Isn't Society Weird?

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting. A few thoughts:

(1) My question is more to do with why do we still use these things a

Probably because unless something is a dramatic improvement or invention, changing is too much work.


--Andy

I was hoping for a discussion of a revolution with respect to having to work five days in a row. I think that change would be too much work too though.

Would that change maximize profit?

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, set up an excel spreadsheet explaining your calendar and I'll pass it along to the UN.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

TGD, set up an excel spreadsheet explaining your calendar and I'll pass it along to the UN.


--Andy

Thanks, but I wanted to get some consensus from CC denizens first.

Would that change maximize profit?

Maximize profit for whom?

[BigBallinStalin]

While I acknowledge that a "real change" would be difficult, I do not think it would cause an uprising among the general public; in fact, I would suspect the general public would be in favor of a change in the way we work.

Already on the internet we see markets where producers offer their labor or goods (e.g. http://fiverr.com/). Demand from final* consumers immediately cuts through the intermediaries and straight to the producers. Instead of working 5-day weeks, the demand for your labor could be more profitably organized into various schedules.

Although this kinds of markets are mainly used to supplement one's primary income, humanity has yet to tap into the full potential of the Internet. In regard to markets, the Internet is mainly used to reflect consumer preferences, but the avenues of profitable change for producers has yet to be fully realized.

I expect that you'll see the change from 5-day work weeks into a more profitable "whatever basis" within these more direct cyber markets. 3D printers or their progeny could herald this revolutionary change.


edit: *But then again, the final consumers may just be intermediary consumers who are simply finding more profitable ways to find labor to produce goods for the final consumers. Nonetheless, this could still result in less strict worker schedules.

[BigBallinStalin]

TGD, set up an excel spreadsheet explaining your calendar and I'll pass it along to the UN.


--Andy

Thanks, but I wanted to get some consensus from CC denizens first.

Would that change maximize profit?

Maximize profit for whom?

Perhaps for producers in cyber markets which have a more direct path toward final consumers.

[thegreekdog]

Here's my skepticism on that score: The rise of computers, interwebs, etc. was supposed to make work it easier (and those advances have) and they were supposed to result in better flexibility. I would argue that computers, internet, email, mobile devices, and the like, have made work more time consuming. In the "good old days" when a person left work, he or she left work. In the modern era, work comes with you. It's not uncommon for me to get calls on my mobile phone at midnight from concerned clients or colleagues regarding a particular issue. In the past, the concerned party would have to wait for me to come into the office. It's not uncommon for teachers to get emails from concerned parents who may have just waited until parent/teacher night.

So, will the changing of a work week maximize profits? Don't know.

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, can we have your cell phone to call you at midnight about concerned posts in the Off Topics?

Moreover, have anyone you ever worked a job where you had "whatever" hours? When I first employed by CC, I essentially had a "whatever" hours job, but as I started to take on more responsibilities, I moved into a set office time because I found I worked more efficiently that way, and I also found I enjoyed knowing when I would be done for the day too. Ha.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

TGD, can we have your cell phone to call you at midnight about concerned posts in the Off Topics?

Moreover, have anyone you ever worked a job where you had "whatever" hours? When I first employed by CC, I essentially had a "whatever" hours job, but as I started to take on more responsibilities, I moved into a set office time because I found I worked more efficiently that way, and I also found I enjoyed knowing when I would be done for the day too. Ha.


--Andy

I technically have whenever hours. I also have minimum requirements with respect to total hours, billable hours, and other such statistics. A guy I work with rolls in between 10:30 AM and 11 AM. He also works until 1 AM. He does pretty well, except when someone schedules a meeting for 8 AM.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's my skepticism on that score: The rise of computers, interwebs, etc. was supposed to make work it easier (and those advances have) and they were supposed to result in better flexibility. I would argue that computers, internet, email, mobile devices, and the like, have made work more time consuming. In the "good old days" when a person left work, he or she left work. In the modern era, work comes with you. It's not uncommon for me to get calls on my mobile phone at midnight from concerned clients or colleagues regarding a particular issue. In the past, the concerned party would have to wait for me to come into the office. It's not uncommon for teachers to get emails from concerned parents who may have just waited until parent/teacher night.

So, will the changing of a work week maximize profits? Don't know.

Hopefully, your wage already compensates you sufficiently for such calls/emails. If so, then is the complaining justified? Or is it a profitable opportunity for releasing stress and finding sympathy?

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

Hmm... need one more... There. That's good.

[AndyDufresne]

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

These types of rules I usually live by, otherwise I'll spend too much outside of work time thinking about work.

Would a segmented work week really be needed across the board? Or would it be more ad-hoc? I remember when I was younger and had to work weekends, my social life took a hit since I'd have two days off during the week, but most everyone I knew was working.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Hopefully, your wage already compensates you sufficiently for such calls/emails. If so, then is the complaining justified? Or is it a profitable opportunity for releasing stress and finding sympathy?

Adjusted for inflation, my hourly wage compared to what my hourly wage would have been 20 years ago before modern technology... no, it's not adequate compensation. Imagine this disparity:

Employee A works from 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Friday without taking a break for lunch. That's 60 hours. He or she is paid $100.

Employee B works from 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Friday without taking a break for lunch. That's 60 hours. He or she is paid $100. He or she is also expected to respond to messages from colleagues or clients any time from 8 PM to 8 AM on weekdays and any time of day on weekends within 24 hours of receiving the message.

Does Employee B have the right to complain about his or her wage? Does it matter whether Employee A worked for the same company 20 years ago?

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

That's a better response. Yes, by responding to such messages at off-hours, I receive better opportunities to advance my career than other, similarly situated people.

[thegreekdog]

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

These types of rules I usually live by, otherwise I'll spend too much outside of work time thinking about work.

Would a segmented work week really be needed across the board? Or would it be more ad-hoc? I remember when I was younger and had to work weekends, my social life took a hit since I'd have two days off during the week, but most everyone I knew was working.


--Andy

The summer between college and law school I worked two hourly jobs that did not offer the same flexibility as my current employment. I worked at an ice cream joint from 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM and then worked at a supermarket from 7:00 PM to midnight. My social life took a huge hit, mostly because my work schedule was not flexible.

[BigBallinStalin]

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

These types of rules I usually live by, otherwise I'll spend too much outside of work time thinking about work.

Would a segmented work week really be needed across the board? Or would it be more ad-hoc? I remember when I was younger and had to work weekends, my social life took a hit since I'd have two days off during the week, but most everyone I knew was working.


--Andy

It would definitely be more toward the ad-hoc side of the spectrum--in general. The position would be aligned according to whichever maximizes profit--given that (1) people are choosing the correct means for their ends, and (2) they're actually cognizant and capable of realizing that profit.


Working weekends? C'est la trade-off.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hopefully, your wage already compensates you sufficiently for such calls/emails. If so, then is the complaining justified? Or is it a profitable opportunity for releasing stress and finding sympathy?

Adjusted for inflation, my hourly wage compared to what my hourly wage would have been 20 years ago before modern technology... no, it's not adequate compensation. Imagine this disparity:

Employee A works from 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Friday without taking a break for lunch. That's 60 hours. He or she is paid $100.

Employee B works from 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Friday without taking a break for lunch. That's 60 hours. He or she is paid $100. He or she is also expected to respond to messages from colleagues or clients any time from 8 PM to 8 AM on weekdays and any time of day on weekends within 24 hours of receiving the message.

Does Employee B have the right to complain about his or her wage? Does it matter whether Employee A worked for the same company 20 years ago?

It depends on your present discounted value of the current wage. Perhaps, the current wage is justified by the prospect of higher future earnings (partnership at the firm, or having the requisite knowledge to start your own firm). If that expectation is missing, then perhaps it's time to re-evaluate your opportunity cost (i.e total value of a new job + transaction costs, search costs, risk, uncertainty, blah blah blah).

Of course, there may be the possibility of shaping your environment to your own demands. In some situations, you could create and enforce implicit rules like "not responding to work-emails after work-hours." In a sense, you can control the environment, or maybe you'll get fired.

That's a better response. Yes, by responding to such messages at off-hours, I receive better opportunities to advance my career than other, similarly situated people.

I hope so because it reflects your greater productivity, but I was also point out that perhaps you get so many emails because you supply that demand. Raise the price, emails decrease, and maybe--maybe--this would hardly affect others' perception of your productivity.

[thegreekdog]

I hope so because it reflects your greater productivity, but I was also point out that perhaps you get so many emails because you supply that demand. Raise the price, emails decrease, and maybe--maybe--this would hardly affect others' perception of your productivity.

A colleague I respect recommended something like this. She said that I should not be as available because I didn't need to be (as I've already proven my personal brand to be high). My response was that part of my personal brand was the willingness and ability to respond and be productive at odd hours.

This is mostly grousing as I enjoy my job... I just don't enjoy the hours.