Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

He seems to present a polarized interpretation of work. Either one can race towards burnout by working 100 weeks or they can enjoy 6-hour days, frequent vacations, etc. Both of these are untenable for most people. The majority of people work fairly diligently and their jobs take up the preponderance of their time, but aren't necessarily working hours that are unhealthy. People who work 40-70 hours per week generally fall within this category.

He also doesn't confront the fact that many if not most time commitments are immutable. Most people have certain tasks and obligations need to be done periodically and take a relatively static amount of time. This time expenditure is stable and unlikely to change or disappear anytime soon.

For instance, I know that, between school, various scholastic obligations, and the occasional bit of freelance or personal work, I put in roughly 65-75 hours per week. Obviously, this takes up the majority of my time, but is not all consuming; and I don't believe that it is having any substancial adverse effects on my health. Moreover, these hours are unavoidable, and I couldn't circumvent them even if I wanted to.

In its essence, this post is advocating for the right things insofar as it is encouraging work-life balance and discouraging subjecting oneself to dangerous working hours, but takes a fairly myopic view of work and makes suggestions that aren't really tenable in many situations.




40-70 hours a week is healthy? This makes me laugh.. why not just select an even bigger range.. people who work 30-120 hours a week? Sounds great.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: