Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
From my experience working in an office as a computer programmer and working in construction I'd say the laziest slacker on a construction site easily works twice as much as the average person in an office. I don't mean just physically hard, I mean doing any work at all. You just can't water cooler all day or play on facebook without it being glaringly obvious in some jobs.
Yeah my experience in the office space with drones is it is horribly inefficient for anyone who does not have a job dependent on outputting things that are closely tracked and based on high levels of efficicacy.
The typical worker probably gets about one hour of real work done in a shift and an all star might get all the way to two hours of work done.
People collevtively drag down expectations over time so what is required to keep their job gets lowered to a level that it takes almost no time in a day to keep up and most of the time is spent screwing around and socializing.
There are obviously some exceptions to this but the reality is in most cases people will drag down expectations and then do the minimum to meet them.
Personally I like to work non stop in chunks with no real breaks so if I had a lot to do I might work from 6am-2pm non stop then take a late lunch. I would have zero motivation after lunch to do much more as I was usually wore out for the day.
That being said I have worked for myself for the last 17 years and I can work obscene hours in a given day and week, and at other times I might be able to work very little for several days. Certainly fits better with my demeanor.
I absolutely think the forty hour office work week m-f is one of the least efficient set ups we could have. I think shortening total hours worked in a year with the same or greater compensation while increasing the expectation for output and performance would be significantly better.