One thing is that "work week" mean different things in different contexts. One point of reference are full-time employees, that are paid a certain yearly salary. They typically work around 11 months a year (give or take a week or two), and are paid once every 12 months (with various takes on how vacation is paid for). The hourly wage is only a number used when calculating compensation for extra hours/overtime etc -- and compensation is based on more or less doing the same, every day, all year.
So what happens when people cannot, or don't want to work "full time"? In retail, "results" typically would mean you're at your post, servicing customers. In engineering, it doesn't really matter as long as the milestones are met.
You might need a reasonable yardstick against which to measure performance, if you want people to be able to adjust how much and when they work. I don't think there is a "one-size-fits-all" solution (well, beyond: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- which I think is a fine idea, but it demands some restructuring. Not perhaps only feasible under communism, one might view the idea of Japanese "employee-for-life" as another realization of the same idea).
All that said, counting hours, for most jobs (ie: those that aren't on the way to be automated away, anyway), is probably the worst possible measure of productivity -- and if one thinks compensation should be tied to productivity -- it is probably the worst possible basis on which to base compensation.
The benefit of measuring hours, lies in the simplicity. If people only work when at work, if they mostly work when at work, then hours at work should correlate with values produced, for that worker. You'd still need to price those hours (8 hours of amateur work, vs 1 hour of someone that's good at their job -- could readily be of the same value).
One thing is that "work week" mean different things in different contexts. One point of reference are full-time employees, that are paid a certain yearly salary. They typically work around 11 months a year (give or take a week or two), and are paid once every 12 months (with various takes on how vacation is paid for). The hourly wage is only a number used when calculating compensation for extra hours/overtime etc -- and compensation is based on more or less doing the same, every day, all year.
So what happens when people cannot, or don't want to work "full time"? In retail, "results" typically would mean you're at your post, servicing customers. In engineering, it doesn't really matter as long as the milestones are met.
You might need a reasonable yardstick against which to measure performance, if you want people to be able to adjust how much and when they work. I don't think there is a "one-size-fits-all" solution (well, beyond: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- which I think is a fine idea, but it demands some restructuring. Not perhaps only feasible under communism, one might view the idea of Japanese "employee-for-life" as another realization of the same idea).
All that said, counting hours, for most jobs (ie: those that aren't on the way to be automated away, anyway), is probably the worst possible measure of productivity -- and if one thinks compensation should be tied to productivity -- it is probably the worst possible basis on which to base compensation.
The benefit of measuring hours, lies in the simplicity. If people only work when at work, if they mostly work when at work, then hours at work should correlate with values produced, for that worker. You'd still need to price those hours (8 hours of amateur work, vs 1 hour of someone that's good at their job -- could readily be of the same value).