Ask HN: 16-hour work week jobs?
Hands down, it was best work experience I have ever had. I was asked to do little every week, so I always had an extreme desire to outperform expectations, which led to an extreme drive to work, great work / life balance, and a very(!) productive throughput every single workday!
Another curious side-effect was to (on several occasions) actually work beyond the required ~16 hours per week, out of sheer pleasure.
I still remember that the same day I started working full time for that same company, my energy/happiness/productivity levels plunged, to only be lowered along the years.
I sincerely think it is quite unrealistic to ask a knowledge worker consistently deliver at full throttle for 40 hours every week (never mind the enslaving 60+ hours on many companies)
So my questions are the following:
- Are these 4/4 jobs easy to find? In which areas / programming language domains?
- Only greenfield projects make sense for this kind of work schedule?
266 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] thread(I'm in Germany where students are not allowed to work more than 20 hours / week if they want to keep cheap student rates with the mandatory health insurance)
I agree with all of your points, though.
However, you will also find lots of startups have very flexible work hours as long as you get a reasonable amount of work done every week. Additionally, depending on your skill level and role within the startup it is likely that you'll be working on lots of different types of projects from day to day, which for me personally has always been enough to keep me enjoying what I do for a living, even though I'm usually working 40+ hours per week.
And some startups are very open to you contributing code back to the open source community. (Especially Node.js startups, where publishing NPM modules is just part of being a member of the ecosystem.) For me personally this also gives me that feeling of pleasure that ordinary work related coding might not always.
I've gone for periods at as little as 5 hours a week. In that case I was mentoring more junior programmers, rather than owning a software project myself. It worked out great and the client was happy.
As you saw, at 16 hours you can easily own a software project and get great results. There's no reason you can't bid for freelance work at that level of commitment.
Typically, the types of projects I'd outsource to a consultant are non mission critical and the pacing is such that a 1/2 time consultant is totally fine.
Do you ever end up with only 5h of work when you want / need more?
The economy was diff a few years ago, though..
I had enough cushion from the previous job not to worry too much about short term cashflow. Otherwise it can be a problem.
I'd say work somewhere, prove your worth, then negotiate a better arrangement.
I think a big factor for this idea not catching on is the grey area of what qualifies as 40h workweek labor. Some jobs like customer service positions make sense, but what about jobs that require a 24h standby? What about positions with fluctuating periods of downtime through the year? what about jobs that could be 8h workdays, but they haven't yet been confirmed that they could in fact be more effective as a 6h or 4h workday?
It's a by-product of modern times not quite catching up with modern technology. We certainly have the ability to think up algorithms that would better suit certain positions based on these factors, but the idea of it right now is too drastic and 'unfair' sounding. Ideally, in time, with the right evidence proving it's effectiveness, workdays would be shortened, quality of lives would bump up and robots would gradually take over.
It isn't my place to mention the salaries I've heard but, anecdotally, they're a) more than anything I earned prior to going into business for myself and b) a substantial discount to market rates for FTE programmers.
So that's one option for you. Another is to be very good at making companies money and then, in negotiations, trade access to you for flexibility. Still another option is to own the company you're negotiating with.
[+] Context: solo founders or married couples running software small businesses with revenue in six to seven figures and no investor mandate to radically change the character of the business.
We only have one shot in this life. We have chosen development as our professional practice. We should be looking to take that practice to the highest level that we can reach. Basing our salary on market rates is basing our value on industry average (or the level of mediocrity if you are more the glass half empty type of person.)
Ultimately, your place is to make money for the company. This is what you should be basing your value on. There is $X on the line and you have great influence on moving that number. If you aren't in this position, then keep looking so that you can get max value out of the lifetime of your profession.
It really comes down to the time-sensitivity of your work. For someone in their 20s, I think the perfect balance is less than 80 hours/week but more than 40-50. If you're being paid two standard deviations over US median household income ($120k+), you're going to be expected to put some work-life balance on hold.
"Knowledge worker" makes you sound like you think programming is rocket surgery. VC is actually much closer to knowledge work than programming, and could more realistically have 16-hour work weeks.
Hen is right that expecting 40 hours out of a software engineer is ridiculous.
If anyone is curious what I'm on about, "hen" is a gender-neutral pronoun in Swedish that has had a resurgence in the last few years. It's partly politically motivated and a little controversial, since we generally only use gender-specific ones. Sorry for this very off topic aside.
I've seen "they", in the singular, used as a gender-neutral English pronoun pretty extensively, perhaps that's worth looking into. Either way, kudos.
I think the key is learning technologies that are in demand and pay well and choosing jobs where you can build experience in said technologies. Bottom line is that if you spend 60+ hours a week at a job programming in Objective-C for 3 years you're unlikely to make significantly more money than the guy who has 3 years of Obj-C and only worked 40 hours a week. The quality of the experience is what will matter more.
The downside though - I sometimes feel I am wasting my time (because not many do so) and occasionally worry about opportunity costs.
In other words, business owners would be commoditized and not mean much at all...
Many times I got hired for a 3 month stint and got it all done in a couple of weeks with one eye shut. I tended to chip in and help with any other bits lying around that needed doing rather than sitting there playing solitaire. Builds a good reputation.
This is how I started my current permanent job. They decided they wanted to keep me so I'm getting paid a contractor's salary for a permanent job now and have a 25h week flexible time as a technical advisor and general devops guy.
I was asked to come back to a company that I used to work for, and I insisted that I would only come back if I could do a 3 day work week. I'm convinced my productivity would have been similar to when I used to work a 40 hour week with them, because rarely put in more than 3 hours of actual work per day. Unfortunately, they didn't hire me, because they said that absolutely needed someone full time to be able to complete the project on schedule.
I think they rejected the idea because everyone else there is on a 40-hour week, and they simply can't contemplate the idea of someone doing less work. They've been slogging away at the same never-ending project for 2 years now, and they aren't looking for someone to get work done efficiently. They want someone who will join in their suffering.
Going forward, I'm going to keep looking for a part time opportunity, but not waste time trying to convince people that it's good idea. I think I need to find people who already just get it.
> I sincerely think it is quite unrealistic to ask a knowledge worker consistently deliver at full throttle for 40 hours every week (never mind the enslaving 60+ hours on many companies)
I really disagree with this. Have you tried before?
I managed to pull out some full weeks of full-time, full-throttle work, but it is completely unsustainable. This is, social life, other activities, having out of the box solutions and ideas, friends, family are all strayed aside as secondary, weekend concerns. Work was the primary concern. That progressively led to loosing focus with other realities, lack of diversity, and all the things that brings on board.
The main point is, even if had 100% efficiency, would it matter if it was directed towards the wrong thing? A good deal of our work is to judge and be critical of how it will impact others, the world even. And sincerely, I think that it is a major problem on many companies which just fail because everyone is too busy "working", but do not collectively have the opportunity to ponder, to talk to other people, to get different perspectives, and realize as whole that the ship is going full steam ahead for the iceberg.
As soon as people start openly discussing the possibility of a different way of doing things, there will be subcultures that spring up around the idea. If it ends up working, the subculture can eventually spread to the mainstream. It's a very worthwhile discussion to have.
This is why I feel the productivity argument is really very weak. There are many people who seem to be quite productive even working 40-50 hours per week.
I think a much, much better argument is that working 40 hours a week is a waste of my life. I value my time quite highly because I have numerous and varied interests. So even if my productivity (and therefore, at least theoretically, my income) was maximized at 40 hours per week, I still wouldn't want to work that much.
No employer is going to index my salary to the marginal value of my time, they use the marginal value of my output (just as they should). So in a world where my choices are to work full-time or to work part-time at a greatly reduced hourly rate, it is impossible for me to optimize the amount that I work relative to the marginal value of my time. I, and I suspect many others, always end up at a sub-optimal equilibrium.
The problem is everybody has widely different ideas of full throttle productivity. Lets take salary as a decent proxy for productivity:
At every company I have worked the "norm" is 15-20 productive hours a week. Standard salary is ~$110-$140k/year for a senior dev working these hours.
So as a rule of thumb if you can work a consistent 40 productive hours a week you should be able to earn at least $220k+/year (and in reality closer to $300k/year).
I do know developers earning more than $250k/year. It is possible if you are top .1% or if you organize your entire life around work. However, it is not easy, and nor should it be expected as the "norm".
I do find it difficult to progress in my career, however. I've been trying desperately to transition into a full-stack, part-time position, but I feel pretty stuck as a senior level front-end dev. In my experience, this is because I need some weight to throw around when I request working only part-time.
I wouldn't feel comfortable paying full rate for part time hours under the guise of it being "just as productive" though. I believe it can be just as productive but it would be too disruptive to face emergency situations or social situations that pop up during work hours.
My current gig I got through a personal connection. They were in desperate need of a senior level front-end dev, and I was just upfront with them from the start that I would only be interested in working 25 hours a week. It helps that they have a team of devs to rely on when I'm not there.
My advice: if you want to be part-time, either be an expert in your field, or find an early stage startup that can't afford a full-timer. This sounds kind of shitty, but it's hard to convince people who are ingrained in the 40 hour work week. Also, telling people you're a student helps. I've found that people look down upon me when I tell them I have no desire to work 40 hours, but if I tell them I'm a student, they're all for it.
To explain my stance vaguely, if you can make critical decisions about abstract concepts, then I'd consider you senior. For instance, I recently saw that some of my coworkers were using an HTML tag in a way that was technically correct, but in a situation where a different tag is more suitable based on the context of the page. This is something I've learned through my studies and experiences as a front-end dev, and as such, contributes in a small way to my "senior-ness".
> If you can quantify how you're the "go-to" guy
Pretty much when anyone has front-end problems they can't figure out (either by themselves or even after Googling), I'm the one they come grab. Mostly "Why won't this div go where I want it to go?" or "How do I make this stop overlapping that?" - or my favorite, "Can you help me make this work in IE8?". Not to portray my coworkers as whiny, btw. I think they just want to be done with the front-end stuff as quickly as possible, so they can get back to the back-end.
You did say quantify, so I'll say I probably provide front-end help to a coworker at least 4 times a week. One coworker maintaining the last project I worked on consistently expresses his gratitude for laying the foundation that I did on that project (front and backend). This is starting to sound like I'm bragging (trying hard not to make it sound that way), so I'll stop here.
If I was working somewhere I was 100% passionate about, I would have no problem working 1/3 of my life. But, it's rare to find a position that completely matches one's values and professional desires.
For most people I know, myself included, you're at your best productivity before lunchtime. Afterwards you might get a few bits and pieces done, but generally it's a waste of time.
1. A. In my experience it's hard to find unless you're contracting or have extremely rare knowledge.
1. B. We're a rails shop, (mostly) b2b edtech.
2. Not at all just greenfield. Having flexible schedules means that you have to be realistic with scheduling and expectations. You have to work out what will work best with the team and when they need to synchronize with you.
In some cases your work is orthogonal to main development critical paths, so the need for synchronization is less (still important though for staying synced with the culture).
The downside of that is you need to be (loosely provably) good and experienced enough to (i) pick up contracts and (ii) that they'll flex to your schedule.
I've worked 16 hour days before with a manager literally sat behind me telling me to keep coding. They didn't care that half the next day would be correcting the mistakes of the previous. I don't miss those days.
For my part I've been doing a mix of freelance and salaried work in the last few years (as a data scientist), and I have reached the conclusion that a strict 40-hour week is not an easy thing to handle. I think it stems from the fact that the "knowledge worker"/hacker ethos is often deeply rooted in a self-driven and motivated agenda of learning and experimenting with new things on a constant basis, very often just for the sake of it. This can easily conflict with a regular work schedule in terms of number of hours and commitment. But the point is that it really shouldn't, because very often, those two "modes" nourish each other, which can result in a stronger, more robust and ultimately more meaningful and happier work like.
I've been trying to convince my current boss that a 3-day week would be a more efficient and compressed use of my time, while giving me more time to pursue other contracts and projects. But it seems that there are some cultural barriers that makes it a difficult message to pass. I actually intend to use that thread to show that I'm not the only one in that situation, that such a culture really exists, and thus that it must be taken into account somehow.
It might be somewhat cliché, but I really believe that this mentality is a glimpse of the future in terms of work ethics.
I do four tens per week on flextime to avoid commute traffic and one major "cultural impedance mismatch" is discussing this face to face with people who are at their workplace (note that I don't describe that as working, merely being at a certain location), perhaps five twelves or even six fourteens per week on salary. Its possible to be polite on the internet, but face to face they tend not to take it very well.
So? "Real customers" could also want him to work 24/7/365, and to respond immediately to their every demand and whimsy.
Also both the company and I have a motto of fail gracefully. So the automated testing system and the ticketing system decide they're not on speaking terms anymore, well, we could all set our hair on fire and run around and scream, or just buckle down and do it manually, 5x as slow and much more error prone than my integration system.
They expect me to fix anything 24x7 or have an excellent excuse (most recent excuse was my kid is in surgery so I'll go home and log in later) but they only expect me to invent or create new stuff in a much more restricted set of working hours (And the end users have absolutely no idea what those hours are...). Actually they're pretty pissed off at me if I make any production changes outside of certain work hours, unless I have an excellent excuse, so in the ebb and flow of work sometimes I have to read HN until I get the mgmt thumbs up if there's nothing else on my plate.
Enlightened self interest provides a strong motivation to automate the hell out of all error recovery and have backups to the backups. My systems for error recovery and resumption of production are much more complicated than the actual production itself, most of which is fairly simple although on a very large scale. I literally can't remember the last time I was woken up at 2am, although it could very well happen tonight...
(Oh and edited to add, I don't work in Ops. A drive fails in the NAS, a vmware server needs rebooting, they take care of it, that type of thing. The problems I get involved in after hours are higher level than ops, like somebody thought it would be funny to upgrade the software on a testing machine removing my access, or they changed firewall rules without telling anyone, that kind of thing, big fun)
I assume you on the standard 15 min response and onsite or connected and working on a fix inside an hour.
It's the reason I deliberately choose not to work late nights or during weekends, even if I feel the urge to. I'm afraid that it may actually end up hurting my overall output in the long run.
I've had moments where I'll work on something for hours late into the night only to realize the next morning that I didn't need to or that I can do it using some other method in only a couple of minutes. If I had stopped and went to bed earlier I would've saved a lot more time.