So, apparently I can't work more than 40 hours a week...

[CA Coins]

Having worked 400+ hours/month for an entire year, I can say from experience that you lose a part of your soul when you work too much.  I can see that you're young and anxious, but just be glad if you're paid 1.5 times for overtime. If you need the money and don't care for overtime, go get a second job.  Outside of a few regulated professions (like airline pilots, etc), nobody is preventing you from working two jobs.

Why did you do this?

Had to.  I was salaried, but I work in the medical field in the US.  Even then, I am glad I am not a factory worker in China. 

[1714927318]

1714927318

[1714927318]

1714927318

[1714927318]

1714927318

[benjamindees]

Wealth is not zero-sum.

This is only true in the absence of negative externalities.  Unfortunately, force and fraud comprise the vast majority of the economy at this point.

Let's put it this way, if your parents died suddenly and you had everything they now own, would you still want to work 80 hrs/wk ?  What reasonable amount of your time would you then want to spend stocking shelves at Wal-Mart?

[JoelKatz]

Anyone is free to waste their life as they deem fit, but one should not be surprised if the society is trying to do something about it.

I honestly can't parse this. How can you say that people are free to do something that is illegal? Surely making something illegal deprives people of the freedom to do it. As for being surprised when society tramples on individual freedoms, sure, most people have long since stopped being surprised by it.

While it can be a bit unfortunate that law does not differentiate between people who work overtime voluntarily and these who are exploited, such limits can be easily sidestepped by self-employment, or by silent agreement with employer (as in case of software enterprises).

The law isn't about people who are exploited. That doesn't even make sense. The law is about stopping people who want to work more hours from doing so as that, the thinking goes, would create competitive pressures on others that would make them want to work more hours to be more competitive. (And, as I argued upthread, that 'logic' is broken anyway.) It is already illegal for an employer to compel an employee to work.

[bb113]

Having worked 400+ hours/month for an entire year, I can say from experience that you lose a part of your soul when you work too much.  I can see that you're young and anxious, but just be glad if you're paid 1.5 times for overtime. If you need the money and don't care for overtime, go get a second job.  Outside of a few regulated professions (like airline pilots, etc), nobody is preventing you from working two jobs.

Why did you do this?

Had to.  I was salaried, but I work in the medical field in the US.  Even then, I am glad I am not a factory worker in China.  

I meant: why would you choose/stick with a job like that for so long?

Med school?

[CA Coins]

yap, surgical residency

[RodeoX]

yap, surgical residency

Ouch. I have always thought the ordeal of residency was weird. Why do we do that? It surely has a deleterious effect on patient outcomes.

[CA Coins]

I actually don't think it negatively affects outcomes that much.  I personally would rather have my doctor (who may be tired), who knows my condition the best, take care of me than someone else who is on shift-work or don't really care. The latest studies also don't show the recent reductions in resident work-hours improve patient outcomes.  But I agree, the system has to change.  We have to find a better way to train physicians and take care of patients.

I, for one, are all for getting more sleep  

[neptop]

If you want to work more, work in your free time

[Rassah]

If you want to work more, work in your free time

Lol! What's that? (Time spent trolling forums is NOT "free time")

[rini17]

Anyone is free to waste their life as they deem fit, but one should not be surprised if the society is trying to do something about it.

I honestly can't parse this. How can you say that people are free to do something that is illegal? Surely making something illegal deprives people of the freedom to do it. As for being surprised when society tramples on individual freedoms, sure, most people have long since stopped being surprised by it.

But I was not meaning it in the legal sense at all! I wrote it in the context of the "regrets of the dying" article - that there are things more worthy to pursue in life than mere work. Besides, law is only very rough approximation of it.

While it can be a bit unfortunate that law does not differentiate between people who work overtime voluntarily and these who are exploited, such limits can be easily sidestepped by self-employment, or by silent agreement with employer (as in case of software enterprises).

The law isn't about people who are exploited. That doesn't even make sense. The law is about stopping people who want to work more hours from doing so as that, the thinking goes, would create competitive pressures on others that would make them want to work more hours to be more competitive. (And, as I argued upthread, that 'logic' is broken anyway.) It is already illegal for an employer to compel an employee to work.

How do you mean that exploitation makes no sense to you? Ever heard of "EA spouse" scandal? Do you really think so many programmers work so long hours for some rational(-ish) reason, like because they have to compete with someone? And if the law was repealed you really think it would positively affect them?

[phr0stbyt3]

Work at two different Walmarts.

Problem solved.

You're welcome.

This.

[Explodicle]

My employer lets me work all the overtime I want... I just don't get paid for it.

It's amazing how much people will allow themselves to be de facto enslaved by a job, and then have a million excuses for why they can't grow a spine and say "enough". Fuck. That. I'm confident enough in my abilities not to sell myself short. So many of my colleagues work for "free" after their 40 because of fear and know what - they still haven't replaced me with some workaholic boogeyman. Quality > quantity.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.... And yes, I have worked in the real world for years.

[JoelKatz]

How do you mean that exploitation makes no sense to you? Ever heard of "EA spouse" scandal? Do you really think so many programmers work so long hours for some rational(-ish) reason, like because they have to compete with someone? And if the law was repealed you really think it would positively affect them?

I find it much easier to believe that programmers were working for a rational reason then I do that so many programmers were irrational. It's very easy to think that you know what's good for someone better than they do, but you're almost always wrong.

[stochastic]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you.

I see no problem with this.

I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem.

That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

Do you think people have a right to get together with other workers and refuse to work unless they are paid 1.5 times more for working over 40 hours a week?

[Jon]

It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.

Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.

Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you.

I see no problem with this.

I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem.

That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.

I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours?

Do you think people have a right to get together with other workers and refuse to work unless they are paid 1.5 times more for working over 40 hours a week?

I don't know how you could stop people from doing so -- short of slavery. The "right" to unionize is inherent.

What isn't, is the "right" to force people into unions in addition to forcing all people to support the unions through government force. That is not something I agree with.

If people wish to compete with union labor for lower wages, I believe they should do so.

[stochastic]

I don't know how you could stop people from doing so -- short of slavery. The "right" to unionize is inherent.

What isn't, is the "right" to force people into unions in addition to forcing all people to support the unions through government force. That is not something I agree with.

If people wish to compete with union labor for lower wages, I believe they should do so.

So it is OK for people to assemble to threaten their employeer with not working if the employer refuses to pay the whole group 1.5 times pay for working over 40 hours a week, but the workers cannot threaten to stop working if the employer does not agree to only hire people that join the workers group?

Who is going to enforce your rule?

[rini17]

I find it much easier to believe that programmers were working for a rational reason then I do that so many programmers were irrational. It's very easy to think that you know what's good for someone better than they do, but you're almost always wrong.

Easier to believe != always right Plus, I am not implying that I think I know these people. I supported my opinion with some evidence that:

* many dying people regret their decision to work so much

* many programmers, despite being smart and in quite high demand, succumb to lifestyle that severely hurts their families, without getting anything tangible in return (so much for rationality, eh?).

You did not say a word whether you agree with these facts, or what do you think about them...

[Brunic]

It's because that working too much lower the value of the work you create. Only stupid/short-term/badly managed business are happy to overwork their employees regularly.

Having free time to think, study, discover and experiment helps you grow as a person. The more you are developed physically and mentally, the better you can add value to your work. If your persona stay small and undeveloped, yeah, you can work more hours, but these hours have less value for you over time.

A business owner who works its employees for 60 hours every week will make his profit with the difference between the output of his employees work, and the value as a human being of those employees. If your t-shirt is made in China, it's because the human being there have less value than the human being here. So, they're paid accordingly, and business owners profit from the difference.

A great business owner will let his employees grow their persona, so he can profit from the high value work those employees produce. Sure, those guys cost more, but they output more value in return.

The dogma of "you need to work hard" is half-crap created by factory managers who want to get the more juice they can from employees until they're dried enough to get fired. It's missing the part where you need to think before you work. Think, envision, plan and when you're ready, you go work hard. You stop, evaluate your work, rethink it, try something new, and you start working hard again. If somebody is doing the thinking part for you, you're not better than a slave with good living conditions.

Don't forget where "Arbeit Macht Frei" was written and for who.

[Jon]

I find it much easier to believe that programmers were working for a rational reason then I do that so many programmers were irrational. It's very easy to think that you know what's good for someone better than they do, but you're almost always wrong.

Easier to believe != always right Plus, I am not implying that I think I know these people. I supported my opinion with some evidence that:

* many dying people regret their decision to work so much

* many programmers, despite being smart and in quite high demand, succumb to lifestyle that severely hurts their families, without getting anything tangible in return (so much for rationality, eh?).

You did not say a word whether you agree with these facts, or what do you think about them...

So, should somebody make the decision on how to run their lives for them? You know what's better for these people? Should they be parented?

[Jon]

I don't know how you could stop people from doing so -- short of slavery. The "right" to unionize is inherent.

What isn't, is the "right" to force people into unions in addition to forcing all people to support the unions through government force. That is not something I agree with.

If people wish to compete with union labor for lower wages, I believe they should do so.

So it is OK for people to assemble to threaten their employeer with not working if the employer refuses to pay the whole group 1.5 times pay for working over 40 hours a week, but the workers cannot threaten to stop working if the employer does not agree to only hire people that join the workers group?

Who is going to enforce your rule?

Oh, they can threaten to stop working but they will likely get a pink slip because if their terms are too high, the employer would get nothing out of only hiring union workers.

The individual, self-interest enforces my ideal rule. If individuals desire to work for less, in addition to being more numerous than union labor, why should they be denied employment? Why should they be denied a situation better than they have now because fewer union workers desire a higher wage?