It sucks.

[MRT144]

i need a second job

[DanS]

Say all you want about "work to live, not live to work," but all of the blue chip people who I have worked with spend more than 40 hours a week at work. I don't believe this to be a coincidence. You need to be hungry in order to be sharp.

My boss puts in 100+ hour weeks routinely. She is as sharp as a knife.

DanS might have more info but I think he works for State.

I work in the private sector. Lately, I have been putting in 80 hour work weeks. I don't like doing so. I could do 50-60 hours routinely without too much pain, however. Well maybe 50+ without too much pain.

[MRT144]

then again dan, its all about what you want to get out of life. if work and the rewards of intensive white collar work is what drives you, then yay.

i think a lot of people, myself included look at th at lifestyle and shutter at the thought of making loot hand over fist and not having the time to enjoy it (like my dad who is a tech/sales rep at oracle). its really the unending thirst of the consumption beast when youre at that level.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DanS
Say all you want about "work to live, not live to work," but all of the blue chip people who I have worked with spend more than 40 hours a week at work. I don't believe this to be a coincidence. You need to be hungry in order to be sharp.

My boss puts in 100+ hour weeks routinely. She is as sharp as a knife.

I agree it's not a coincidence, but you can be sharp without being at a blue chip company or working excessive hours.

Also, at face value, I would argue that if you are worth a lot per hour you have more incentive to work those hours now. If you are earning $6 an hour you are not going to want to work that extra hour or two unless you really need that $6-$12. If you are earning $100 an hour, that extra hour or twos work seems a lot more worthwhile. Of course an economist can tell me why I am wrong....

[Jon Miller]

I get less tahn 20k a year.

JM

[DanS]

Point of clarification: When I write a "blue chip person," I do not mean that they work at a blue chip company. Rather, I mean somebody who is highly effective at what they do. Somebody who sticks out as of higher quality versus the rest. As a practical matter, I wonder whether anybody who works 37.5 hours a week could fit in this category. The notion of this being possible seems mostly to rest on a continental fantasy about productivity.

If somebody were to say that they are willing to be less effective at what they do and are willing to trade that against working time (because they value their free time), then of course I would agree that it is a realistic view of the world.

[Odin]

My stepdad works road construction for 12hrs a day, 6 days per week, and my mom still has to work to make ends meet, thats just wrong. People should be paid enough so they don't have to work more than 40 hours a week. 60 years ago one person could be the breadwinner for the whole family, nowdays both parents often have to work multiple jobs.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I really don't mind 40 hours a week either.

40 hours a week posting on 'Poly ain't bad...or do actually do some work in there too??

[Japher]

work

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by DanS
As a practical matter, I wonder whether anybody who works 37.5 hours a week could fit in this category.

What some need 50 hours to complete, some need 37.5.

Its all about efficiency and natural talent. some people need more time to take care of routine tasks. Clearly an issue in the legal field, which I inhabit. case in point, I used to go up against a prosecutor who would put in mad hours at the office, working late into the evening, but man, no matter how much she worked at it and prepared, at trial, it just didn't show up.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS
Point of clarification: When I write a "blue chip person," I do not mean that they work at a blue chip company. Rather, I mean somebody who is highly effective at what they do. Somebody who sticks out as of higher quality versus the rest. As a practical matter, I wonder whether anybody who works 37.5 hours a week could fit in this category. The notion of this being possible seems mostly to rest on a continental fantasy about productivity.

If somebody were to say that they are willing to be less effective at what they do and are willing to trade that against working time (because they value their free time), then of course I would agree that it is a realistic view of the world.

time for "im a dummy"

if they are so effective why do they work 100 hours a week? why cant they do everything in 40?

anyway, who wants to be friends with a "blue chip" person if they dont have any time?

[Shi Huangdi]

It does suck being at work 40 hours a week. But the one thing I really like about working as opposed to college is that unlike in college, I go to work, but when I get home from work that time is MINE and I am FREE. In college there is always some assignment hanging over your head that you should be doing.

Anybody who does work 40 hours a week should be greatful that they aren't part of the trend in this country to make us slave more and more hours.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It does suck being at work 40 hours a week. But the one thing I really like about working as opposed to college is that unlike in college, I go to work, but when I get home from work that time is MINE and I am FREE. In college there is always some assignment hanging over your head that you should be doing.

Anybody who does work 40 hours a week should be greatful that they aren't part of the trend in this country to make us slave more and more hours.

Agreed. In fact, one of the things I love about working for State overseas is that, thanks to the Department's paranoia about security, I'm not allowed to access my e-mail at home, let alone carry a Blackberry. Once I leave the office, I can't work.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Department of Labor has offered that ("flexiplace") for those who have worked in the Agency for a year, for a while now, I think. It'd be good for other Departments to have such an option... especially since Bush was trying to do away with the GS system (but lost).

Bush's efforts aren't over yet. The NSPS decision rules that weakening the union was illegal, but it didn't say the pay banding was illegal and they are proceeding with that. Bush is continuing to press for a NSPS like system in Congress now.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It does suck being at work 40 hours a week. But the one thing I really like about working as opposed to college is that unlike in college, I go to work, but when I get home from work that time is MINE and I am FREE. In college there is always some assignment hanging over your head that you should be doing.

I remember back to when a couple of old farts wandering passed my campus yelled out, "What'll you do when you graduate and have to work 40 hours a week?" My friend replied, "I won't know what to do with all my free time."