I starting thinking about this after reading the "wasting time at work" thread, but figured I should start a new one. In general, it seems as though most of the people my age (early 20s) are more efficient at jobs involving computers than the previous generation. However, we are still required to come to work and put in our 8 hour days. I find that a significant portion of my day is spent making up work to do and wasting time. Why should I have to spend the whole day at work when I can get it done in a few hours? I understand that some jobs require you to be available during work hours to communicate with people, but for independent research, programming, data entry, etc, I don't think the 9-5 paradigm makes sense. Do you think that jobs such as these should be paid by the hour, or by the amount of work completed?

It seems like you're really asking two different questions here.

On the one hand there's the issue of too much time, not enough work. You end up wasting hours at work, sitting by the phone, staring at the monitor, pretending to be productive when really, there's nothing to do. But you're still getting paid for it. The other hand would have you doing actual work 40 some hours a week but you get to choose which hours those are.

With that scenario and given my choice of careers, I'd choose "9-5". I make a lot more money that way.

i would prefer that i could come and go as i lie, as long as i do my stuff...

i'm still in high school, but creativity is not following a schedule, so i dont see why anyone should...

thats why i really like google, they dont really care that much, unless there is a team meeting or something...

Whoops, I guess I forgot about this thread... plus I only really visit the site during my 9-5 timewasting.

scarlett, which scenario are you saying you'd make more money? I suppose I was initially talking about the scenario where there's too much time and not enough work, or rather, where the worker can exceed the employer's expectations by doing it faster. The way I see it, if I can do it in 4 hours, then I should be able to go home after 4 hours rather than sit around posting on internet forums.

I think that a lot of jobs would benefit from paying for the work accomplished rather than for the hours filled. The employees would work more efficiently and be happier, and the employers would get results faster. If you were being paid to finish a contract in, say, 3 months, then if you get it done in 2 months why should you be penalized for that?

I was saying I get paid more for a 9-5 kind of position... But that's based on the assumption that I'm in the office, sitting at my computer (or in the field with my cell phone and a direct line to our secretary) and available for whatever last minute crisis comes up, and that happens a lot in my industry.

There is another guy in our office who is technically a contractor and he gets paid an awful lot per hour. And as well he should; he's a licensed civil engineer. He makes a lot of money when he works, but definitely does not have a enough work right now to keep him busy for 40 hours a week. Believe me... he complains quite a bit about this. And while he complains and I humor him by listening... I'm still getting paid. He's not. On the other side, when I stay until 6 or 7 at night (and he's gone by 3), my paycheck doesn't change. But at least it's stable.

Charbucks, If you're suggesting that you can get 8 hours worth of work done in 4 hours time, you will either be given more work to do in those additional 4 four hours (or do like the rest of us do and end up surfing online... erm... I mean, enriching your mind for the benefit of your employer) or you will end up contracting your services out at a premium, but you will still most likely end up putting in at least, if not more, then your typical "9-5".

Does 9-5 make sense?

No, I don't think it does now, or ever has.

Back in the 60's there was a public debate as to how we as a culture were going to define ourselves.

Either by high intensity work or by a lower intensity work ethic and a more leisurely attitude.We voted for the former and now pay for and buy our leisure.

It saddens me because children suffer most and then those children become adults and carry their scars with them into oblivion. Wondering around talking and acting like robots, repeating mantras of patriotism, capitalism and consumerism to the detriment of the planet and civilized discourse with others whom may disagree with their views.

9 - 5 doesn't make any sense for bosses as, when paying by the hour, they pay people to waste time. Which can't be good for them.

It makes more sense for workers, economically, as they get payed for time where they aren't working but as a result they feel as if they are wasting their time. A combination of less hours and higher pay, so they make as much as they did working 9-5 would be the best option for workers.

I think it could be good for employers too. If you offered me 1.5 times my pay for 2/3 work (works out to be the same total amount) I'd be willing to work hard enough to do more work than I did originally in a full day, because I get to go home and be with my family and friends. I bet a lot of people would. The employer gets more work done, and the employee gets more time off.

lol 9-5 makes more sense then my shift from 2:15 to 10:30 Pm RAWR

Yeah, it does. I've never worked an evening shift, but I did work graveyard shift for a while. It sucks.

For those who don't know: graveyard shift means working through the middle of the night.

I don't work 9-5 as I'm self employed. However, I have been known to put in 16-20 hours a day on occasion when I have a deadline looming and also work weekends (like last weekend). The trials and tribulations of being self employed.

How well can the ammount of work done be measured? Has this really not come up yet? Surely, in some jobs it can be measured, and in some it can not. What if it is not clear what jobs are to be done in a day, also the administration of who does what can be a bit hard some times, and people might try to find work-arounds.

I am not sure a 9-17 job makes sense. I think we should probably try do what we want to do; usually that is not work. So we should try eliminate jobs that have to be done by estimating its value for us, by doing it quicker/more efficiently, or automate it. Society seems to overrate work quite a bit sometimes.
Also, perhaps some work can be done via hobbyism too. (Not at all sure how much, really.)

I think it is weird that we still have 9-17 days, since more things have been automated. The reason is probably both that automizing does cost time designing it, and education to use. (But for many people education is more fun then work, though.)
Also, i think we are using more stuff, that are not really making us more happy. No doubt, some of the richer people are also leaching a bit.

Of course, there is still the way how to achieve this in practice to be discussed. When possible, just people starting to work part-time would create scarcity of work, so more that people would be able to afford working less.

Subsidizing automation would be another way, with the additional benefit of promoting technology. It would also prevent jobs being outsourced. However, people abroad not having jobs would mean they would not have income. (As i have said, people being valued less because of the economics of their manpower is one of the caveits of capitalism.) Many abroad depend on our use of their cheap labor.

BTW technology taking away work is also scary, or rather the human as a (probably rather inefficient)construction of matter is. The fact that the human is a rather ad-hoc construction of matter means that with sufficient technology any task (except being a human) is better done with something else then humans.