
If you want to earn more, work less - shenanigoat
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170112-if-you-want-to-earn-more-work-less
======
laughfactory
Ever since graduating from college, I've adhered to one principle: I only work
for employers who either 1) value output, not seat time, or 2) who explicitly
require 40 hours a week (no more, no less; this can be an average over the
previous year). It's not because I'm not dedicated, or a high performer--in
fact, I'd argue my preferences are rooted in actually being a high performer.
I know that not much of additional value occurs beyond 40 hours, and I value
time beyond that 40 hour mark at an exponentially increasing premium.

So for me, I do a very solid, focused, and productive 40 hours and leave time
in life for everything else which matters: family, friends, hobbies, sleep.

I definitely have experienced the judgment of my peers for being so strict
about how I work. Even though I do great work, they frequently give me a hard
time for, apparently, not being dedicated enough. But isn't that a little
ridiculous? When you're an employee, even of a great employer, it's still just
a job. If, in that job, you cease to be an asset (no matter the quality of
your work, or the number of hours you put in), you will be reassigned or
terminated. To me it's idiotic to treat any job as being anything other than
that: a job. There's good, interesting jobs with lots of challenges and great
pay; there's really horrible jobs which are menial, micromanaged, abusive
bosses, with low pay. It's a continuum of jobs, but that's all they are: jobs.
It's almost like people are turning work into a religion. Or that there's a
belief that if you sacrifice your life, health, etc. for work that you are to
be honored and respected. But that's just masochistic.

Work to live, not the other way around.

~~~
Rainymood
Interesting perspective. I completely agree with most of your sentiments but I
just can't shake the feeling that this kind of attitude is much more difficult
for people who are non-knowledge workers with more labor intensive work (i.e.
cleaning etc).

~~~
shostack
It is absolutely more difficult. It is very easy to wax poetic about the types
of jobs one will and will not do when one has job security in the form of many
readily available, high-paying jobs. Most are not that lucky and in fact would
be grateful to work more hours because it might put them over the threshold to
full time and benefits for example.

Others like lawyers, are on a similar situation treadmill tied to hours
worked. It is often up or out at big firms, and going up always entails
working lots of billable hours. Work fewer hours, make less money and no great
future.

Ultimately, the path to success increasingly seems to be freeing yourself from
a single entity that controls your pay (i.e. Employer, single client or
customer, etc.). From there it is down to finding ways to scale your output
beyond your hourly constraint (you only have so many hours in a day you can
work, even for high pay) and ways to diversify income to reduce risk.

------
kristianc
The 'lights out at 10pm' thing at Dentsu has actually been tried before:
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWX6--sQtsA](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EWX6
--sQtsA)

I'm not sure how useful the Japanese comparison is, to be honest. Japan is so
ridiculously out of step with how the rest of the world does things (it's not
just the ridiculously long work hours, but the semi-compulsory socializing
with colleagues after work) that it probably doesn't tell you very much. Not
least because, having worked in a Japanese office, the working environment
becomes markedly more relaxed after 6pm anyway (there were beers at my place).

~~~
WWLink
This doesn't work in my office. The lights go off at 9pm and the few rare
times I've been there myself, the hard workers, self starters, and "getting
the job done" people that were still there, kept on working. In the dark. Half
the times, I was the first and only person to go hit the buttons to turn the
lights back on lol.

------
jmadsen
I have to say this piece is really quite ridiculous.

Japanese workers who work longer hours DO make more.

This is because no one cares (primarily) about worker productivity - they care
about being a "team player" & similar intangibles.

Most Japanese salaries are quite low at the beginning and for the early years,
but increase over time until at the last part of your career with the company
you are living nicely and prepared for retirement.

Team players are promoted. Non-team players are not.

So, for places _outside_ the Japanese corporate world the idea of less hours
== more pay may hold true, but in the situation they chose to highlight in the
story that is completely wrong. There, you make more over your career by "butt
in seat" time, and little else in most cases.

------
jagtesh
The article says Japanese salarymen work themselves to death. Then it says
their culture looks down upon people who leave early. Then it goes on to quote
an American study that working less hours pays more. Am I the only one seeing
the problem here?

~~~
coldtea
No, but there's a bigger problem than the mismatched cultural observations
made in support of the article's claim that people also miss.

Regardless whether the American experience in the US study applies to the
Japanese office, there's a point that remains: while those Japanese might not
get promoted or get fired for working less, it would still be better for them
to quit their career than work themselves to death.

------
ChuckMcM
From the article -- _" someone who puts in 70 hours doesn’t produce anything
more with those additional 14 hours"_

This was something I always wondered about at Google. Because you could eat
three meals a day there, shower, do your laundry, and nominally sleep[1] does
that make their employees that much more expensive than people with out the
extra perks?

[1] [http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-
truc...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-employee-lives-in-truck-in-
parking-lot-2015-10)

~~~
coldtea
Those extra percs are insignificant in cost compared to their salaries, that
they'd get anyway.

------
jaipilot747
For all it's outdatedness, Japan is changing (slowly) [1]. The government is
instituting new laws that give employees more free time to spend their money.
Though it is partially an economy reviving measure for the government, I
already see employers setting (sane) hard limits on overtime and pushing
employees to use 100% of their paid leave. (Most employees use paid leave very
minimally because they don't want to "cause trouble" to their fellow employees
who have to cover for them working while they are on leave)

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-three-
day...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-three-day-weekend-
company-yahoo-japan-corp-overtime-hours-overwork-dentsu-
mintsubishi-a7526101.html)

------
shoefly
Work smart not hard. Automate everything you can automate. I do this and I
routinely finish projects 30% faster than my peers. Another plus is that
automation results in less human error.

------
aaronhoffman
Is their only evidence one line about how people who make more also take more
vacation? Correlation != Causation

~~~
coldtea
No, but lack of correlation does prove no causation.

So if "more vacation" is not correlated with earning less, one might as well
take it.

------
RichardHeart
That's great advice. Everyone release a company wide memo with that text. /s

