
Research does not say that people produce more when working 40 hours per week - barry-cotter
https://metarabbit.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/no-research-does-not-say-that-you-produce-more-when-working-40-hours-per-week/?utm_content=buffer58356&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
veidr
TL;DR: you _can_ get more done if you work 60 hours instead of 40 hours in a
week, but the work done in that extra 20 hours might be a small fraction of
what gets done in 20 hours during a 40 hour week.

This is self-evidently true for many jobs. E.g., if you pick apples for 40
hours, then even if you only pick one apple per hour after that, you will
still pick more apples working 50 hours than 40.

We software developers, though, have an additional consideration: creating
software _bugs_ which can (easily) push the productivity of a given period of
time into the negative, sometimes deeply.

In my apple-picker example above, this would be like the tired picker driving
the loaded apple truck off a cliff, destroying all the apples picked in the
first 59 hours of the 60 hour work week (along with the expensive truck).

That example is contrived and unconvincing for the apple picker case, though;
nobody makes their tired apple pickers drive the apple trucks back via
treacherous mountain roads after a hard day of work.

That's not the case for software development, however; looking at my own 20+
years of professional software development through the lens of an extremely
rigorous scientific n=1 anecdatal analysis (which undoubtedly _thrills_ the OP
hehe), in my own career probably 75% of the negative productivity caused by
bugs I've created was the direct result of code I wrote while trying to work
more hours than I should.

I suspect this holds true for other programmers as well.

~~~
jonas21
I think you might be missing the author's last point which is that in a
competitive field, even a small increase in output can lead to a large
increase in payoff.

In his example of getting research funding, it's a step function: either you
get funded (y=1) or you don't (y=0), and because you're competing with others,
even a small output increase can take you from the 0 side to the 1 side.

~~~
the_cat_kittles
i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic
productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems
like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm
actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make
the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less
productive, and marginal improvement to the product is negligible in every day
terms, we ought to mitigate that somehow, unless its something people are
doing because they love it.

~~~
ryandrake
Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning
all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro
level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while
everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between.

What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What
causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in some areas of the
economy but not others? In many industries, multiple competitors can exist
with stability and split market share, and in others, having multiple
competitors leads to a blood bath where only one can survive, winning it all.

~~~
WalterBright
> Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism?

Hardly. The history of capitalism shows that absent government intervention to
prop up companies, they rise and fall. When I started out, everyone was
a-feared that IBM would inevitably take over the world. Then Microsoft
dethroned them, and Microsoft was going to take over the world. Then Apple
dethroned Microsoft. And on it goes.

There was Sears that dominated retail. Then Walmart shoved them aside. Now
Amazon stepped all over Walmart.

See "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Christensen for a book full of examples.

~~~
bitwize
Isn't Christensen one of those thought leaders who are paid by megacorps to
spread Gramscian false consciousness and make the masses think capitalism
really isn't so bad?

~~~
valuearb
Yes, facts don't matter, only the political pedigree of the person relating
them.

~~~
WalterBright
I prefer to read books where the author tries to prove me wrong. Books that
agree with me are boring :-)

------
AndrewKemendo
I love how things like the 40 hour work week with two days off get enshrined
as some kind of natural phenomenon that has always been with us.

40 hours is an arbitrary number that came from trade unionists demanding fair
hours and Robert Owen's slogan:

“Eight hours labour, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.”

I mean those two things: 8 hour work day and 8 hours of sleep have been
considered to be the biological/natural requirements, when the research isn't
there for it at all.

The reality is, some people can work for 100 hours while others can only work
for 20 hours per week without without losing productivity.

This is why I'm sick of this stupid trope that nobody should be working 80
hour weeks. Guess what, I want to, that's how my body works, why are you
trying to stop me from doing that? When I was in the military I would work 12
hour days every day and my co-workers would complain because I was "making
them look bad" that they only worked 8-10. What? Go home if you want.

The kind of person you are should push you into those types of roles - not the
other way around. A 20 hour a week capable person isn't going to last very
long in a 100 hour a week job, and they shouldn't be going out for it.

I think the major contention though is that you can't realistically succeed
and live comfortably anymore as just a 40 hour a week person, because all of
those jobs are gone. So inevitably 20 hour a week people, get put into 60 hour
a week jobs and then say the whole system is screwed up (maybe it is, I
dunno).

~~~
dheera
It's actually flawed because there are other things that need to be done in a
week besides work, recreation, and rest. For example:

\- eating: 12-15 hours/week

\- making food (or travelling to get food): 7-10 hours/week

\- showering, shaving, grooming: 4-7 hours/week

\- laundry, cleaning, house chores: 2-4 hours/week

\- commuting: 5-10 hours/week

\- waiting in line (checkout lines, customer service reps,
Comcast/DMV/insurance, etc.): 2-3 hours/week

And that's for me, and I'm single. If I had children, add to that:

\- taking care of children: 15-20 hours/week

None of the above counts as work, rest, or recreation. If work stays at 8
hours, that leaves very little time for rest and recreation.

Cutting rest beyond that is physically unhealthy.

Cutting recreation beyond that is both mentally unhealthy AND physically
unhealthy (I get all my exercise in my recreation time).

~~~
tbrake
I believe those were accounted for in those times with the notion of a stay-
at-home spouse (in reality, read: wife) who did most if not all of that non-
job work; food purchase/prep, laundry, chores, children, etc.

~~~
belorn
Correct, which kind of begs the question, why have the work hours not gone
down when society started employing both men and women?

~~~
toasterlovin
Because households basically use all extra income to bid up the cost of real
estate in neighborhoods with "better" schools. So if every household has both
parents working, then no household is the better off for it. And single parent
households are well and truly fucked.

------
dheera
I wonder how they got this curve. A lot of things can be sustained for 1 week
cannot be sustained in the long term. I'd say in the long term:

* 140-168 hours/week --> almost certain death.

* 100-140 hours/week --> at risk of cardiovascular disease and many other serious medical conditions. Possible early death.

* 80-100 hours/week --> still super-bad for your body. Forget raising children, dating, getting married, or even making friends. You won't have time for any of those. Expect clinical depression.

* 60-80 hours/week --> you might be able to have meals with friends but forget having a life, hobbies, or anything outside of work. Expect depression and overall culture of unhappiness.

* 50-60 hours/week --> sustainable but not really fun. You can't join family or friends for dinner. Expect talented employees to leave because they'll find something that they enjoy more than being in your company.

* 40-50 hours --> reasonable level for long-term sustainability and retention

~~~
hello_newman
If this is your perception of an hourly break down, that's fine. But just
because you think working 100 hours a week results in "Possible early death"
doesn't mean it's like that for other people.

For example, in your chart, I'm currently in the 60-80 hour a week range,
split between a full time job and a side hustle. Personally, I've never been
happier, I have a life outside of work, a beautiful girlfriend, time to meet
with friends, etc.

It's just, I don't spend 5+ hours a day when i get home from work watching
Netflix or fucking around on the weekends. Don't equate hustling with
depression, unless you're just looking for an excuse to justify why you don't
want to work harder.

~~~
dahart
Your side project does not count. You are working 40 hours a week, which makes
your high horse comment about watching Netflix and not wanting to work harder
sound pretty bad.

It's very easy to work on a side project, or side hustle, or whatever you want
to call it. I don't doubt that you're happier. Making things yourself is
fulfilling and fun. But that is your free time & your social life. That is
your choice, not your day job. You are misunderstanding what the 40 hours per
week concept is all about.

The parent comment is correct; working 100 hours a week for someone else, for
extended periods, is possible early death. That's not an exaggeration, it will
compromise a person's health if done for long periods of time. It is
definitely like that for many, many people. Have you ever worked more than 40
for a single job? How about 60/80/100 for longer than a week? Do you know what
100 hours at one job feels like?

If you have a life outside of your job and 20-40 hrs/wk side project, with
time to meet friends, you might be working less than you think. A real 80 hour
week is hard to maintain without any social life, it's enough time for meals
an maybe an hour of social or alone time per day, and not much else. 80
hours/week is 11.5 hours per day, 7 days a week, on average, sustained. Factor
in eating, sleeping, bathing and travel to & from work, and you have _maybe_
10 hours left. If you exercise, you're probably down to 5 hours of free time
for the week. If you try to drive anywhere in those 5 hours, you'll run out of
time before you get there, activities very close to home are the only sane
option. At 100 hours a week, you only have time to work, eat, and sleep, there
is physically no time left for anything else.

An employer of mine measured how many hours people worked during crunch, and
found that almost everyone in the studio overestimated their own hours. I
overestimated my own hours, and I've worked a real 80 hours a week multiple
times before. It's not fun, and I did not have time for a social life. It's
not maintainable for long periods, at 80 hours a week you're trading your
entire life for your salary, it's not a good deal.

~~~
dheera
Agree with dahart. Among the things I typically do on nights and weekends:

\- Travel to national parks and state parks. Exercise during the day, do
photography at sunrise, sunset, and at night

\- Build funny robots at home that don't do anything useful but I learn a lot
from. Through that I have also gained some ideas for potentially useful robots
that I might hack at later that are orthogonal to the robots I'm working on
for work

\- About 4 software projects I have going, not intending to commercialize, but
maybe release into FOSS if they materialize into something useful

\- Learn to cook new dishes, especially healthy ones, so I can eat less
unhealthy crap outside. Visit farmer's markets to get better-quality
ingredients and support local economy

\- Practice piano. Occasionally perform locally at meetups and things

\- Review things that I spent years learning during my undergrad and PhD that
I wish to not forget, for the sake of my future (e.g. quantum mechanics,
quantum computing, quantum communication, signal processing, CS). Occasionally
re-take past final exams or homework assignments to make sure I don't lose my
skills.

\- Learn new stuff online, watch lectures, read recent academic papers.

I don't have time for Netflix, and don't have too much time to socialize
without purpose (although some of the above things I do with friends).

------
endorphone
We need to delineate manual, low-effort work from mental exercise. I can
perform manual work virtually unendingly, but have a very finite ability to do
mental exercises before mental exhaustion or simple boredom/distraction
undermines the work. Individuals will differ, but data for manual work has no
application to research, software development, etc.

Having said that, there is shockingly little research or proof for any
position, and if there was it can never be generalized to all people.

~~~
combatentropy
Yes, I've thought the same thing. Wasn't 40 hours mainly about factories and
coal mines --- though 40 hours in a mine would also be exhausting. But I think
you meant something like a barista.

To my bosses and other non-programmers, I try to describe programming as doing
math problems all day. I wonder what the history of hours is for clerks,
architects, and other jobs more like ours.

I feel like I would be less tired if I just worked trouble tickets all day.
Actually, writing a program too would be easier if that's all I did. Instead,
I switch among writing a few different programs, working tickets, and the
normal bureaucracy of emails, meetings, required training, etc.

~~~
JBlue42
Being a barista can be exhausting at fast-paced place. Not as hard or deadly
as coal mining, of course.

I work with architects. They work as much as they want to but are paid salary.
The minority walk out of the office after their 8 hours is up but many work
late into the night and on weekends. They say it's their "industry standard"
but, from my observations, it's a) lack of boundaries and b) poor project/time
management.

Not to mention the amount of time studying to take their many exams to become
licensed.

------
dahart
> the point of productivity inflection is just about 40 hours per week

To me, that does seem to support the claim “research shows that 40 hours per
week is the best”. I don't know who's claiming that overall output goes down
the minute you hit 40, that's obviously exaggerated, so why take it so
seriously? There's strong evidence that productivity starts to decline
somewhere around 40ish, and it obviously varies by individual and situation.

I think the more common, and more correct claim is that 40-ish is optimal,
rather than anything above 40 is a negative return.

That bit of data he referenced is for munitions workers doing a low-skill
monotonous job - easy to measure productivity. Who would expect to produce
solid high quality thought output for 40 or 50 hours a week? I'd be surprised
if most academics & programers managed more than 15 hours of conceptual work
in a week, the rest we fill with coffee & lunch, browsing the web, talking to
people, and loads of other stuff that doesn't require much thinking.

The author's completely right about many of his points; this just isn't
clearly defined or unambiguously supported by data. There are obviously some
people out there rationalizing and mis-presenting the evidence in favor of a
40 hour work week. As with all studies, there are people who summarize
incorrectly and decide that weak evidence justifies a hard line decision. But
why get twisted over the worst arguments? Let's discuss the strongest
arguments instead.

Do we need data to support the idea that 8 hours is enough? Productivity is
only a tiny part of the equation, so this debate is academic. Why are we
obsessing over unmeasurable productivity and ignoring labor & poverty issues?
Do you need data to prove that when you work 12 hours a day, you physically
can't have much life outside of work? The idea of an 8 hour work day is meant
to work for _everyone_. It's guaranteed to be conservative, because it has to
be good enough for teenagers as well as people near retirement, for single
people as well as parents, for everyone.

------
sklivvz1971
Hogwash:

1\. Go read the linked article:
[http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8129.pdf)

2\. It's about munition line workers in 1920 UK during the war.

3\. The blog post claims generality based on this.

------
rajeshmr
I think the real problem is presentialism – people would likely contribute
more if they are provided with the flexibility of working according to their
body rhythms. Each human peaks at different hours of the day. And being in the
knowledge economy, it makes more sense to access these spikes of output by
providing flexibility.

40 or 50 or 60 hours, i believe that if we could just eliminate the
presentialism from our work life, build more trust with each other about being
honest with our work – i think the whole research into how many hours we need
to work will not even pop up. Everyone would be happy contributing their share
of work in return for a paycheck.

------
kbutler
This essay and most of the comments saying, "of course more work time yields
more work completed" ignore the fact that there is no magic reset to full
productivity Monday morning.

If you work every hour of week 1, your output of week 2 will be drastically
reduced. There is therefore some optimal balance between work time and
recovery time. It may be 40 hours, or 20, or 80. It probably varies between
tasks and individuals and situations.

Just don't fall into the trap of thinking that spending more time working is
necessarily going to be more effective.

Sometimes the best thing you can do to get the job done is to stop working on
it for a while.

~~~
majewsky
> Sometimes the best thing you can do to get the job done is to stop working
> on it for a while.

This. I like to have several side projects at once so I can switch to another
one when I'm stuck on the current one.

On the downside, this procedure made me question if I can actually work as a
programmer professionally, where I don't have the liberty to just leave any
task assigned to me lying around for a week (or a month). It worked out
nicely, though, since I found that I can get my train of thought unstuck by
discussing the problem with a colleague.

------
awinter-py
Article is focused on the academic world so doesn't talk about interruptions,
meetings, and quiet time.

If you work in an open-plan office the 10 hours you do at night, at home, and
on the wkend can be the most productive.

I've had months where I put out more real fires on a kayak, on vacation, than
at my desk; people bother you when you're at a desk but they can't get to you
on the water.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
All these things happen in academia. Nowadays, many people regularly work from
home for the quiet (I do 1 day a week from home).

------
johnmyers2
We work a 9/80 flex schedule. 44 hours one week, ,then 36 hours the next with
Friday off. So every other weekend we have a 3 day weekend, or 4 if there is a
holiday on Monday. Works great, moral increases, productivity increases. Its a
win, win.

------
ryanbrunner
One point I'll agree with is that a lot of times, people use the argument that
working 40 hours a week is actually the most efficient to mask their real
argument, which is socially unacceptable in today's business climate
(particulary tech):

People ought to have more to their lives than their jobs, and working 50, 60,
or more hours a week makes that difficult.

Personally, even if people had inexhaustible energy, I still would think it
would be wrong to spend more than a third of your day at work. It so happens
that it makes sense from an efficiency standpoint to, but I want people
working under me to be able to have hobbies, families, and something other
than their career.

------
adekok
Which says to me that the game development culture of "work 80 hours per week
for months on end" is largely about incompetent management, and/or deliberate
abuse. It's not about getting things done.

~~~
itsdrewmiller
I think you may have misunderstood the article - if anything this is an
argument for death marches.

~~~
Gibbon1
I wonder if the author being a student pushing for a European PhD[1] warps his
thinking about this. With a PhD all the reward is at the end. You either make
or break. None of the work you do has any tangible results outside of the end
goal.

Most work isn't like that. The rewards are continuous and ongoing. Meaning
every task has captured value. If a loan officer closes 19 loans this month
instead of 20, productivity is down 5%. BFD. Vs PhD student, complete 19 out
of 20 required classes, no PhD. You totally wasted a couple of years of your
life.

[1] Europeans historically are way more creditialist than Americans. Learning
something isn't very helpful unless there is a credential to go along with it.

~~~
majewsky
> None of the work you do has any tangible results outside of the end goal.

Depends on the field. From what I hear [citation needed], what you describe
generally holds true in the humanities.

In contrast, I have two friends who're submitting their PhD theses around now,
and they already have a ton of tangible results: They're required to publish
papers during the research period for their thesis. They got to speak at
conferences because of their published findings. They collaborated with other
researchers whom they met at these conferences. And that, again, fed back into
more papers and a better thesis. Even if they didn't get their PhD (which I'm
sure they will), they still have made a name for themselves in their
respective fields.

------
WalterBright
During WW2, the government wanted to increase production, so did some studies.
They found that a 60 hr week boosted production for a couple weeks, but then
it fell below what was produced by a 40 hr week.

The solution to a sustained increase in output was to do 60 hr weeks in
bursts, not continuously.

~~~
majewsky
"In bursts" as in "40 hours with the occasional 60-hour week" or "60-hour
weeks with weeks off in between"?

~~~
WalterBright
the former

------
WisNorCan
"If you are managing as a group, go for the average"

This is a point I strongly disagree with. Just the way some people need fewer
hours of sleep than others OR some people can run further than others. I have
found that people have vastly different ability to focus and personal drive.

Orienting around averages is a terrible way to develop a team and people. It
also demotivates people that want to work harder and they end up leaving.
Instead of setting an average, create an environment where people can push
harder if they want to AND get incremental rewards.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
OP here.

I agree and my phrasing may not have been exact. I meant that if you need to
pick a number for a whole group of people, then you look at the average.

This can be in the context of industrial production where you have thousands
of workers and are forced to have fixed shifts (because you cannot run the
assembly line without all the stations filled).

Or, in more modern example, a public sector bureaucracy where you cannot be
very flexible as these things are negotiated with a union as whole.

------
jimnotgym
A bit surprised not to see a reference to Henry Ford. I thought he was the
father of the 40 hour work week? He did include in his thinking the idea that
more leisure time would allow workers more time to enjoy his cars, but IIRC
the basis of the change was not social, but productivity, and based on his own
studies.

~~~
pessimizer
The 40-hour workweek was conceived of and fought for by many socialists and
labor activists over many years. What can be said for Ford is that they
instituted it without being forced to (by strike or law), but it was nearly 50
years after it had been instituted for federal employees (and 2 years after it
was a part of FDR's platform.)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
hour_day#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-
hour_day#United_States)

~~~
jimnotgym
I wonder which had the biggest effect on its widespread adoption, Ford on the
unions. I'm sure I read that once Ford did it, it became almost _fasionable_
in the factory owning classes!

------
jxub
As an interesting remark, I still find myself quite productive working 50
hours a week thanks to context switches from working in 2 different languages
at my jobs (node and python), and in different areas (data engineering and
backend)

------
slaymaker1907
I think the key thing for me is that maybe I produce more one week, but
working 60+ hours is going to make me useless the following week.

------
mcv
When I read the title, I thought: if there's no evidence that people produce
more when working 40 hours, why would we work 40 hours? Let's work less!

I didn't expect anyone to argue for working more than 40 hours. But then
again, I don't live in the US.

------
heisenbit
Ability to perform is in part a function of age which the article leaves out
completely. 40h/week is doable for most but there are plenty of posts by more
experienced developers here who have said they strictly limit hours or report
that when they were younger they were able to perform longer.

There is also the question of sustainability. Not only health wise but also
the social system around one gets impacted imho. somewhere beyond 45-50h. More
work directed output may well be possible but at the cost of weakening the
support system and with that increased risk in times of crisis.

I'm willing to discuss this more in depth with the author once he's got a few
grey hairs.

------
rb808
Does this include side projects? ie if you work 10 hours/week on a side
project you shouldn't work more than 30 in your job.

Maybe employers should be able to ban side projects for this reason.

~~~
walshemj
Given the source of employment law is the masters and servants act I think you
might find that employers can veto outside work certainly getting permission
for out side work is often required by contract.

------
lstroud
The question is how long you can maintain a pace (hours worked) before that
pace begins to impact performance. Usain Bolt can't run his 100m pace for the
duration of a 400m race.

------
watwut
The study I have seen claimed that 40-50 hours long term have same output and
then it goes down.

The studies on game development teams found that crunch raise productivity of
short (don't recall if 3 or 6 weeks) and productivity goes down only after.

This article does not seem to adress concrete studies nor their results - it
just generally theorise about what might be wrong about them without knowing
what is on them.

~~~
luispedrocoelho
OP here.

Do you have a citation? The post is mostly to address this constant claims
that 40 hours is proven by science and no convincing citations are provided.

I am also writing in the context of self-managing knowledge workers who can
manage their own time. I explicitly write that the flexibility we have may
mitigate many of the downsides observed in mandated long hours. For example, I
do work >40 hours, but I rarely have to wake up with an alarm clock. I can
follow the occasional 16 hour day with a 10 hour sleep cycle and stroll into
work at lunch time the next day feeling pretty relaxed.

------
freeduck
What a strange article, his first issue: "I am happy to be contradicted with
data, but too often I see this issue being discussed with links to web
articles citing other web articles, finally citing studies which suffer from
the issues listed below. Maximum output at work is traded off" while he him
self does not cite a single scientific article

~~~
luispedrocoelho
I do cite one study, but burden of proof of producing citations is on people
claiming that "science shows". I never claim that.

In fact, I found few scientific articles on the subject and the few that I did
find were not relevant (for some of the reasons in the text).

------
mempko
Productivity is the greatest source of waste.

------
logingone
At my last job I probably did 20 hours of work a week due to the awful
environment. I started burning out from frustration. I'm not convinced the
number of hours is as important as the suitability of the environment.

------
launchtomorrow
No one seems to have mentioned the value of the work done. Like market value
or impact. The quantity of work is kind of a distraction, and focusing on it
implicitly says that presentalism is ok. Which is not true.

------
divenorth
I think we should be looking at efficiency. If we can find a way to maximize
the tradeoff between productivity and hours worked it would greatly benefit
employers and employees.

~~~
autokad
i think the author did a pretty good job at looking at the tradeoffs.

in a lot of ways, some businesses are already trying to take advantage of both
options by using a mix of contractors/consultants and full time employees.

~~~
divenorth
I guess my opinion is that we should all be working less and earning a living
wage. I feel that's the trend that must happen with all the automation taking
place. And welcome UBI.

------
ninjakeyboard
40 hours is good for me for "you must do work" but lots of times when I'm
working on projects I find interesting I'm just inspired to work on the
project.

------
debbiedowner
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Pu_JuPILw&t=2m45s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Pu_JuPILw&t=2m45s)

------
spamizbad
On a phone so I can't really crunch the raw data, but looking at that chart
example, Is the difference between 48 hours and 60 statistically significant?

------
jbmorgado
This title is very odd, I suggest an edit: Research is unable to prove that
working more than 40 hours a week increases productivity.

~~~
tobych
Yes, coming from the UK, where my hours in academia were 37.5/week, I was
surprised to learn (from my incorrect interpretation of the title) that those
2.5 hours/week I work here in the US were pointless.

~~~
walshemj
I had one boss who had worked in the valley and the uk he said he got no more
work out of the USA teams who worked longer hours and much less leave than he
did in the UK where we where on civil service terms

------
GoldDust
40 hours per week is detrimental to the health as well, especially if you
don't take breaks where you exercise vigorously. I've seen research that
showed a 4% reduction in lifespan for people that worked 45 hours versus 40.
I'll look for it and be back with more details.

