Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[grumbler]

I'd love to see your evidence that working 44 hours a week is measurably less healthy than working 40 hours a week.  Or that 40 hours a week is the "healthy choice" compared to 36 hours a week (which it must be, or your argument fails).

I think that you are creating a problem because you want to implement your preferred nanny state solution.

And what solution is that?

There's tonnes of research to show a link between working long hours and negative health effects. Surprised to see someone questioning the very premise of the thread.

https://www.google.ch/search?q=health+effects+working+more+hours&oq=health+effects+working+more+hours&aqs=chrome..69i57&client=ms-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#xxri=10

I'd love to see your evidence that working 44 hours a week is measurably less healthy than working 40 hours a week.  Or that 40 hours a week is the "healthy choice" compared to 36 hours a week (which it must be, or your argument fails).

Merely showing us that you really don't know how to google ("more hours" is a shitty search term) is not persuasive.

[Josquius]

What the fuck are you even talking about?
You realise that splitting hairs about whether the cut off point is 36,40,48 or whatever is completely missing the point right?
Pretty sure Minsky just said 40 as it's a nice round number.

[grumbler]

What the fuck are you even talking about?
You realise that splitting hairs about whether the cut off point is 36,40,48 or whatever is completely missing the point right?
Pretty sure Minsky just said 40 as it's a nice round number.

What the fuck?  You are the one who said that "The down side of paying more for over 40 hours of work is that it is incentivising the unhealthy option." (my bold) If you didn't fucking mean that, why the fuck did you say it?

Pretty sure Minsky said that "Solution - presumption of 1.5x pay for work beyond 40 hrs per week" - a solution you disagreed with.  How can you now cite what you are "pretty sure Minsky said" as the final authority for anything, given that you disagree with him? (and, btw, it was dps, not Minsky, who agreed with my observation about your silliness in choosing 40 hours as the difference between healthy and unhealthy).

[derspiess]

Language! 

[grumbler]

Language! 

I'm trying to speak a language Tyr understands.  It's difficult, since I am not as fluent in gibberish as he is.

[derspiess]

Okay.

[Josquius]

1: . It's called discussion. Its what humans do. You can note the potential draw backs of an idea without totally opposing it.
2: It was Minsky who brought up 40 hours. Given the number of hours wasn't the point of what he was saying getting hung up on it is rather mad.
3: Your logic doesn't make sense. Drinking one glass of wine is perfectly healthy. Laws still disincentivise all drinking. Given the impossibility of mapping exactly when every person reaches the level of too much work it's pretty stupid to expect a line can be drawn there. Would you even want the line drawn right on the danger point? Again that's dumb.

[CountDeMoney]

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

[derspiess]

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits. 

THANKS OBAMACARE

[Berkut]

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

Nurses should not work for employers who do that.

[CountDeMoney]

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits. 

THANKS OBAMACARE

I'm sure the neighborhood trick-or-treaters appreciated all those wire hangers you handed out last night, coonhating anti-cuntite.

[CountDeMoney]

Nobody ever bitches how employers can cap hours at 37.5 a week in order to intentionally avoid providing full-time benefits.  I guess suckers like nurses should've learned coding.

Nurses should not work for employers who do that.

I'm sure someone will get that memo to them.

[Valmy]

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that the 40-hour cutoff for OT isn't a more-or-less arbitrary limit.

I think people could reasonably do 60-hours on a consistent basis. But 16+ per day will ruin your health in the long run. Hell in the short run.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think that anyone can reasonably argue that the 40-hour cutoff for OT isn't a more-or-less arbitrary limit.

I think people could reasonably do 60-hours on a consistent basis.

The medical research suggests otherwise.

The largest study conducted on the issue, carried out in three continents and led by scientists at University College London, found that those who work more than 55 hours a week have a 33% increased risk of stroke compared with those who work a 35- to 40-hour week. They also have a 13% increased risk of coronary heart disease.

The findings will confirm the assumptions of many that a long-hours culture, in which people work from early in the morning until well into the evening, with work also intruding into weekends, is potentially harmful to health.

The researchers, publishing their findings in the Lancet medical journal, say they cannot state categorically that long hours cause people to have strokes – but their study shows that there is a link, and it gets stronger as the hours people put in get longer.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/aug/20/working-longer-hours-increases-stroke-risk

[grumbler]

It is you who got hung up on the specific hours, and me who pointed out the stupidity of that position.  You cannot now claim my position now that you have realized how moronic your position was.  I got to the smart answer first.