Hacker News Reader

My fear is that if you’re being productive 20 hours and unproductive 20 hours a week and the work week is reduced, how do we know you won’t just end up being productive 10 hours and unproductive 20.

That said, we should definitely be experimenting. If people are equally productive at 40 hours and 20 hours, we shouldn’t keep them in the office just for aesthetics.

View on HN

>My fear is that if you’re being productive 20 hours and unproductive 20 hours a week and the work week is reduced, how do we know you won’t just end up being productive 10 hours and unproductive 20.

Unless you are a cashier or some other customer service position, the time you spend working should be matter very little compared to your output.

If you a job that takes you 20 hours, you can either do it in 20 hours and get a huge chunk of your life back, or you can do it in 40 hours and spend a lot of time chatting with your coworkers making them unproductive.

It's up to management to understand how much time it takes to complete tasks and to staff accordingly.

The article cites several instances that indicate that wouldn't be the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com