I’m confused on why the value of an hour isn’t just your hourly wage. If you value your time more, you’d be working less. If you value your time less, you’d be working more. Since you clearly spend exactly as much time working as you do, you value your free time that much.
Then again, that only works if you value the time you’re trying to fall asleep or are asleep the same as you value work.
Back on topic: I’ve heard that taking melatonin makes your body produce less of it, though doing so the the point of having less total melatonin seems unlikely, and even if it’s only a slight increase, it’s only a few cents. Also, I didn’t exactly hear it from a reliable source.
I’m confused on why the value of an hour isn’t just your hourly wage. If you value your time more, you’d be working less. If you value your time less, you’d be working more. Since you clearly spend exactly as much time working as you do, you value your free time that much.
It’s a very complicated problem. Many people cannot work more/less than they do and yet retain their current job. And working to find a ‘more optimal’ job can be extremely costly. Also, as you note, different time might be valued differently. I can clip coupons while I’m tired from working all day, but I can’t do more programming or research as effectively.
If it was more on-topic, I might expand this into a post...
I imagine many people here will not be in the kind of job where you are actually paid by the hour and can easily adjust your income by adjusting the number of hours you work. I certainly haven’t been in a job like that since graduating from university.
Even so, it seems unlikely that people will consistently be hired to work less than the ideal amount.
The amount of time you spend working tends to be about the same regardless of your job. It’s not inherent in the job. It’s the jobs being geared towards how much people will work.
Even so, it seems unlikely that people will consistently be hired to work less than the ideal amount.
Ideal by what criteria? Personally I would prefer to work fewer hours at the same hourly wage (e.g. work 80% as much as I do for 80% of the salary) but many jobs are not very flexible regarding such arrangements. In my experience (game developer) companies are much more willing to negotiate higher salary than they are to negotiate on vacation time or on a standard 5 day / 40 hour working week.
The amount of time people spend working is culturally determined to a large extent. In North America for many people this means roughly 40 hours, 9 to 5, 5 days a week with 10 days annual vacation. In Europe it’s more like 35 hours with 25 days+ vacation. Many highly paid professional jobs where employees are not on an hourly wage will frequently require more than 40 hours per week. Some jobs make it relatively easy for individuals to strike their own balance between hours worked and income received but many people are more or less stuck with the cultural norm even if they would prefer a different balance.
You work more than your ideal amount. Equivalently, you value your free time at higher than what you get payed. Presumably, people like you mixed in with people who want to work longer averages out to free time being worth the same as what one gets payed.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me, disagreeing, or going off on a tangent. If your agreeing, then I guess what I’m about to say is pointless.
The amount of time people spend working is culturally determined to a large extent.
This illustrates my point. In Europe, people value free time more or they get payed less (possibly due to taxes) or some combination of above. Due to this, their average time at work changes.
It’s possible that I significantly underestimated the decrease in marginal production as you work longer. Perhaps after eight hours, each additional hour people work is only worth minimum wage. On the other hand, it tends to be better to have fewer people on a project, so it seems like having fewer people spend more time working would be more efficient.
You work more than your ideal amount. Equivalently, you value your free time at higher than what you get payed. Presumably, people like you mixed in with people who want to work longer averages out to free time being worth the same as what one gets payed.
The marginal utility of an extra hour of free time outweighs my nominal hourly wage. My point is that most skilled jobs offer limited flexibility in the marginal substitution of additional free time for income. One reason for this is that most skilled jobs have an annual salary, not an hourly wage. I would prefer to work 10% or 20% less for 10% or 20% less income (which given progressive income taxes would actually amount to a cost saving of more than 10% or 20% to my employer) but there is limited flexibility to negotiate this in many jobs. Believe me, I’ve tried.
It’s possible that I significantly underestimated the decrease in marginal production as you work longer. Perhaps after eight hours, each additional hour people work is only worth minimum wage.
In my industry (software development) numerous studies have found that productivity flattens off beyond 40 hours a week and actually declines beyond about 60 hours a week (more mistakes are made and morale is impacted). Unfortunately management doesn’t always appreciate this fact. And again, reiterating that many skilled jobs are not paid on an hourly wage and do not pay overtime, there is no direct trade off between hours worked and income for many skilled employees.
There are many exceptions to the general rule. Gaming industry programming jobs (especially EA), and teaching jobs in public schools, among others, are notorious for eating up huge amounts of employee’s time.
OTOH, you’re right in that few jobs have less work than employees find ideal.
I’m confused on why the value of an hour isn’t just your hourly wage. If you value your time more, you’d be working less. If you value your time less, you’d be working more. Since you clearly spend exactly as much time working as you do, you value your free time that much.
Here’s a secondary justification beyond the economics substitution arguments of the others.
Assuming you have a job at all which could have an hourly wage, the wage must be equal or greater than the minimum wage. The more your hour is worth, the more valuable melatonin use is. The most pessimistic or conservative assumption is assume the hour is worth as little as possible, and the minimum wage is the least it’s worth.
Hence, using the minimum wage and not one’s actual hourly wage is the most pessimistic assumption—but the analysis still says the benefits are positive.
I’m confused on why the value of an hour isn’t just your hourly wage. If you value your time more, you’d be working less. If you value your time less, you’d be working more. Since you clearly spend exactly as much time working as you do, you value your free time that much.
Then again, that only works if you value the time you’re trying to fall asleep or are asleep the same as you value work.
Back on topic: I’ve heard that taking melatonin makes your body produce less of it, though doing so the the point of having less total melatonin seems unlikely, and even if it’s only a slight increase, it’s only a few cents. Also, I didn’t exactly hear it from a reliable source.
It’s a very complicated problem. Many people cannot work more/less than they do and yet retain their current job. And working to find a ‘more optimal’ job can be extremely costly. Also, as you note, different time might be valued differently. I can clip coupons while I’m tired from working all day, but I can’t do more programming or research as effectively.
If it was more on-topic, I might expand this into a post...
I imagine many people here will not be in the kind of job where you are actually paid by the hour and can easily adjust your income by adjusting the number of hours you work. I certainly haven’t been in a job like that since graduating from university.
Even so, it seems unlikely that people will consistently be hired to work less than the ideal amount.
The amount of time you spend working tends to be about the same regardless of your job. It’s not inherent in the job. It’s the jobs being geared towards how much people will work.
Ideal by what criteria? Personally I would prefer to work fewer hours at the same hourly wage (e.g. work 80% as much as I do for 80% of the salary) but many jobs are not very flexible regarding such arrangements. In my experience (game developer) companies are much more willing to negotiate higher salary than they are to negotiate on vacation time or on a standard 5 day / 40 hour working week.
The amount of time people spend working is culturally determined to a large extent. In North America for many people this means roughly 40 hours, 9 to 5, 5 days a week with 10 days annual vacation. In Europe it’s more like 35 hours with 25 days+ vacation. Many highly paid professional jobs where employees are not on an hourly wage will frequently require more than 40 hours per week. Some jobs make it relatively easy for individuals to strike their own balance between hours worked and income received but many people are more or less stuck with the cultural norm even if they would prefer a different balance.
Ideal in that you’d prefer to work that long.
You work more than your ideal amount. Equivalently, you value your free time at higher than what you get payed. Presumably, people like you mixed in with people who want to work longer averages out to free time being worth the same as what one gets payed.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me, disagreeing, or going off on a tangent. If your agreeing, then I guess what I’m about to say is pointless.
This illustrates my point. In Europe, people value free time more or they get payed less (possibly due to taxes) or some combination of above. Due to this, their average time at work changes.
It’s possible that I significantly underestimated the decrease in marginal production as you work longer. Perhaps after eight hours, each additional hour people work is only worth minimum wage. On the other hand, it tends to be better to have fewer people on a project, so it seems like having fewer people spend more time working would be more efficient.
The marginal utility of an extra hour of free time outweighs my nominal hourly wage. My point is that most skilled jobs offer limited flexibility in the marginal substitution of additional free time for income. One reason for this is that most skilled jobs have an annual salary, not an hourly wage. I would prefer to work 10% or 20% less for 10% or 20% less income (which given progressive income taxes would actually amount to a cost saving of more than 10% or 20% to my employer) but there is limited flexibility to negotiate this in many jobs. Believe me, I’ve tried.
In my industry (software development) numerous studies have found that productivity flattens off beyond 40 hours a week and actually declines beyond about 60 hours a week (more mistakes are made and morale is impacted). Unfortunately management doesn’t always appreciate this fact. And again, reiterating that many skilled jobs are not paid on an hourly wage and do not pay overtime, there is no direct trade off between hours worked and income for many skilled employees.
There are many exceptions to the general rule. Gaming industry programming jobs (especially EA), and teaching jobs in public schools, among others, are notorious for eating up huge amounts of employee’s time.
OTOH, you’re right in that few jobs have less work than employees find ideal.
I have one of these jobs.
Even if you did nothing but work all day, that wouldn’t be true. There’s also the value you get from doing the work.
Here’s a secondary justification beyond the economics substitution arguments of the others.
Assuming you have a job at all which could have an hourly wage, the wage must be equal or greater than the minimum wage. The more your hour is worth, the more valuable melatonin use is. The most pessimistic or conservative assumption is assume the hour is worth as little as possible, and the minimum wage is the least it’s worth.
Hence, using the minimum wage and not one’s actual hourly wage is the most pessimistic assumption—but the analysis still says the benefits are positive.