Hacker News Reader

The problem is that 40 hours is seen as 100%. If I can accomplish my job in less than 40 hours, I'm giving more than 100% by working 40 hours.

It shouldn't be based on time

View on HN

From what I've seen, it's mostly not based on time in big US tech companies for salaried full-timers. Nobody cares if you put 20, 40 or 60 honest hours a week into a project. Ultimately, visibility and impact of your work is what matters, usually in comparison to your peers. If you get same impact working half the time than the person next to you, more glory to you. (Just don't let your manager directly or indirectly know that you're idling, that's essentially asking for more work - so don't complain if they oblige)

But pay is not based on results. If it were, you would not get paid when you are down on productivity.

Salary is an aggregate solution that works as insurance for both workers and employers to not have to do the above calculations.

Pay is sometimes certainly based on results. CEO's aren't getting paid by the hour, they are compensated based on stock performance, financials, roadmap, future guidance, etc.

That is certainly not true, as CEO of failing companies also get paid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com