I don't think walking away from all your stock vs. a company walking away from a deal that would account for a small fraction of its profits is a fair comparison.
A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.
But those employees who _did not_ care about morality also would have their stock decrease by 10% in value due to no fault of their own. Therefore, it's only ethically correct for those who want to take the stance to also accept a decrease in stock compared to those who didnt.
My take is that the purpose is not to actually close a sale before building, but to make sure that you could actually close a sale.
The article makes the correct point that many people confuse "being sort of close to closing a sale" with actually closing a sale, and these people may waste time building a product that clients are only sort of interested in but aren't willing to actually pay for.
This makes perfect sense to me. From what I've seen anecdotally, it seems most people can work 80-hour weeks at full productivity for maybe one or two weeks, tops. After that, the fatigue starts to set in and that person's performance starts to decline. In the long run, the person working 80 hour weeks isn't getting much more done than someone working far fewer hours, simply because during those 80 hours they are operating at greatly diminished mental capacity.
Depends if they are engaged or not and how taxing it is. People can play MMOs or MOBAs way past 40hr/week and they don't all have a huge performance dropoff. They are probably more prone to RSI and stuff at more hours though.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a productive 100hr week in some kind of MMO player.
> People can play MMOs or MOBAs way past 40hr/week and they don't all have a huge performance dropoff.
Is that your personal observation or do you have access to some actual data? I imagine pro-gaming teams do use all kinds of analytics to maximize their performance, stuff like hours played, hours slept, nutrition, physical exercise ... so there must be some pretty good datasets out there. Unfortunately probably all closely-guarded secrets.
In my own experience as a heavy Anki user, I have found sleep to be the most important determiner of performance. When I sleep 1–2 hours less, my error rate the next day roughly doubles.
I think the OP is talking about knowledge workers specifically. If you're a security guard, I think it's obvious you could do your job for 100 hrs with very little drop off in performance.
Don't think that's true, watchstanding positions are amongst the most mind numbing jobs that actually require your full attention. I stood watch in the Navy as officer of the deck in port, and I can truly say that 6 hour shift was torture for the mind, much worse than coding 6 hours.
To a point I guess, but I imagine the drop off in performance from 2 hours to 8 hours of standing watch is much larger than the one from 8 to 20 hours.
From 8 to 20 hours watchstanding, you're basically not watchstanding. It went like this:
Hour 1: Fine
Hour 2: Walk around a bit, then fine
Hour 3-5: Jesus, I never should have joined the Navy
Hour 6: I want to pull out my 9mm and use it on myself
Hours past 6: I am functionally useless
Some jobs that aren't knowledge-jobs are hard on your mind, too. The reason security/watchstanding is so hard is that you have to be alert at all times while doing, effectively, jack squat. It isn't a much different level of alertness than I am in while programming, now that I think about it carefully.
Granted I've only met 5 security guards in my life. But not a single one gave the job their full attention. All basically saw the job as a warm body position.
I wake up and work until I go to sleep. Every day. 8 hours of sleep, either in one chunk or in two (biphasic). I feel better with biphasic. So that leaves 13 hours each day after subtracting eating time, housekeeping, bathroom "tasks", reddit/HN, and falling asleep transition time. 91 hours per week. Been living like this for years without burnout, although I think at 100-130 hours one is asking for trouble.
Can I ask why? I did similar hours for a while but I couldn't date or see friends or exercise and even sit done and read a book for long. If I was forced to do that often I would have quit. Its not like its hard to get another job as a developer. When working 80 hours or more you're basically doing the work of two developers and the company should really just hire another IMO.
The startup is my baby and I'm solo. I don't just develop, I design, market, handle investor relations, etc. I wouldn't do this if it wasn't this specific situation.
Edit: Haven't had a girlfriend or dated or regularly socialized with friends in years, but I don't feel bad about it. Most of my friends who I respect the most are just as busy as I am pursuing their goals in music and neuroscience. :)
Edit2: I do hire additional devs when I can afford it, but that doesn't have an effect on my hours.
Depends. There was a time in my 30s(IIRC) where I had 3 contracts going at the same time. It was exhilarating. My mind was constantly humming and I was really into it. I was pulling about 80 hours a week for a few months. It really depends on the type of work and how much it engages you.
The parents comment still seems to hold though. What you're talking about is a fixed time period that you knew was going to end (once the contracts' deadlines arrived).
Having worked longer than 80 hour weeks for years at a time at full productivity I know it is possible for at least some people. The issue for me was not one of fatigue, but of a slow corruption of my perception of reality. The longer I worked at this pace the worse my ability to differentiate important from unimportant became and I made some very "interesting" decisions during that time.
I still work more 40 hours a week, but nowhere near the level I did in the past.
I disagree that the world has been made safer by the US playing world police for the past 70 years. I could list examples from Central and South America, the Middle East, Africa, southeast Asia, etc. but you probably understand where I'm going.
The US should not be out droning people in other countries except in explicit self defense ("they might have been going to attack us" doesn't count). That is my opinion, you are free to disagree with it. If "the goal is to kill fewer people," the best way to do that is to... not kill people.
Also, the fact that representatives I voted for voted in favor of extrajudicial killings of people in other countries is not something I'm happy about. I wish every day that the US could abolish its first past the post election system so that I could vote for candidates I actually agree with rather than being forced to vote for someone I sort of agree with.
A more fair comparison would be asking if employees would be willing to have their stock decrease in value 10% in exchange for their company being more moral. I expect many employees would take such an exchange, although not all.