Your calculation assumes that all working hours create equal value. I can say for me that on most jobs I had, I got like 80% done in the first 4 hours and 20% in the other half of the day. I regularly stop working when I can’t concentrate anymore and do some hours on weekend mornings instead.
Which country is this? I would love to have commute as part of work in my country. Fom the point of law employees materialize at work in the morning and than teleports to home in the evening (the creator of work code here must have been fan of star trek).
I believe this kind of change in workers law would motivate employers to implement more sane WFH policies.
> Which country is this? I would love to have commute as part of work in my country.
Usually countries with laws about commuting being part of the daily wage are more about people who work across different locations rather than their fixed daily commute (i.e. you have a single fixed 'location' where you work, and then if you travel to another location then you are paid for that travel, for instance a salesperson that travels 4 hours each way to give a 2-hour presentation cannot be argued to have only worked 2 hours from a minimum-wage perspective, however if they are travelling to their usual office, even if that is 2 hours away, this would not need to be paid).
Paid daily commutes aren't a part of any countries laws I am aware of, as otherwise you would need to pay people differently depending on where they were living and rasies lots of practical considerations (What if I hire someone who is working next to the office and they move 2 hours away? Am I forced to pay them 50% extra or let them only work a 4 hour day? Presumably I can't fire/make them redundant just for moving home, as I'm assuming this is in a country with good workers-rights anwyay!), but I may be wrong and there may be a country which does do this!
>>Usually countries with laws about commuting being part of the daily wage are more about people who work across different locations rather than their fixed daily commute (i.e. you have a single fixed 'location' where you work,
Oh, I see, than You are not talking about commuting. This has different name - in my country we use something that can be translated literally as "delegation" - but it rather means business trip, I am not sure what is the international english term for this (I have been part of project creating web apps that did accounting for people that major part of work was traveling to clients).
>>So basically the people who choose to live far away get subsidized?
Sure, You can put it this way - if workers living close have problem with that they can move or select another employer (if they prefer commuting to actually working)
>> They work fewer hours for the same pay.
I would argue that You are using definition of work time that is beneficial for employers. For me every minute of commute to work is due to employers order (You have to be where I tell You). And thus is not owned by the employee.
It only is if You ignore constraints that exist in real live (as opposed to
thought models of economic systems).
>>If I live 500 km away can I just take a train ride in, stay 30 min then get back on the train ride home and collect a full paycheck?
Yes, you can try, but first You have to find employer that is charitable enough to pay You for doing nothing (I have said nothing in my post about forcing employers to take on grifters, just asked to recognize that commute is hidden cost for employees and should be normalized).
Hilariously, I have literally asked companies to give me a 4 day week and take away the salary for the last day. I don't care. I just want a free day, but nope, no-one bit .. even the "smaller" employers.
strangely I had encountered mostly resistance to this idea, but after staying persistent on this condition I finally got what I was looking for. before (and still) I would've imagined this would make sense to employers. even startups have this old fashioned mentality ingrained...
I am not paid per hour (I have availability roughly between 08-15, of course I am not paid anything for availability, I am paid only per finished task), but I would still prefer to lose 1/3 of my income to have 3 day weekend, because whether I have 100% or 66% of my income makes no difference to me, it's just money (same as now losing like 10% (maybe 20K EUR?) of my current savings in stock, some people would go crazy here to lose that amount of money, but I don't care), but extra free day each week is priceless.
Nope. I will do more than 24/37 of the work. Probably in terms of value, just as much. (Just let me also choose what to work on and which meetings to attend)
Yes. In a heartbeat. Don't even have to think about it.
And by the standards of HN users I make a poverty wage already. Cutting my salary to 64% would put me well under the median household income for the my state and the nation as a whole.
And I promise I won't be less productive, because I'd be surprised if I did that amount of actual work as it is.
Despite having fewer hours on the clock, I will still deliver the same software on the same timeframe. It’s the software I create that they are buying, therefore I should be paid the same.
That being said, yes. As long as the salary is enough to maintain my standard of living, I will accept a lower salary to work fewer hours.
you'd think so, but on every job site i check, part-time jobs are extremely rare. and trying to impress in the interview before asking for part time is not an option.
