Florian_Dietz comments on question: the 40 hour work week vs Silicon Valley? - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Florian_Dietz 24 October 2014 12:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (107)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Salemicus 24 October 2014 03:17:50PM 2 points [-]

But that's why I emphasised that Silicon Valley is full of startups, where there aren't risk-averse middle-managers trying to signal conformance to the prevailing attitude. Note too that there have been a wide variety of idiosyncratic founders. And because of the high turnover and survivorship bias, the startups we see today are biased towards the most long-term productive compared to all of those set up. Yet those companies behave in the exact opposite way to what your theory would predict.

If shorter work-weeks really are more productive, why don't we see successful companies using them? Your explanation makes sense in terms of a government bureaucracy; much less so in a startup hub.

Comment author: Florian_Dietz 24 October 2014 04:15:54PM 2 points [-]

That's what I'm asking you!

This isn't my theory. This is a theory that has been around for a hundred years and that practically every industry follows, apparently with great success. From what I have read, the 40 hour work week was not invented by the workers, but by the companies themselves, who realized that working people too hard drives down their output and that 40 hours per week is the sweet spot, according to productivity studies.

Then along comes silicon valley, with a completely different philosophy, and somehow that also works. I have no idea why, and that's what I made this thread to ask.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 October 2014 04:49:29PM 8 points [-]

This is a theory that has been around for a hundred years

Do note that a hundred years ago workers performed mostly physical labor and estimates of physical endurance do not have to be similar to estimates of mental endurance.

Comment author: Salemicus 24 October 2014 04:39:33PM *  4 points [-]

practically every industry follows, apparently with great success

But Silicon Valley doesn't have a completely different philosophy from similar professions. Do doctors, lawyers, financiers, small businessmen, etc, typically work only 40 hours? To suggest it is to laugh. If anything, they work longer hours than software engineers. The 40-hour week you're talking about is a norm among factory workers, which is an entirely different type of labour.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 October 2014 04:54:47PM 1 point [-]

Silicon Valley also provides the opportunity for frequent fun breaks -- google Google (that is, search on the 'net for images of Google offices :-D).

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 28 October 2014 08:34:08AM *  2 points [-]

From what I have read, the 40 hour work week was not invented by the workers, but by the companies themselves.

Ok, I think it's becoming increasingly obvious you don't know how the 40 hour work week came to be, country by country. There were huge worker movements for decreasing the work hours. Many countries achieved these working conditions only eventually and by getting an appropriate labor reform law passed. And the stories behind such laws differed vastly depending on the country.


So I am forced to ask -- what is it that you have been reading? Can you link it?

Comment author: Azathoth123 25 October 2014 11:20:37PM 0 points [-]

From what I have read, the 40 hour work week was not invented by the workers, but by the companies themselves, who realized that working people too hard drives down their output and that 40 hours per week is the sweet spot, according to productivity studies.

So why is industrial production being relocated to countries without 40 hour work week laws?

Comment author: Protagoras 26 October 2014 12:29:50AM 1 point [-]

Because those countries also have lower labor costs, so executives can report that they're saving money on labor costs and their company's stock will go up. More cynically, international operations require more management (to keep on top of shipping issues and deal with different government circumstances in the different countries where operations are going on), and the managers who make such decisions may approve of an outcome where more is spent on management and less on labor. Most of the research I've heard of suggests that it is not because such relocations are overall more profitable; that's very rarely the case.

Comment author: Azathoth123 26 October 2014 01:39:42AM -1 points [-]

Except that the products made in these countries are in fact cheaper.