Comments on: What we did not agree to at 2020

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:27:53 +0000

[...] conference is the get together that just keeps giving. Andrew Norton finds so much that amuses. In particular the bit about work/life balance which - in light of Rudd’s fightin’ [...]

By: Tom N.

Tom N. — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 12:36:37 +0000

Thanks for the gratuitous advice, Rajat, but I can decide for myself when I will exit debates. Indeed, if you’d read my last post before commenting, you would have realised that in the case of my debate with Conrad I already have.

PS: Others may or may not hold the same opinion, but you can only speak for yourself. So, if its your view that such-and-such a debate has gone on for too long, feel free to say so. But please don’t use underhand attempts to bolster the moral force of your position.

By: Rajat Sood

Rajat Sood — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 01:12:01 +0000

I think I speak for many other readers of this blog when I ask if you two could please grow up and end your pointless bickering.

By: conrad

conrad — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:32:22 +0000

Maybe you arn’t good doing maths, but here’s a typical life of many small business owners:

Day-to-day grind: 10-12 hours (6-7 days per week).
Government forms: 1.5 hours).

Bad week (most of December) = 13.5 hours per day * 7 = 94.5 hours.

In addition, if you think about the HILDA data (which I just pointed to because it was conventient), then it must be the case that if the overall satisfaction is normal, then most of the distribution must be normal, otherwise those working 50-60 hours per week must be vastly happier than those working less than 50 to compesnate those getting into the silly realms. (in addition, if average 60 hours per week, its more than likely you will have silly weeks now and then).

Speaking of herding cats, people who are losers for working hard, and yet more insults, try learning some mathematics, at least addition.

By: Tom N.

Tom N. — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:15:13 +0000

In post 7 Conrad, I mentioned that I have averaged 120 hours per week recently. In post 8 you responded that you knew of plenty of people in the private sector, and the odd academic, who work these hours all the time. That was where our debate kicked off. The minimum number of hours I have mentioned in the context of labelling workaholics as losers was in post 22, where I said: “So if some businessman makes several million quid by working 100 hours a week all his life, while that would presumably qualify as a “success” in your book, he’d still rate as a loser in mine.”

Now (post 26) you’re trying to slide this debate from “ridiculous” hours to “long hours”, and talking about a point Andrew made a while ago ’s “at least for people that worked 50 hours plus”. You also repeat points without addressing counter-arguments already made to them. Frankly, arguing with you is like herding cats, which is why I’m not going to bother doing so further.

By: conrad

conrad — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:53:01 +0000

If you want another example of just how common long hours are that isn’t just from survey data, then think of all those non-English speaking migrants Australia has that run small businesses (resteraunts, milkbars etc.). Heaps of these guys work all day every data with very few holidays, since its evidentally better than being unemployed. Are they all losers too?

By: conrad

conrad — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:41:34 +0000

“addicted to pokies, porn and the like”

I’m not sure that making an analogy between working hard to get somewhere in life and pokies and porn is an especially good one. Would they not be losers if they didn’t do that and now worked at McDonalds?

“finding the odd example of someone who works ridiculous hours who may not be does not alter the general point.”

Its not an odd example at all. I think you’ll the majority of people that work long hours are happy to do so. I think Andrew had a post on this some time ago, at least for people that worked 50 hours plus:

http://andrewnorton.info/2007/06/why-are-people-satisfied-with-their-work-life-balance/

and I seem to remember there is another set of data around which looks at people in the higher brackets.

So what you are really saying is that most people that work long hours (who generally don’t mind) are losers for doing so (even though they don’t mind), which seems pretty judgmental to me. Perhaps we need legislation like France against it.

By: Tom N.

Tom N. — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:42:15 +0000

CONRAD’s first Q: “Were they losers for being caught in category (1) for some years of their lives?” A: Yes: that’s obvious from your ealier description.
CONRAD’s 2nd point: “given that you yourself may start falling into category (1) a lot more, you may well be calling yourself a loser.” RESPONSE: Well, if it actually happenned, then yes. But so what - how does that alter the argument that most people in such circumstances are losers? The answer is that it doesn’t.
CONRAD’s third point: “I think you are confounding your situation (presumably a dull public service job in Canberra … ), with people that are not in this situation and actually enjoy what they do.” RESPONSE: Can’t speak for the other cardigan-clad paper shufflers, but I really love my job, so your presumption is incorrect.
CONRAD’s 4th point: “If the latter of these is obsessed with what they do, because they enjoy it, then good for them — why put them down?” RESPONSE: For the same reason I feel sad for people who are addicted to pokies, porn and the like. You seem to presume that revealed preference is necessarily related to enjoyment, but psychologists have identified various reasons why there can be a disconnect between these things - having an “obsession” with something, as you decribed it, can be a key telltale in this regard.
* * *
Regarding the rest, please point out where I said that everyone who works ridiculously long hours is a loser and I will respond. In the meantime, finding the odd example of someone who works ridiculous hours who may not be does not alter the general point.

By: conrad

conrad — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:58:43 +0000

Another good example here is Crick and Watson — I believe they worked very hard to discover DNA. Were they losers for it doing it?

By: conrad

conrad — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:56:47 +0000

Tom, there are two types of people that work large hours:
1) Those that have to.
2) Those that want to.

Being lucky enough to have finished university at a time of high unemployment, a fair few of the people I knew fell into category (1). They’re all now experienced professionals that earn lots of money without having to do ridiculous hours. Were they losers for being caught in category (1) for some years of their lives? . In addition, given that you yourself may start falling into category (1) a lot more, you may well be calling yourself a loser.

In terms of category (2), we’re not just talking about people that make lots of money — how about Fred Hollows as an example. Was he a loser for working very hard to fix poor people’s eyesight? I’ll assume the answer is no. I think you are confounding your situation (presumably a dull public service job in Canberra where you write reports that never get used or anyone cares about — a very common thing in the public service I believe from the people I know who have worked in it), with people that are not in this situation and actually enjoy what they do. If the latter of these is obsessed with what they do, because they enjoy it, then good for them — why put them down?