em, I say. Don't let them rob you of a life and your children of their parents.

  131. Lumpy how'd "eating your words" taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keying people's cars is about your speed, punk - ROTFLMAO @ "Chumpy" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    (You sure "talk a good game" -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... but you can't even produce a MERE SCRIPT!, windbag...)

    You aren't even on the leve of a "script kiddie", & full of HOT AIR!

    You certainly won't reply there in that 2nd link I posted either, as that would remove your downmods to my posts like this one you can't validly disprove or justify your downmod on -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

    Oh, I suspect that IS the case here (simply logging out of a registered account & trolling by ac is a common troll trick around here OR using alternate registered 'luser' accounts sockpuppets to do the job will also, & Lumpy is LOADED with those & trolling - which doesn't matter: He PROVES he's all talk, no action (or skills, OR brains, lol))

    (You're all TALK, & NO action "CHUMPY!)

    * :)

    (You know it, I know it, & so does anyone reading AND laughing their asses off @ you now... lol!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Answer the question in the subject-line Lumpy - since you had to "eat your wrods" in the 1st link above flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH + the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", lol...

    ... apk

  132. Lumpy how'd "eating your words" taste? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ROTFLMAO @ "Chumpy" -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    (You sure "talk a good game" -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm... but you can't even produce a MERE SCRIPT!, windbag...)

    You aren't even on the leve of a "script kiddie", & full of HOT AIR!

    You certainly won't reply there in that 2nd link I posted either, as that would remove your downmods to my posts like this one you can't validly disprove or justify your downmod on -> http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

    Oh, I suspect that IS the case here (simply logging out of a registered account & trolling by ac is a common troll trick around here OR using alternate registered 'luser' accounts sockpuppets to do the job will also, & Lumpy is LOADED with those & trolling - which doesn't matter: He PROVES he's all talk, no action (or skills, OR brains, lol))

    (You're all TALK, & NO action "CHUMPY!)

    * :)

    (You know it, I know it, & so does anyone reading AND laughing their asses off @ you now... lol!)

    APK

    P.S.=> Answer the question in the subject-line Lumpy - since you had to "eat your wrods" in the 1st link above flavored with your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH + the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat", lol...

    ... apk