Best Of

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.

I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.

I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.

That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.

I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.

It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.

I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.

When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.

I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.

I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(

I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.

If we want to reverse demographic trends we need to create a society where women feel economically secure having children in their 20s and 30s.

I don't think it's just economics, I think women (and men) have been rewired to not want a family by media, bitter academics who never had kids and the nonsense and pervasive idea that having kids is a sacrifice rather than hugely rewarding experience for both parents.

Really, the question is one of emotion than rationality. People have been convinced for decades that having kids is a huge lifestyle negative but it isn't. I remember when my wife and I were having "the talk" about starting a family she was in her late 20s and all of the "advice" she read online was that it would be her sacrificing her career and that kids weren't that great and why should she have to go through it all etc... but when she spoke to her aunts, her friends who had kids the story was completely different. Every single one said they wouldn't change anything and that emotional aspect really convinced her rather than any kind of economic security given that both of us are pretty high earners.

Academia has been telling women that having kids is a net negative to their lives but consistently studies show that women who have children are far, far happier than those who don't with better emotional stability, even those who get divorced or are single parents.

If we want to raise the birth rate then this is probably a much more important step than anything to do with economics. People had kids for centuries while being poor.

If that was the case, then places like Iran would continue to have really high birth rates.

After all, the media is state controlled, and if there are any "bitter academics who never had kids" then the people don't hear about them.

Iran's birthrate is just above the UK's.

Birth rates have fallen everywhere, which suggests the problem is global in nature.

I don't know about that but I do know how pervasive the anti-kids/anti-family stuff is everywhere across modern media, social media and in universities from bitter older academics who didn't have kids. Again, it's one of those anecdata vs official statistics situations, I guess I just don't believe the same people who try and tell me the sky is green anymore and call me uneducated for disagreeing with them.

The idea that women aren't having children because of "bitter old academics" is ridiculous enough to require a bit more than anecdata.

You really don't know how pervasive it is in universities across western countries. Go out and speak to Gen Z women about their university experiences and what the diet of information was from their professors. I've got cousins who talk about this stuff to my sister and to my wife at family gatherings all the time (both of whom have kids), one of the more delusional ones called my sister a gender traitor for giving up her career for 4 years to concentrate on her family. It's genuinely terrible out there.

On the flip side we've got younger men being fed a diet of the most awful women hating shite on social media and is it any wonder that the birth rate is crashing?

It's not economics or anything rational driving down western birth rates, it goes well beyond that. I say this as someone who was convinced just a few years ago that better economic incentivisation for kids would solve the issue but I realise now that it's so much more complicated than simple maths.

You're a splendid chap Max, but really? How many professors even talk to undergrads if they can help it, let alone about this sort of thing? Not that it doesn't happen at all, but I rather doubt that it happens enough to tilt the statistics.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.

I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.

I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.

That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.

I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.

It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.

I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.

When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.

I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.

I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(

I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.

One place I used to work at people would create meetings with themselves to block out time in their calendar for actually getting work done. Of course this made scheduling meetings more difficult if people chose different times, so a policy was introduced about people being available for meetings in what was known as "core working hours"...

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

He ended up on Newsnight (I think). The lady interviewing him was appalled by his statements - and seemed to think that he (the medico) should keep quiet about it. Because he was damaging hopes and dreams.

Apparently the term "geriatric pregnancy" is now outdated, and "advanced maternal age" is used instead.

I kinda feel like the previous term more accurately conveyed the reality of the situation. And it applies to men too, to an extent.

But the whole way in which careers and employment rights and recruitment, etc, are structured push women into delaying motherhood. We'd need to seriously rethink that if we wanted society to accommodate women having children in their twenties.

I am sceptical...

I did my Obstetrics 40 years ago and I cannot remember it ever being referred to as "geriatric pregnancy," just advanced maternal age, and it always has been clearly taught that fertility drops off fairly quickly from the mid thirties onwards. This is widely known amongst women too, hence the phrase "biological clock". None of this is news to anyone.

Ask any young woman what the problem is and better than evens they will say that they never meet a man who wants to commit to a long term relationship and kids. The problem of extended adolescence is mostly a male one.

I think you're underestimating how strong the propaganda directed at young women is. Every sense of the word 'settling' has negative connotations.

Sure:

But if that was the major cause of declining birth rates, then countries with more traditional values (like, say, Iran) would have much higher birth rates. And they don't.

I suspect that we will find that the major cause of the collapse of the birth rate is the fall in testosterone and semen production in young men which again seems to be almost world wide but more marked in developed countries. I have read that a lot of plastics produce by-products that imitate estrogen and micro plastics can interfere with sperm production. Human fertility seems on a negative trend and has been for a considerable time now.

I suspect it is better quality of living and having things like electronic lights, TVs, let alone streaming, computers and phones that means people have other things to occupy themselves other than sex.

Which some people might bemoan, but plenty of couples are quite happy in bed watching a show or doing other mundane things.

In the olden days people would have nothing other to do than 'do it like they do on the Discovery Channel' and not many actually do choose to 'do it doggy style so we can both watch X-Files'.

Isn't infidelity still a major cause of relationship breakdown, which itself is still at high levels?

That doesn't speak to me of a society that has collectively lost interest in sex.

I don't think society has collectively lost interest in sex, I think it has less than it did in the past.

Also we have more choices than we did in the past. More protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to terminate them if they do occur.

All combined leads to lower birthrates. Globally lowered.

That's a lot of goalposts being moved Barty!

If people were content to have less sex - because they were happy watching YouTube in a way that previous generations were not happy reading Dickens - then you'd expect a lower rate of infidelity and a lower rate of relationship breakdown as a result.

I’m delighted to have triggered a multi-hour PB thread derailment with my posting of the Paul Johnson article on birth rates.

Now we’ve lost the SeanTs the rest of us need to step up and do more thread derailing.

We've had a few conversations on the topic which have never really got properly going.

My take is its not down to one specific thing, its a multitude, but doesn't have much to do with religion or uni professors. Saying that, the TFR among my friends who went to uni is way lower than those who didn't.

There is no quick fix, some people just don't want kids

My recollection is that the survey evidence shows that women, on average, want one more child than they have.

So we don't have to worry about the people who don't want kids. We have to worry about the people who want kids, and then don't, or don't have as many as they want.

Many years back, an eminent specialist in maternity published an article saying that the medical profession was, in effect, lying to women. That by not making clear the effects of age to the wider public, they were led to believe that having children at… advanced ages was risk free and easy.

Most of us cannot even go for a jog as easily in our 30s and 40s as in our 20s, seems pretty common sense that many things come with more physical and other risks.

I was just musing to myself the other day, is there anything, anything at all, physical or otherwise, that I'm getting better at? The answer is no (unless you count musing to myself, which I don't think you can).

You could take up something new, then you'll be better over time.
A new language for instance.
I've taken up bouldering as the kids got into it and in the future, when snowboarding is looking less sensible, I intend to be much better at skiing than I am currently

Ah yes, that's true, and I plan to. A craft, I think. I've been watching Bronowski's Ascent Of Man for the first time, what a beautifully written and presented work, and it made me feel downright unworthy. Need to get these hands working. Owe it to my species.

Beautifully written, but surely somewhat dated now?

It's a history of science. The invention of the wheel and Newton's discoveries haven't changed much in fifty years. I guess you might revise a couple of the later episodes and add a couple to accommodate recent discoveries but the rest holds up fine. What you get with Ascent of Man, which you are much less likely to get today, is a serious imparting of knowledge to viewers who are expected to be intelligent and curious but not to be knowledgeable on the topics, all delivered with a strong moral purpose.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

This kind of policy is up there with dredging rivers to stop flooding and getting rid of bus lanes to reduce congestion as examples of inane facebook-level policy making.

Give me the council worker who can rattle through the paperwork in 3 days and spend the rest of the time looking after their kids or sorting the daffodils out than the useless luddite who can't navigate an excel file without handholding.

Labour tells councils not to adopt 4 day week working

Sounds like common sense in this economy

Hmm. Depends if it’s about clockwatchers or getting the job done. My contracted week is 36.5 h, over 5 days. But realistically, as an academic, (a) no one is checking and (b) I do more than that most of the time and fail to take all my leave, plus working weekends for recruitment events.

I genuinely think if you set someone their tasks and they have achieved it in four days, then that’s fine.

I know I've said this before, but I work 24-7.

That's 24 minutes an hour, 7 hours a day.

I may jest, but I don't think that is too far off the mark for many of us, once you factor in coffee breaks, loo breaks, chats to colleagues, the odd domestic chore when wfh, and of course dipping in to an online discussion site every so often.

It depends. When I have a complex case I can step up the work rate remarkably and get prodigious amounts done in very little time. But it is exhausting and for short bursts only. I could not possibly work at that rate most of the time. Most of the time we potter along, doing enough to keep the emails answered, the engagements met, the routines followed. It's dull and I can't deny I feel more alive when genuinely pushed. I would just make myself ill if I kept it up for too long.

I suspect that we are not well suited to a steady "7 or 8 hours a day at a steady pace, week in week out, for years". My mental image of a hunter gatherer lifestyle seems much more to have ups and downs at multiple timescales: seasons where there's lots to do and off seasons where life is slower paced, weeks when you're busy and weeks with less exhausting chores, and intense hours and hours spent idling.

When I first got involved in software development many years ago I was told by a wise old programmer that most coders can't write good quality code for more than 2 hours per day. Their brains just get tired and start making mistakes or get distracted by time wasting activities.

I've found this to be broadly true, but flexible depending on the difficulty of the task. These days I write hardware description language, which is much harder than writing software, and I struggle to do one hour of useful work. The rest of the day is spent on less demanding things like writing documentation or arguing with people on the internet.

I think 2x2hr blocks of 'good' development work and I count it as a good day. Sadly, these days I have endless short meetings so the chance of a 2hr block are a fantasy compared to continual interruptions to explain 'why isn't that done yet?' :-(

I sometimes wonder if people who just spend their days floating from meeting, to meeting, to meeting understand that people who are trying to get the underlying work done don't find that a very helpful way to spend their time.