Why you and I will never have a 15 hour work week

First published on
tldr: time to market.

Recently Keynes' prediction of a 15 hour work week has resurfaced in discussions ranging from automation to basic income. Why exactly do we still work 40+ hours? I've seen many reasons*, but I'd like to focus on something I missed in all the articles and comments: time to market. Companies need their creative employees to deliver at peak performance to achieve the fastest time to market. How can they invent & ship their products as soon as possible? Sticking to a small, stable team that works about 40 hours per week per person.

There are two reasons for this:
  1. In creative professions the individuals are not easily interchangeable. You can have a different bricklayer continue your part of a wall the next day, getting another programmer to continue your piece of code is much more difficult. The same people have to work on a project for sustained periods of time.
  2. In the last century it has been demonstrated that you get most out of employees when they work close to 40 hours per week.

So in conclusion: I don't think that innovating companies that want to stay competitive will ever let their creative people have a 15 hour work week. Nothing stops the employees from retiring at 40 though ;)

discuss on HN


* These are the reasons I've seen:

  • Wealth inequality: the top X % are reaping the benefits, the rest don't have the wealth to work less
  • Work as leisure: people enjoy work more than their free time
  • Bullsh*t jobs: we invent unimportant work to keep busy
  • Consumerism: we want more and higher quality things

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Security Is Our Top Priority" is BS

First published on
A couple of years ago I was asked to give a conference talk about software security. Well, actually I wasn't really asked, my company bought a sponsorship package with a speaker slot and I replied to the internal email asking for volunteers  🤣  Anyway, while preparing my talk, I realized a couple of important points about security that have not left my mind since: Security is limitless . You can always spend more effort to make things more secure. The same goes for quality, safety, employee happiness, etc. The needs of security are opposed to the needs of a convenient user experience . Improving one typically hurts the other. Now some organizations say "Security is our #1 priority". Really? You want to make something that has no limits your number one priority? I mean security is a good thing, but this seems a bit too simple? In fact, hollow marketing claims like that can make me a bit angry. In this post I'll help you understand what to make of statements like that
Read more

AI programming tools should be added to the Joel Test

First published on
Here's a wake-up call to all CTOs: AI programming tools are getting freaking amazing and if you don't allow your teams to use them somehow, it will bite you in the ass in a couple of years. You will be slower and you will lose your best people. The infamous Joel Test is a list from the year 2000 of 12 things all great software companies do. Since then most companies have implemented Git and CI/CD, checking of three items, so we have some space left in the 2024 update ;) I believe "Do you allow your developers to use AI assisted development environments?" is a necessary addition. I get that you don't want your source code to end up on some OpenAI / Microsoft / Github server somewhere, sure, but find a way to use your own models or learn to live with it. Note that this is often not the same as "#9 - Do you use the best tools money can buy?" as blocking AI tools is about data security, not money. So why do I think developers need AI programming tools? I&#
Read more

The unreasonable effectiveness of i3, or: ten years of a boring desktop environment

First published on
Image
My wife uses Windows and over the years I've helped her move things to new systems. Win8, 10 and now 11. With every upgrade the UI changes. Now I can't right click the bottom right corner anymore to open Task Manager. The UI feels "fresh" and up-to-date I guess, but does it really matter? My desktop has looked like this since 2008. I love the picture of the gearbox, it's a testament to the hidden precision engineering that goes on inside the built world all the time. I don't see much of the gearbox though, because most of the time my screens look like this: The environment around my background picture has changed a little more, but has been stable for the last 10 years. My experience is very different to my wife's constantly changing system. In 2009 I moved from Windows to Ubuntu, then to Debian using Gnome. Then finally to i3 in 2013 after a brief affair with XMonad in 2012. So by now in early 2024, I've had the same minimal UI for more than 10 years,
Read more