well, even given the exact same person, one hour is not equal to the next. at 90 hours a week, after the first or second week, I get less useful work done than if I just work 20 hours.
I imagine 'optimal' productivity for one person varies considerably from person to person, and situation to situation, (and I imagine /on average/ optimal productivity means working more than 20 hours a week)
Which is why I was so disappointed by this article. I thought they were going to do some research on the optimal number of hours/week to work for maximum productivity. (I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed; just measuring productivity is /hard/)
Agreed and to measure productivity over a year is more difficult. The authors present some data in their report, but some of the examples are difficult to accept (like Utah public servants). However, if you make a thought experiment in has merits. Assume 5 programmers with equal skills and a 'fixed work load'. From a social point of view it will be better for them to be all employed working for less hours than 4 of them working full hours.
as an employer (sortof... everyone is an 'independent contractor' a mostly defensible position right now, as everyone works from home, and pretty much takes stuff off the list of things that needs to be done when they feel like doing them.) I think that if you can talk employees into this arrangement, and retain them, having 2 20hr/week guys is better than having 1 40hr/week guy.
the first, most obvious benefit is redundancy. If one employee gets sick or gets another job, I've still got the other guy, and can often talk him or her into working more temporarily to cover until I get someone else.
The other benefits are that I think nerds often under bill. A person working for me 20 hours a week ideally (well, ideally for me, the employer) gives me as much 'inspiration' as someone working 40 hours.
I also think employees are vastly more productive when they feel like working. In my situation, if I pick the right people, I get to pay them when they feel like working, when they are most productive, and then not pay them when they are unmotivated, and thus less productive.
Now, if I hired everyone as employees, then we'd have interesting issues with health insurance; each employee would have a per-month cost not dependent on hours I got out of them (I'm assuming that I'd have a better retention rate if I offered health insurance) But it's possible that cost would be low enough to justify the scheme; maybe I would just pay them a lower wage than I otherwise would?
(man, health insurance is fucked up... as far as I can tell, if I want to get people tax deductible insurance, I have to get everyone insurance; If someone wants to opt-out, as far as I can tell, I can't give them the cash I'd otherwise be spending on them.)
I imagine 'optimal' productivity for one person varies considerably from person to person, and situation to situation, (and I imagine /on average/ optimal productivity means working more than 20 hours a week)
Which is why I was so disappointed by this article. I thought they were going to do some research on the optimal number of hours/week to work for maximum productivity. (I suppose I shouldn't be too disappointed; just measuring productivity is /hard/)