Discussion:
job times
(too old to reply)
Gaurav Sharma
2004-07-15 21:18:15 UTC
Permalink
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.

Gaurav
Ray Pang
2004-07-15 22:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
Last summer I generally did 0830 to 1800 or 1830, although there were a few
(very) late nights.
adam
2004-07-15 23:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.

jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.

every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.

adam
Laura
2004-07-16 17:29:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by adam
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.
jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.
every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.
adam
Maybe it depends on the industry - I've worked in *lots* of offices
(temping), and have never had to work more than 9 - 5.30. My two proper
jobs have been 9 - 5, both in financial services, but then I've put in a
fair amount of unpaid overtime as well!

Laura.
Adam
2004-07-18 02:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Laura
Post by adam
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.
jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.
every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.
adam
Maybe it depends on the industry - I've worked in *lots* of offices
(temping), and have never had to work more than 9 - 5.30. My two proper
jobs have been 9 - 5, both in financial services, but then I've put in a
fair amount of unpaid overtime as well!
Laura.
Maybe it depends on gender.

You and Jess work girly hours.

Me, Ray and Gaurav work manly hours.

adam
Ray Pang
2004-07-18 21:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam
Post by Laura
Post by adam
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.
jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.
every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.
adam
Maybe it depends on the industry - I've worked in *lots* of offices
(temping), and have never had to work more than 9 - 5.30. My two proper
jobs have been 9 - 5, both in financial services, but then I've put in a
fair amount of unpaid overtime as well!
Laura.
Maybe it depends on gender.
You and Jess work girly hours.
Me, Ray and Gaurav work manly hours.
adam
Email from employers regarding the 4 weeks training at the start of my grad
scheme starting in September. "You will be expected to work most evenings."
Bugger.
John Porcella
2004-07-18 21:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by adam
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.
jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.
every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.
adam
I think that you will find that 9 to 17:30 is probably more normal.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Robert de Vincy
2004-07-19 11:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Porcella
Post by adam
just to gain some perspective on this, what are typical graduate
work hours? I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although
flexible, often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me),
but was wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other
dudes have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in
general.
9 till 6 is normal office hours as far as i know.
jess will try and tell you 9 till 5 is normal, but that's for lazy
people.
every office i have worked in (which have only been two, but hey) work
9 till 6.
I think that you will find that 9 to 17:30 is probably more normal.
Just to lower the average slightly...

8.30 till 16.45 were my Official Hours in my last job until I gave it all up
and went back to Uni.
--
BdeV
Gaurav Sharma
2004-07-16 08:37:25 UTC
Permalink
^ thanks for the clarification guys, much appreciated.
Imran Ghory
2004-07-17 21:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.

Imran
Becky Loader
2004-07-20 21:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Imran Ghory
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.
For some reason, that really gets my back up. 8-6? That's fucking
ridiculous. Between getting up before 7 and going to bed by midnight, when
are you to do the decent amount of relaxing that'll ensure you're /happy/ at
work/?

We're apparently not terribly productive in this country, considering the
working hours. (There was something about this on the radio earlier,
actually) I've heard theories that it's because we're quite bad at
separating 'worktime' and 'playtime' and consequently hang around the office
for ages doing very little. There's some kind of chauvinistic attitude in
this country that you're somehow more virtuous for hanging around the office
for longer. Contrast that with the attitude in many other European
countries where working longer hours is seen to reflect of your
incompetence: you can't get your work done on time.

Good luck to you. I wouldn't be prepared to do it, and that's why you'll be
far richer than me. (This is also a big reason why I'm not planning to go
into teaching at the moment! I don't want to regret the fact that the
evenings of my mid- and late twenties were spent marking/in the
office/school, not the pub/friends' houses/the bank manager's office,
attempting to extend my overdraft. Maybe I'm just a lazy sod.)

Becky
Ray Pang
2004-07-20 21:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Imran Ghory
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.
For some reason, that really gets my back up. 8-6? That's fucking
ridiculous. Between getting up before 7 and going to bed by midnight, when
are you to do the decent amount of relaxing that'll ensure you're /happy/ at
work/?
I wouldn't be prepared to do it, and that's why you'll be
far richer than me. (This is also a big reason why I'm not planning to go
into teaching at the moment! I don't want to regret the fact that the
evenings of my mid- and late twenties were spent marking/in the
office/school, not the pub/friends' houses/the bank manager's office,
attempting to extend my overdraft. Maybe I'm just a lazy sod.)
Becky
In my short experience as a City worker, 8-6 did not seem likea big deal at
all. OK, for most of my summer I had a 50 min commute into work, which meant
I was getting up at about 6.45 and getting home at about 7.30. Cook some
dinner and watch some TV then go to bed. But there are weekends and Friday
evenings, and I quite enjoyed them - in fact it made me make the most of the
weekends, rather than lounge in bed all morning.
Becky Loader
2004-07-21 22:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
In my short experience as a City worker, 8-6 did not seem likea big deal at
all. OK, for most of my summer I had a 50 min commute into work, which meant
I was getting up at about 6.45 and getting home at about 7.30. Cook some
dinner and watch some TV then go to bed. But there are weekends and Friday
evenings, and I quite enjoyed them - in fact it made me make the most of the
weekends, rather than lounge in bed all morning.
That working week doesn't sound like anything I'd be prepared to cope with
for longer than about two weeks. Even if I'm not doing anything
particularly sociable, I like to have the time to go to the gym or pursue a
hobby, rather than just collapsing in front of the telly and waiting for the
weekend like a character from a song by The Jam. 37.5 hours should be
enough; any more than 40 ought to be unnecessary.

Becky
Ray Pang
2004-07-22 00:34:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
In my short experience as a City worker, 8-6 did not seem likea big deal
at
Post by Ray Pang
all. OK, for most of my summer I had a 50 min commute into work, which
meant
Post by Ray Pang
I was getting up at about 6.45 and getting home at about 7.30. Cook some
dinner and watch some TV then go to bed. But there are weekends and Friday
evenings, and I quite enjoyed them - in fact it made me make the most of
the
Post by Ray Pang
weekends, rather than lounge in bed all morning.
That working week doesn't sound like anything I'd be prepared to cope with
for longer than about two weeks. Even if I'm not doing anything
particularly sociable, I like to have the time to go to the gym or pursue a
hobby, rather than just collapsing in front of the telly and waiting for the
weekend like a character from a song by The Jam. 37.5 hours should be
enough; any more than 40 ought to be unnecessary.
Becky
Each to their own I guess. I think I'll be quite OK with it - hopefully
leaves me enough time for an hour or so at the gym two or three times a
week, but time will tell if I will hate it or not.
Gaurav Sharma
2004-07-23 22:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
In my short experience as a City worker, 8-6 did not seem likea big deal
at
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
all. OK, for most of my summer I had a 50 min commute into work, which
meant
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
I was getting up at about 6.45 and getting home at about 7.30. Cook some
dinner and watch some TV then go to bed. But there are weekends and Friday
evenings, and I quite enjoyed them - in fact it made me make the most of
the
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
weekends, rather than lounge in bed all morning.
That working week doesn't sound like anything I'd be prepared to cope with
for longer than about two weeks. Even if I'm not doing anything
particularly sociable, I like to have the time to go to the gym or pursue a
hobby, rather than just collapsing in front of the telly and waiting for the
weekend like a character from a song by The Jam. 37.5 hours should be
enough; any more than 40 ought to be unnecessary.
Becky
Each to their own I guess. I think I'll be quite OK with it - hopefully
leaves me enough time for an hour or so at the gym two or three times a
week, but time will tell if I will hate it or not.
I'm with Becky here. Add 9-10hrs + commute time (say 2 hrs) and that
leaves with you a precious few tired hours just to get something to
eat, prob watch tv/online for an hr, and then collapse. and then the
cycle repeats the next morning.

My timings are especially bad at the moment since I commute about 2hrs
either way at the moment (2+9+2=13hrs indirectly related to work) and
it's almost life-destroying outside the context of work. Weekends are
used to catchup all the knackered weekday sleeptimes. I'm glad as
hell that my work place is moving though (near to college, 1hr
commute). Even 2 extra hours in the day to spend at the gym/etc are
gold.

I agree with the bit where Ray mentions that it makes you make better
use of your time though - or what's left of it!
Stuart Williams
2004-07-22 18:47:46 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, ***@btinternet.com
says...
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Ray Pang
In my short experience as a City worker, 8-6 did not seem likea big deal
at
Post by Ray Pang
all. OK, for most of my summer I had a 50 min commute into work, which
meant
Post by Ray Pang
I was getting up at about 6.45 and getting home at about 7.30. Cook some
dinner and watch some TV then go to bed. But there are weekends and Friday
evenings, and I quite enjoyed them - in fact it made me make the most of
the
Post by Ray Pang
weekends, rather than lounge in bed all morning.
That working week doesn't sound like anything I'd be prepared to cope with
for longer than about two weeks. Even if I'm not doing anything
particularly sociable, I like to have the time to go to the gym or pursue a
hobby, rather than just collapsing in front of the telly and waiting for the
weekend like a character from a song by The Jam. 37.5 hours should be
enough; any more than 40 ought to be unnecessary.
Becky
In a desperate attempt to provoke more than 3 messages a day:

You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week. If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)

Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? At the risk of sounding like a
Daily Mail reader, you've none of you any conception of how hard you have
to work to earn a decent living. Most of you seem to be saying "I want to
carry on - more or less - with a studenty lifestyle, but the jobs out
there just don't seem to fit the description".

Stuart Williams
James Gregory
2004-07-22 20:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.

James
Stuart Williams
2004-07-22 21:16:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@f2s.com>, ***@f2s.com
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.

Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).

Starting salaries for teachers and policemen (about 18K) or private
soldiers (13K plus most living expenses)suggest that 14K isn't going to
go far, or not for very long. The median income in the UK is about 16K.
If you're living alone on 14K you're only just above the official poverty
line (2/3 median income, and adjusted for household size).

One of the bitter ironies of the job market is that occupations which are
enjoyable and satisfying tend to pay more than those which are
stultifying and frustrating.

Stuart Williams
Ray Pang
2004-07-22 22:21:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but anyway, I was watching BBC
London News the other night, and for the last few days they've been talking
about how expensive it is to go out in London, and whether attractions
should be free, discounted or the same for Londoners. I don't really see a
compelling reason why it should be free or discounted. It's not as though
the residents of Staffordshire get discounted trips to Alton Towers.
Post by Stuart Williams
Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).
Again, that's something open to opinion, but I agree with your views this
time.
John Porcella
2004-07-24 23:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but anyway, I was watching BBC
London News the other night, and for the last few days they've been talking
about how expensive it is to go out in London, and whether attractions
should be free, discounted or the same for Londoners. I don't really see a
compelling reason why it should be free or discounted. It's not as though
the residents of Staffordshire get discounted trips to Alton Towers.
You have missed the point, I think. Those living in Staffs would have much
lower living costs due to much lower housing costs and cheaper transport, so
that they would not need/require subsidies to visite Alton Towers.
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Stuart Williams
Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).
Again, that's something open to opinion, but I agree with your views this
time.
Which bit?
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Ray Pang
2004-07-25 09:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Ray Pang
I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but anyway, I was watching BBC
London News the other night, and for the last few days they've been
talking
Post by Ray Pang
about how expensive it is to go out in London, and whether attractions
should be free, discounted or the same for Londoners. I don't really see a
compelling reason why it should be free or discounted. It's not as though
the residents of Staffordshire get discounted trips to Alton Towers.
You have missed the point, I think. Those living in Staffs would have much
lower living costs due to much lower housing costs and cheaper transport, so
that they would not need/require subsidies to visite Alton Towers.
But I'd *guess* that the average salary in Staffordshire is accordingly
lower. OK there are those in London that are on incomes that wouldn't be
high for any part of the country, never mind London. But you can't cater for
everyone. Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Stuart Williams
Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).
Again, that's something open to opinion, but I agree with your views this
time.
Which bit?
Living with your parents after you're thirty.
James Gregory
2004-07-25 15:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
Most places still do count you as a concession if you are unemployed or
an OAP (or indeed a child or a student). But to count as unemployed you
have to produce a job seekers' book thing, so unfortuantly I counted as an
adult everywhere I went when going round London with some South Korean
girl (long story) yesterday. Luckily however my trip round London was
heavily subsidised by both the girl in question and by my Dad, so all was
OK. Otherwise I would now be about £80 poorer.

James
Ray Pang
2004-07-25 15:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Post by Ray Pang
Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
Most places still do count you as a concession if you are unemployed or
an OAP (or indeed a child or a student). But to count as unemployed you
have to produce a job seekers' book thing, so unfortuantly I counted as an
adult everywhere I went when going round London with some South Korean
girl (long story) yesterday.
Maybe they should publicise the fact more. I don't recall them mentioning it
on BBC London News, which doesn't really surprise me, as BBC tend to have a
habit of leaving out important detail thesedays, but then again I wasn't
paying that much attention.
John Porcella
2004-07-26 15:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
But I'd *guess* that the average salary in Staffordshire is accordingly
lower. OK there are those in London that are on incomes that wouldn't be
high for any part of the country, never mind London. But you can't cater for
everyone. Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
The Tower of London or the Underground station?
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Stuart Williams
Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).
Again, that's something open to opinion, but I agree with your views this
time.
Which bit?
Living with your parents after you're thirty.
It is becoming more common than it was, I agree.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Ray Pang
2004-07-26 16:45:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
But I'd *guess* that the average salary in Staffordshire is accordingly
lower. OK there are those in London that are on incomes that wouldn't be
high for any part of the country, never mind London. But you can't cater
for
Post by Ray Pang
everyone. Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
The Tower of London or the Underground station?
The Tower of London.
John Porcella
2004-07-27 00:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
But I'd *guess* that the average salary in Staffordshire is accordingly
lower. OK there are those in London that are on incomes that wouldn't be
high for any part of the country, never mind London. But you can't cater
for
Post by Ray Pang
everyone. Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that single
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower Hill.
The Tower of London or the Underground station?
The Tower of London.
I have not been there is years and years. I must go again someday as I have
always enjoyed it!
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Ray Pang
2004-07-27 09:32:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
But I'd *guess* that the average salary in Staffordshire is accordingly
lower. OK there are those in London that are on incomes that wouldn't
be
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
high for any part of the country, never mind London. But you can't
cater
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
for
Post by Ray Pang
everyone. Or maybe you can. I remember a good few years back that
single
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
Post by Ray Pang
parents or the unemployed or elderly got discounted entry to Tower
Hill.
Post by Ray Pang
Post by John Porcella
The Tower of London or the Underground station?
The Tower of London.
I have not been there is years and years. I must go again someday as I have
always enjoyed it!
Yes, I enjoyed it quite a bit when I went. I was 12 at the time, so whether
I'd appreciate it more or less now is unknown to me.
John Porcella
2004-07-24 23:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.
Would I be right in thinking that so far you've lived either with your
family or with people of a similar age? Neither of those will be a
satisfactory option after you're thirty (at the latest).
Whilst I agree with the broad thrust of what you have been writing in this
thread, I am not so sure about your comments about "thirty (at the latest)"
since there have been press articles this week about how people are being
prevented from being first time buyers because of the unaffordability of
housing, particularly in the south-east of England. This has meant a rise
in the age of first time buyers and consequently many more people in their
thirties or more still in (or back to) the parental home. I, for one, have
to live with a parent at age forty due to a very low income and expensive
housing.
Post by Stuart Williams
Starting salaries for teachers and policemen (about 18K) or private
soldiers (13K plus most living expenses)suggest that 14K isn't going to
go far, or not for very long.
£14k would not be very good in London...in fact, I wonder if it would be a
living wage.

The median income in the UK is about 16K.
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're living alone on 14K you're only just above the official poverty
line (2/3 median income, and adjusted for household size).
One of the bitter ironies of the job market is that occupations which are
enjoyable and satisfying tend to pay more than those which are
stultifying and frustrating.
'Twas ever thus?
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
James Gregory
2004-07-25 16:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.
Well:

If you're earning £14000 a quick calculation (which might therefore
be wrong) says you'll also pay £1800 income tax plus £1020 in national
insurance.

Basic living costs:

£3000 rent
£1300 food
£520 bills
£300 council tax
= so £5120 is about the cost of existence if you're not living with your
parents/the army/whatever.

£14000 - £1800 - £1020 - £5120 = £6060 to blow on cool stuff

Mmm, spending £6060, that would be fun.

How about:

£2080 is £40 a week, which in the past has been about the amount I spend
if I do something with my evenings and weekends, and occasionally buy
the odd new toy, rather than just spending my time "watching daytime TV"
(though actually I tend to watch a computer screen instead, I never watch
TV nowadays)
£800 running costs for a car
£300 depreciation of car
£800 running costs for a motorbike
£300 depreciation of motorbike
£400 skiing for a week
£500 two weeks in the sun

= £5180, and I'm running out of things to spend money on...

James
Ray Pang
2004-07-25 16:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
£800 running costs for a car
£300 depreciation of car
What sort of car are you talking about? In the two years I've had my current
car, I've lost about £2300 of value on it through depreciation, spent £1300
on insurance, £900 on repairs, £320 taxing it, £80 taxing it, £250 servicing
it, then there's petrol too, and in the last week I've spent £85 on petrol.

That's about £2500 a year. Plus petrol.
James Gregory
2004-07-25 19:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by James Gregory
£800 running costs for a car
£300 depreciation of car
What sort of car are you talking about?
A rather old and rubbish car, obviously. Depreciation can also therefore
mean "saving up some money so I can bu ya new car when this one needs
scrapping".
Post by Ray Pang
Plus petrol.
You can make petrol cheaper by going places with other people and
getting them to contribute towards the petrol. Also, even with a car
I'd still cycle shorter journeys. Still, I guess I'd better allow another
maybe £10 a week for petrol, which is another £520 per year.

James
Stuart Williams
2004-07-25 19:17:47 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@f2s.com>, ***@f2s.com
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
Post by James Gregory
Post by Stuart Williams
If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Sounds like more than enough to me.
James
Enough for what? One of the problems of not having much money is that
it's difficult to enjoy the leisure time you do have - apart from
watching terrestrial TV, not much in the way of entertainment or
relaxation comes cheap.
If you're earning £14000 a quick calculation (which might therefore
be wrong) says you'll also pay £1800 income tax plus £1020 in national
insurance.
£3000 rent
£1300 food
£520 bills
£300 council tax
= so £5120 is about the cost of existence if you're not living with your
parents/the army/whatever.
£14000 - £1800 - £1020 - £5120 = £6060 to blow on cool stuff
Mmm, spending £6060, that would be fun.
£2080 is £40 a week, which in the past has been about the amount I spend
if I do something with my evenings and weekends, and occasionally buy
the odd new toy, rather than just spending my time "watching daytime TV"
(though actually I tend to watch a computer screen instead, I never watch
TV nowadays)
£800 running costs for a car
£300 depreciation of car
£800 running costs for a motorbike
£300 depreciation of motorbike
£400 skiing for a week
£500 two weeks in the sun
= £5180, and I'm running out of things to spend money on...
James
OK, fine: when I started this sub-theme, I just wanted people to think
about what it's really like to live on a smallish salary in the real
world. I think you've left out public transport, which can be quite a
lot, and I think your estimates for Council Tax and car use are too low,
but hey. Nor is there anything for pension or house/life insurance (or
savings). And if you live north of Nottingham, arbitrarily chosen, your
14k will go quite a long way.

SW
James Gregory
2004-07-25 21:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
OK, fine: when I started this sub-theme, I just wanted people to think
about what it's really like to live on a smallish salary in the real
world.
You suggested £14,000 wasn't very much money, saying "Enough for what? One
of the problems of not having much money is that it's difficult to enjoy
the leisure time you do have".

I pointed out that I could do all sorts of things if only I had £14,000
a year. I've spent about £6000 over the past year, and that includes
going to America for 8 weeks whilst still paying rent in England.
Post by Stuart Williams
I think you've left out public transport, which can be quite a
lot,
I never ever used public transport when I had a car. If you mean for
commuting, then yes £14,000 is less than £14,000 if some of it goes on
commuting.
Post by Stuart Williams
and I think your estimates for Council Tax
My estimate assumes you're sharing the bill with others - last year there
were 5 people in our house, and 3 of us shared the council tax bill.
Post by Stuart Williams
and car use are too low,
My idea of a car is something with 4 wheels which goes. If it goes more
quickly, that is better.
Post by Stuart Williams
but hey. Nor is there anything for pension or house/life insurance (or
savings).
Lots of proper jobs provide a free pension scheme if you work there for
long enough, don't they? Life insurance is only necessary if you have
children or something stupid like that.

James
Ray Pang
2004-07-25 20:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Lots of proper jobs provide a free pension scheme if you work there for
long enough, don't they? Life insurance is only necessary if you have
children or something stupid like that.
Do they? I have no idea about pensions, but I'd guess that a free pension
scheme means that there's no charge to be part of the scheme, as opposed to
a private pension company, who would maybe take some sort of admin charge. I
have no idea. But the money that you put aside in a pension comes out of
your wages.
Alex Warren
2004-07-25 21:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by James Gregory
Lots of proper jobs provide a free pension scheme if you work there for
long enough, don't they? Life insurance is only necessary if you have
children or something stupid like that.
Do they? I have no idea about pensions, but I'd guess that a free pension
scheme means that there's no charge to be part of the scheme, as opposed to
a private pension company, who would maybe take some sort of admin charge. I
have no idea. But the money that you put aside in a pension comes out of
your wages.
I start work at IT consultancy LogicaCMG in about a month, and I think you can
contribute a few percent of your wages and then they match it. But surely this
is irrelevant at this stage - if you've just graduated and are on not a very big
salary, what's the point in feeding your pension fund now? Give it a few years
surely.


Alex
Ray Pang
2004-07-26 08:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Warren
Post by Ray Pang
Post by James Gregory
Lots of proper jobs provide a free pension scheme if you work there for
long enough, don't they? Life insurance is only necessary if you have
children or something stupid like that.
Do they? I have no idea about pensions, but I'd guess that a free pension
scheme means that there's no charge to be part of the scheme, as opposed to
a private pension company, who would maybe take some sort of admin charge. I
have no idea. But the money that you put aside in a pension comes out of
your wages.
I start work at IT consultancy LogicaCMG in about a month, and I think you can
contribute a few percent of your wages and then they match it. But surely this
is irrelevant at this stage - if you've just graduated and are on not a very big
salary, what's the point in feeding your pension fund now? Give it a few years
surely.
Why not? It'll make things easier when you're all old and crumbly. From what
I've heard on various financial TV programmes and newspapers, pensions are
something that you should think about as soon as you start working proper.
Stuart Williams
2004-07-25 21:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
Lots of proper jobs provide a free pension scheme if you work there for
long enough, don't they? Life insurance is only necessary if you have
children or something stupid like that.
James
No, I don't think they will, not for much longer: even the public sector
is going to move away from final salary pension schemes. It's one of the
biggest problems current governments face - how to persuade young workers
that they need to start a pension scheme right now.

And what makes you think you won't have dependents? Even if you're gay,
you may want to ensure that your survivor(s) can pay off the mortgage.

SW
Alex Warren
2004-07-25 21:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Gregory
If you're earning £14000 a quick calculation (which might therefore
be wrong) says you'll also pay £1800 income tax plus £1020 in national
insurance.
£3000 rent
£1300 food
£520 bills
£300 council tax
= so £5120 is about the cost of existence if you're not living with your
parents/the army/whatever.
£14000 - £1800 - £1020 - £5120 = £6060 to blow on cool stuff
Don't forget repaying your student loan. And any other loans you may have - I
recently got a fairly chunky graduate loan, which will see me paying back £150 a
month. Quite a lot of my salary has been spent over the past four years it
seems.


Alex
Becky Loader
2004-07-22 21:01:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week. If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
So, sorry, we're less productive than France where they work fewer hours? I
genuinely don't understand this.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope to work general hours of 9-5.30 or
6. Of course, I expect to have to do overtime, but I don't think it's a
pipe dream to hope that I'm not contracted to do more than 40 hours per week
for a living wage. If it is, there's something seriously fucking wrong with
the attitude here; we're not as desperately important as we'd like to
believe.
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? At the risk of sounding like a
Daily Mail reader, you've none of you any conception of how hard you have
to work to earn a decent living.
I don't think that's particularly fair. I know plenty of people round here
(Greater London) who sustain themselves working mostly 9-5/5.30/6. If all I
ever saw was people working 8-6, I might regard it as the norm, but that's
not my experience. Earlier in this thread, people seemed to think that
9-5.30 or 6 were normal office hours and that's what most seem to be working
(Gaurav, Chris, Max).

Perhaps I'll concede your point when I'm living in a flea-infested squat in
Peckham because my public sector job (hours 9-5) isn't managing to sustain
me.

Becky
Stuart Williams
2004-07-23 08:41:10 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, ***@btinternet.com
says...
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Stuart Williams
says...
You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week. If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
So, sorry, we're less productive than France where they work fewer hours? I
genuinely don't understand this.
Productive (as in "productivity") is output per worker or output per
unit-bundle-of-inputs. So, e.g.

The average Brit produces every hour 8 quid's worth of stuff. Given a 50
week year and a forty-hour week, that equates to 16K per year.

The average Frenchie produces every hour 10 quid's worth of stuff, works
a 48 week year for 36 hours a week. Result: 17280 pounds per year, and a
higher living standard.

The explanation for the Britain's lag behind the US, Germany, France and
Japan is made up of lack of up-to-date investment, lower-level skills in
the work-force, and worse social infrastructure (e.g., traffic congestion
seriously reduces the productivity of lorry drivers). The more productive
the average worker is, the higher average living standards will be.

Stuart Williams
Adam Atkinson
2004-07-23 04:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing?
Yes, though the "9-10" type examples quoted for investment banks do
strike me as something I would not be prepared to do as I cannot see
the point. I suspect I would be physically incapable of doing this
unless I lived next door to the investment bank, in any case. Add 1.5
to 2 hours travel each way and I just cannot see such long hours being
possible. I've manned game stands at the Mind Sports Olympiad 8-8 for
10 days, with travel time on top, and that was pretty bad. Longer
hours, or those hours for more than a couple of weeks, aren't
something I could keep up. Apart from anything else, as a total zombie
how good an investment banker would I be?
Post by Stuart Williams
At the risk of sounding like a
Daily Mail reader, you've none of you any conception of how hard you have
to work to earn a decent living. Most of you seem to be saying "I want to
carry on - more or less - with a studenty lifestyle, but the jobs out
there just don't seem to fit the description".
I think that's overstating it a little. It may depend on what you mean
by "decent", of course. I met someone at university who thought (about
15 years ago) that "decent" meant earning 50k a year by the time you
were 30 so you could send your children to private school. That's
considerably beyond what I'd call "decent". Mind you, 10 years ago I
thought 20k a year was unimaginable wealth, so what do I know?

My own working day is 7.30 to
4.30, but if there's something that's still "live" at 4.30 I don't
just disappear: I am, not unreasonably, expected to either formally
hand it over to someone else or stick with it until it's either fixed,
handed over, escalated, or whatever. The 7.30 start is my own choice -
someone needs to be there from 8, and since I get up at 4am anyway it
makes sense for it to be me. I've not been at work later than 9pm for
months or years, though I once stayed until 3am, went home and was
back at about 8am.

Also, I'm on call 24 hours a day one week in 4, and second on call
(which almost never results in anything actually happening) one week
in 8. Tonight is my last night on call for this month. I don't count
call-outs in the "haven't been at work past 9pm" thing above: they
happen at any and all hours, but don't usually result in me going
anywhere immediately - I've only gone somewhere immediately as a
result of a callout about 3 times, and I've gone somewhere when trains
started working the next morning about 2 times on top of that.

I can't imagine ever being able to buy a house, so maybe I'm not
earning a "decent living".
--
Adam Atkinson (***@mistral.co.uk)
WWJD? JWRTFM
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing?
Yes, though the "9-10" type examples quoted for investment banks do
strike me as something I would not be prepared to do as I cannot see
the point. I suspect I would be physically incapable of doing this
unless I lived next door to the investment bank, in any case. Add 1.5
to 2 hours travel each way and I just cannot see such long hours being
possible. I've manned game stands at the Mind Sports Olympiad 8-8 for
10 days, with travel time on top, and that was pretty bad.
What exactly does manning the Mind Sports Olympiad involve? Forgive my
ignorance, but it doesn't sound particularly interesting. To be honest,
doing the hours I did at Barclays last summer at the call centre I used to
work at would be absolutely unbearable. But doing it at Barclays wasn't a
problem at all. OK, knackering, but it's a tough job so it's bound to be.
Post by Adam Atkinson
Longer
hours, or those hours for more than a couple of weeks, aren't
something I could keep up. Apart from anything else, as a total zombie
how good an investment banker would I be?
Ah, investment banking is a rich area of employment, excusing the pun. I
have a friend who is in the Operations department, and does long hours
regularly, and describes his work as "monkey work", i.e. it's not hard. He
did manage to lose £40,000 for them once though, by making a mistake...
Post by Adam Atkinson
I can't imagine ever being able to buy a house, so maybe I'm not
earning a "decent living".
I thought hard about buying a flat in London. It's not quite as tough as you
might imagine, if you're on a 'good' salary - typically you can borrow about
4 times your salary. 3% minimum deposit, and the repayments are a touch more
than what you'd pay in rent. Of course, buying a place involves also buying
all the furniture, paying service charges and more expenses, but it's not
throwing money away like rent.
I
Adam Atkinson
2004-07-24 03:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
I've manned game stands at the Mind Sports Olympiad 8-8 for
10 days, with travel time on top, and that was pretty bad.
What exactly does manning the Mind Sports Olympiad involve?
The MSO consists of tournaments for lots of (mostly traditional) board and
card games. I think the web site is http://www.msoworld.com/ or
something like that. Some event also have stalls set up to teach the
beginners the rules so that passersby don't have to ask the actual
participants "What on earth is this game?" I "did" the Go stall for
the first five editions. I don't think I'll be doing this year's one.
Post by Ray Pang
Forgive my
ignorance, but it doesn't sound particularly interesting.
De gustibus. I've had a free week in Pisa for each of the last two
years doing the same sort of thing: a stand at "National Science
Culture Week" teaching passers-by traditional board games from around
the world, and explaining a table full of puzzles as necessary ("Rush
Hour", "Lunar Lockout", Chinese rings and suchlike). I quite enjoy
that, and it's possibly worth it for the free week in Pisa. But that's
c. 12 hours a day too: if the hotel weren't just down the road from
the venue it would be hard. And of course spending all day having to
beat almost everyone (because if I can't beat beginners, why am I
there?) gets harder as the week progresses. Last year I also got to
practice public speaking by giving a talk to an audience of c. 300 as
well. They laughed in the right places, so I think it went ok.
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Longer
hours, or those hours for more than a couple of weeks, aren't
something I could keep up. Apart from anything else, as a total zombie
how good an investment banker would I be?
Ah, investment banking is a rich area of employment, excusing the pun. I
have a friend who is in the Operations department, and does long hours
regularly, and describes his work as "monkey work", i.e. it's not hard. He
did manage to lose £40,000 for them once though, by making a mistake...
I have absolutely no knowledge of what investment banking involves.
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
I can't imagine ever being able to buy a house, so maybe I'm not
earning a "decent living".
I thought hard about buying a flat in London. It's not quite as tough as you
might imagine, if you're on a 'good' salary - typically you can borrow about
4 times your salary.
Which is not enough here in West Sussex, as far as I can see.
Post by Ray Pang
3% minimum deposit, and the repayments are a touch more
than what you'd pay in rent. Of course, buying a place involves also buying
all the furniture,
I rent an unfurnished flat anyway, and the only furniture I had until
recently was bookcases, the desk this computer is on, and the chair in front
of it. I recently bought a flat-packed dining room table and 4 chairs.
Oh, the ignominy!
--
Adam Atkinson (***@mistral.co.uk)
The gostak distims the doshes.
Matthew Huntbach
2004-07-23 08:19:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week. If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? i
No.

40 hours per week is plenty. In fact we in Britain work longer hours on
average than other western European countries, yet as you note seem to have
little to show for it - France and Germany have shorter working hours, more
holidays, yet better productivity.

I don't think anyone should be forced or expected to work more than 40 hours
a week. In fact I believe our long hours culture in this country is hugely
damaging, leading to much unhappiness, disfunctional families and poor
performance. Good on the people here to reject it.

Matthew Huntbach
Stuart Williams
2004-07-23 11:50:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week. If you're
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? i
No.
40 hours per week is plenty. In fact we in Britain work longer hours on
average than other western European countries, yet as you note seem to have
little to show for it - France and Germany have shorter working hours, more
holidays, yet better productivity.
I don't think anyone should be forced or expected to work more than 40 hours
a week. In fact I believe our long hours culture in this country is hugely
damaging, leading to much unhappiness, disfunctional families and poor
performance. Good on the people here to reject it.
Matthew Huntbach
Actually, I wasn't promoting the view that we /should/ all be delighted
to work long hours, I was pointing out

1. 14k per year is respectable, but is unlikely to give you a high living
standard - unless you live in a low-cost area and have a fairly Spartan
life-style.

2. If you want a living standard comparable to those of our nearest
European neighbours, you'll need to work longer hours than many people
here seem prepared for.

Personal question: do you work less than 40 hours a week?

Stuart Williams
Matthew Huntbach
2004-07-23 12:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? i
No.
40 hours per week is plenty. In fact we in Britain work longer hours on
average than other western European countries, yet as you note seem to have
little to show for it - France and Germany have shorter working hours, more
holidays, yet better productivity.
I don't think anyone should be forced or expected to work more than 40 hours
a week. In fact I believe our long hours culture in this country is hugely
damaging, leading to much unhappiness, disfunctional families and poor
performance. Good on the people here to reject it.
Actually, I wasn't promoting the view that we /should/ all be delighted
to work long hours, I was pointing out
1. 14k per year is respectable, but is unlikely to give you a high living
standard - unless you live in a low-cost area and have a fairly Spartan
life-style.
I found your 14k figure to be extremely dubious. I seem to recall that the
average salary in the UK is somewhat above 20k. Now you wrote "median
income", which perhaps includes all those retired, on benefit etc, and is a
median rather than a mean, so that is perhaps how you came up with 16k.
Nevertheless, I think your claim that anyone working less than 40 hours per
week is going to be taking about 14k income is completely absurd. Most desk
jobs have a standard working week of 37.5 hours, and most desk jobs pay more
than 14k a week.
Post by Stuart Williams
2. If you want a living standard comparable to those of our nearest
European neighbours, you'll need to work longer hours than many people
here seem prepared for.
Rubbish. There are plenty of jobs where you can work around 37.5 hours a
week and have a reasonable salary. If you mean that people on average need
to work longer than 40 hours per week in order for our country to enjoy
what our continental neighbours enjoy, since the average working week in
Britain is greater than it is in our continental neighbours it is quite
obviously completely untrue.

It is surely completely, utterly and absolutely absurd that on the one hand we
have all sorts of technological developments to make our life easier, and on
the other hand there are people telling us we must work longer to be
prosperous. When I was young we were told that lesiure hours would increase
as technology took away the necessity for work. So what has happened to this
idea?
Post by Stuart Williams
Personal question: do you work less than 40 hours a week?
Don't believe academics *too* much when they tell you about long working
hours. It is remarkably quiet round where I am now. I don't think I work
much more than 40 hours per week in the academic job. I think if I cut out
all the extra things I do because I enjoy doing them, and if I wasn't
bothered about promotion chances, I could very easily cut my work down
to well below 40 hours a week.

Matthew Huntbach
Dr A. N. Walker
2004-07-23 14:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
1. 14k per year is respectable, [...]
For a low-grade job, perhaps?
Post by Matthew Huntbach
I found your 14k figure to be extremely dubious. I seem to recall that the
average salary in the UK is somewhat above 20k. Now you wrote "median
income", which perhaps includes all those retired, on benefit etc, and is a
median rather than a mean, so that is perhaps how you came up with 16k.
ISTR that the median *family* income in the UK is more like
#26K. Most maths graduates will be on more than that a year or two
after leaving univ.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Nevertheless, I think your claim that anyone working less than 40 hours per
week is going to be taking about 14k income is completely absurd. Most desk
jobs have a standard working week of 37.5 hours, and most desk jobs pay more
than 14k a week.
Well, I wouldn't mind #14K a week! What am I missing out on?
But yes, #14K/y for a 50w/y, 40h/w job is #7/h, which is closer to
student Saturday-job territory; for 46-48w/y, 37.5h/w it's a little
more, but still not professional standards.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
2. If you want a living standard comparable to those of our nearest
European neighbours, you'll need to work longer hours than many people
here seem prepared for.
I don't think "living standard" is as simple a concept as is
being made out. It's much more about life-style than about money. A
few years ago, you could point to the way of life in a typical French
town and be impressed by the comparison with the UK; today, you can
stroll around in the UK and see coffee shops, pavement cafes, bistros,
stylish clothes, modern trams, and be rather less impressed. You have
to watch out for the greener grass syndrome, too.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Personal question: do you work less than 40 hours a week?
Don't believe academics *too* much when they tell you about long working
hours. It is remarkably quiet round where I am now.
Short of students, then, eh, Matthew?
Post by Matthew Huntbach
I don't think I work
much more than 40 hours per week in the academic job.
My "transparency reviews" [ha!] were showing 50+. But ...
Post by Matthew Huntbach
I think if I cut out
all the extra things I do because I enjoy doing them, and if I wasn't
bothered about promotion chances, I could very easily cut my work down
to well below 40 hours a week.
... this is certainly true. I've spent quite a lot of the last
week or so piggling with Marcel vd Veer's "Tetris" program, which I've
now got down below 200 lines, despite some extra facilities. Is that
"work"? Well, it's not something I have to do, for sure. Does it help
my promotion? No, not that that bothers me at my age. Do I enjoy it?
Yes. Is it intellectually interesting? Yes. Is it useful? Not
really. Should the univ be paying me to do it [or to do this, for
that matter]? Probably not; but on the other hand, they get some
kudos from seeing my name attached to things on the Web, and we get
some applications from people who have heard about this department
because of me; and on the other other hand, they get lots of extras
out of me at more intensive times of the year [inc three weeks time,
when I shall be slaving away over UCAS forms all Sunday]. I don't feel
at all guilty about it [or this].

OK, must get back to "plagiarism^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hresearch"
[Tom Lehrer].
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
***@maths.nott.ac.uk
Stuart Williams
2004-07-23 14:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing? i
No.
40 hours per week is plenty. In fact we in Britain work longer hours on
average than other western European countries, yet as you note seem to have
little to show for it - France and Germany have shorter working hours, more
holidays, yet better productivity.
I don't think anyone should be forced or expected to work more than 40 hours
a week. In fact I believe our long hours culture in this country is hugely
damaging, leading to much unhappiness, disfunctional families and poor
performance. Good on the people here to reject it.
Actually, I wasn't promoting the view that we /should/ all be delighted
to work long hours, I was pointing out
1. 14k per year is respectable, but is unlikely to give you a high living
standard - unless you live in a low-cost area and have a fairly Spartan
life-style.
I found your 14k figure to be extremely dubious.
Could be.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
I seem to recall that the
average salary in the UK is somewhat above 20k.
Average (mean) earnings are indeed about 25k, but over two-thirds of
earners receive less than this, which is why I was talking about the
median. Included in the calculation of that average figure are the
bonuses of City professionals. If you take out the top decile, you get a
lower average income (though still higher than 16k, I guess). Also,
there's no information there about typical hours worked. I stand by the
assertion that anyone who restricts their working week to 36 hours is
likely to earn considerably less than median earnings.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Now you wrote "median
income", which perhaps includes all those retired, on benefit etc, and is a
median rather than a mean, so that is perhaps how you came up with 16k.
Nevertheless, I think your claim that anyone working less than 40 hours per
week is going to be taking about 14k income is completely absurd. Most desk
jobs have a standard working week of 37.5 hours, and most desk jobs pay more
than 14k a week.
Do they? Here are some annual pay rates picked from my local free paper:
Mental Health Business Support Manager 18-20k
NHS Practice Support Manager 14k-17k
Speech and Language Thereapy Asst 11k-17.6k
Manager of a EPoS Retail system 12.7k-15k
Accounts Payable Asst 14k-15k
Temporary Housekeeping Supervisor (including weekend work)12k
Pharmacy Asst (NHS Hospital) 10k
Police Detention Officer 13.6k-17k

And these are all in the high-cost high-wage South East. So I don't agree
that my claim is completely absurd. People with little experience are
frequently looking at less than 14k, and frequently at more than 37.5
hours work.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
2. If you want a living standard comparable to those of our nearest
European neighbours, you'll need to work longer hours than many people
here seem prepared for.
Rubbish. There are plenty of jobs where you can work around 37.5 hours a
week and have a reasonable salary. If you mean that people on average need
to work longer than 40 hours per week in order for our country to enjoy
what our continental neighbours enjoy, since the average working week in
Britain is greater than it is in our continental neighbours it is quite
obviously completely untrue.
Er, I'm saying something like: the median earings in Germany and the
Netherlands are about 8-10% higher than in the UK, so other things being
equal, we have to work about 10% longer in order to enjoy similar living
standards, i.e. 40+ as against 37+.

There's also the tricky question of the "social wage" - the top-up of
your income in money or in direct services, such as healthcare and
education, provided by the welfare state. My understanding is that the
social wage in continental Western Europe is considerably higher than it
is in the UK.

And as to "a reasonable salary", yes - but it all depends on what you
want to do with that salary - own your own home? smoke and drink a fair
bit? Have two foreign holidays a year? raise three children? My point
remains that many of the newer graduates on this newsgroup will soon find
that they either need a bigger income than they thought, or need to scale
down their ambitions to match what will turn out to be a rather
restrictive income. [Presumably, London University is struggling to
attract young academics to take up lecturer posts because the starting
salary of 20k goes nowhere in London.]

As a further point - many younger workers who want promotion will
probably need to work longer than 40 hours for two reasons: to impress
on their superiors that they are dedicated and determined, and to acquire
sufficient experience.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is surely completely, utterly and absolutely absurd that on the one hand we
have all sorts of technological developments to make our life easier, and on
the other hand there are people telling us we must work longer to be
prosperous. When I was young we were told that lesiure hours would increase
as technology took away the necessity for work. So what has happened to this
idea?
They have increased, but not as rapidly as in the rest of Western Europe.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
Personal question: do you work less than 40 hours a week?
Don't believe academics *too* much when they tell you about long working
hours. It is remarkably quiet round where I am now. I don't think I work
much more than 40 hours per week in the academic job. I think if I cut out
all the extra things I do because I enjoy doing them, and if I wasn't
bothered about promotion chances, I could very easily cut my work down
to well below 40 hours a week.
But you do work more than 40 hours! And I agree - I often take on new
projects which I don't have to do - because they might be interesting,
enjoyable, challenging and helpful to other people (and maybe to me).
This is another of my fundamental points - work need not be seen as the
enemy of happiness: it's often fulfilling and enables you to help others.
There may be people out there working 50 hours a week because they relish
it.

Stuart Williams
Matthew Huntbach
2004-07-23 16:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
Post by Matthew Huntbach
I seem to recall that the
average salary in the UK is somewhat above 20k.
Average (mean) earnings are indeed about 25k, but over two-thirds of
earners receive less than this, which is why I was talking about the
median. Included in the calculation of that average figure are the
bonuses of City professionals. If you take out the top decile, you get a
lower average income (though still higher than 16k, I guess). Also,
there's no information there about typical hours worked. I stand by the
assertion that anyone who restricts their working week to 36 hours is
likely to earn considerably less than median earnings.
Not if they're a graduate.
Post by Stuart Williams
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Most desk
jobs have a standard working week of 37.5 hours, and most desk jobs pay more
than 14k a week.
Mental Health Business Support Manager 18-20k
NHS Practice Support Manager 14k-17k
Speech and Language Thereapy Asst 11k-17.6k
Manager of a EPoS Retail system 12.7k-15k
Accounts Payable Asst 14k-15k
Temporary Housekeeping Supervisor (including weekend work)12k
Pharmacy Asst (NHS Hospital) 10k
Police Detention Officer 13.6k-17k
The sort of jobs advertised in local free papers are generally aimed at
non-graduates. Anyone with any sort of experience or skill would be looking
at the trade press etc. Most people who start off in this sort of job would
expect to have progressed and be earning more in a few years.
Post by Stuart Williams
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Rubbish. There are plenty of jobs where you can work around 37.5 hours a
week and have a reasonable salary. If you mean that people on average need
to work longer than 40 hours per week in order for our country to enjoy
what our continental neighbours enjoy, since the average working week in
Britain is greater than it is in our continental neighbours it is quite
obviously completely untrue.
Er, I'm saying something like: the median earings in Germany and the
Netherlands are about 8-10% higher than in the UK, so other things being
equal, we have to work about 10% longer in order to enjoy similar living
standards, i.e. 40+ as against 37+.
Or we have to do whatever it is they have done in Germany and the
Netherlands to allow higher salaries with shorter hours.

Anyhow, I thought that since the Thatcher revolution, Britain was supposed to
be a lean and mean country, lower taxed than our flabby continental
neighbours with their over-generous welfare systems. It's disappointing to
find out that after 25 years of governments dedicated to bringing down tax
and creating a more entrepreneurial society we appear to have got nowhere in
these aims, and we are still beaten both in generosity of their welfare
system and in economic productivity by our contiental neighbours.
Post by Stuart Williams
And as to "a reasonable salary", yes - but it all depends on what you
want to do with that salary - own your own home? smoke and drink a fair
bit? Have two foreign holidays a year? raise three children? My point
remains that many of the newer graduates on this newsgroup will soon find
that they either need a bigger income than they thought, or need to scale
down their ambitions to match what will turn out to be a rather
restrictive income. [Presumably, London University is struggling to
attract young academics to take up lecturer posts because the starting
salary of 20k goes nowhere in London.]
Oh sure, but I can't find myself accepting your argument that if only
everyone in Britain works 50 hours a week or so we will all be richer and
happier.

A big part of the problem is the housing situation - the more we work and
the more we earn, the more house prices go up so we work more to earn more
to pay them so they go up further etc etc.

I think what is actually happening is that we are getting into a crazy
merry-go-round, where the only real beneficiaries are the very rich.
Post by Stuart Williams
As a further point - many younger workers who want promotion will
probably need to work longer than 40 hours for two reasons: to impress
on their superiors that they are dedicated and determined, and to acquire
sufficient experience.
As someone else pointed out, there is an alternative view that if you can't
get your work done in the standard 40 hour week, it suggests you are a
rather incompetent person.

Matthew Huntbach
Imran Ghory
2004-07-25 14:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
Mental Health Business Support Manager 18-20k
NHS Practice Support Manager 14k-17k
Speech and Language Thereapy Asst 11k-17.6k
Manager of a EPoS Retail system 12.7k-15k
Accounts Payable Asst 14k-15k
Temporary Housekeeping Supervisor (including weekend work)12k
Pharmacy Asst (NHS Hospital) 10k
Police Detention Officer 13.6k-17k
The sort of jobs advertised in local free papers are generally aimed at
non-graduates. Anyone with any sort of experience or skill would be looking
at the trade press etc. Most people who start off in this sort of job would
expect to have progressed and be earning more in a few years.
According to a study done by Anthony Hesketh (Lancaster University)
and Phil Brown (Cardiff University) the average starting salary for
graduates (acoss all companies not jsut blue chips) was 12,659 last
year.

Imran
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
Average (mean) earnings are indeed about 25k, but over two-thirds of
earners receive less than this, which is why I was talking about the
median. Included in the calculation of that average figure are the
bonuses of City professionals. If you take out the top decile, you get a
lower average income (though still higher than 16k, I guess).
Surely that is completely obvious.
Post by Stuart Williams
And these are all in the high-cost high-wage South East. So I don't agree
that my claim is completely absurd. People with little experience are
frequently looking at less than 14k, and frequently at more than 37.5
hours work.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by Stuart Williams
2. If you want a living standard comparable to those of our nearest
European neighbours, you'll need to work longer hours than many people
here seem prepared for.
Rubbish. There are plenty of jobs where you can work around 37.5 hours a
week and have a reasonable salary. If you mean that people on average need
to work longer than 40 hours per week in order for our country to enjoy
what our continental neighbours enjoy, since the average working week in
Britain is greater than it is in our continental neighbours it is quite
obviously completely untrue.
Er, I'm saying something like: the median earings in Germany and the
Netherlands are about 8-10% higher than in the UK, so other things being
equal, we have to work about 10% longer in order to enjoy similar living
standards, i.e. 40+ as against 37+.
But do we need to do these extra hours in order to get the same standard, or
is it simply part of our culture? And isn't the average number of hours
worked a parameter in the working out of these living standards ratings?
Post by Stuart Williams
[Presumably, London University is struggling to
attract young academics to take up lecturer posts because the starting
salary of 20k goes nowhere in London.]
I don't believe that 20k goes nowhere in London. Not for a second.
Post by Stuart Williams
This is another of my fundamental points - work need not be seen as the
enemy of happiness: it's often fulfilling and enables you to help others.
There may be people out there working 50 hours a week because they relish
it.
Absolutely. I saw a programme about stress on BBC the other night about a
top chef, and he took on a lot of hours, and loves the challenge of it.
Stuart Williams
2004-07-24 09:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
But do we need to do these extra hours in order to get the same standard, or
is it simply part of our culture? And isn't the average number of hours
worked a parameter in the working out of these living standards ratings?
Not as a rule. There are/have been attempts to include data on stress or
family breakdown in compiling quality of life indicators, but they seem
to me to be too difficult to measure, and assigning weights is bound to
be controversial. One such measure is something called the Genuine
Progress Indicator, which suggests almost no rise in quality of life
between 1950 and 1999.

http://redefiningprogress.org/projects/gpi/

Stuart Williams
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
When I was young we were told that lesiure hours would increase
as technology took away the necessity for work. So what has happened to this
idea?
We need people to create this technology. We need people to fund it. We need
people to cure them when their stress becomes too much. We need people to
help them find places to live. We need people to feed them.

To help people help them fund it, we need technology to make it easier to
help them fund it, etc. Egg and chicken scenario.
John Porcella
2004-07-24 23:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stuart Williams
You're either heroic or crazy: Britain's productivity is so far behind
that of France, Japan, Germany and the US that if we want anything like
their standard of living, you have to work 44+ hours per week.
Indeed, I agree, however, please note that we are not necessarily comparing
like with like since unemployment is officially much lower in the UK so the
less productive people in the UK are often in work, bringing down the
average, whereas in the likes of Germany with their four million unemployed,
the least productive would not be working at all, leaving the more
productive in work and thereby bringing up the average.

If you're
Post by Stuart Williams
looking to work 37.5 hours so you can pop down the gym or breed koi carp,
you're limiting yourself to an effective real wage of (huge guess)
GBP14000, even as a graduate. (Actually, you'd be better off moving to
France where the 38-hour week is a legal maximum.)
True, but where employers think twice about employing peope above a certain
number due to the difficulty in laying off labour when bad times hit.
Post by Stuart Williams
Calling all geriatrics on this group (i.e., Ginnie, Ian, JHP, Matthew,
Alan), don't you find this "I can't conceive of working more than 40
hours a week" thread completely amazing?
I was slightly taken aback, but then I have worked so often on hourly paid
contracts that working long hours is seen almost as a Godsend and not a
curse.

At the risk of sounding like a
Post by Stuart Williams
Daily Mail reader, you've none of you any conception of how hard you have
to work to earn a decent living.
The way things are now, you have to work pretty hard with no guarantees of
keeping the job even for good effort.


Most of you seem to be saying "I want to
Post by Stuart Williams
carry on - more or less - with a studenty lifestyle, but the jobs out
there just don't seem to fit the description".
True, unless you become a teacher/lecturer!
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
J.S.
2004-07-25 21:45:22 UTC
Permalink
I just returned from the United States where I was working an 80+ hour
week. Now *that* is hard work! Not an experience to be repeated but
one I'm happy not to have missed out on. I personally can't wait to
graduate and only have to work 40 hours!
Toby
2004-07-26 10:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J.S.
I just returned from the United States where I was working an 80+ hour
week. Now *that* is hard work! Not an experience to be repeated but
one I'm happy not to have missed out on. I personally can't wait to
graduate and only have to work 40 hours!
what on earth was the job?
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-07-20 21:39:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:02:47 +0100, "Becky Loader"
Post by Becky Loader
We're apparently not terribly productive in this country, considering the
working hours. (There was something about this on the radio earlier,
actually) I've heard theories that it's because we're quite bad at
separating 'worktime' and 'playtime' and consequently hang around the office
for ages doing very little. There's some kind of chauvinistic attitude in
this country that you're somehow more virtuous for hanging around the office
for longer. Contrast that with the attitude in many other European
countries where working longer hours is seen to reflect of your
incompetence: you can't get your work done on time.
Agree with all of that entirely.

But our politicos seem to want to boast that we're an attractive
location for big companies due to our flexible working practices.
Now, flexible working practices - there's an interesting turn of
phrase. Does it mean that you can thrash yuor workforce as hard as
you damn well want, that you need give them less benefits and holiday
than you would elsewhere, that they'll be too weak and lilly livered
to even join a union let alone get organised, and that when you need
to cut costs you can just sack em? Or is it just me being old
fashioned.

</rant>

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin & Calum Ford
The view from Beccles

I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

No e-mail address. If you want to talk to me then talk here to start with and we can go back to your place later...
John Porcella
2004-07-20 23:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:02:47 +0100, "Becky Loader"
Post by Becky Loader
We're apparently not terribly productive in this country, considering the
working hours. (There was something about this on the radio earlier,
actually) I've heard theories that it's because we're quite bad at
separating 'worktime' and 'playtime' and consequently hang around the office
for ages doing very little. There's some kind of chauvinistic attitude in
this country that you're somehow more virtuous for hanging around the office
for longer. Contrast that with the attitude in many other European
countries where working longer hours is seen to reflect of your
incompetence: you can't get your work done on time.
Agree with all of that entirely.
Really?
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
But our politicos seem to want to boast that we're an attractive
location for big companies due to our flexible working practices.
Which is, on the whole, true.
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Now, flexible working practices - there's an interesting turn of
phrase. Does it mean that you can thrash yuor workforce as hard as
you damn well want, that you need give them less benefits and holiday
than you would elsewhere, that they'll be too weak and lilly livered
to even join a union let alone get organised, and that when you need
to cut costs you can just sack em? Or is it just me being old
fashioned.
Yes and yes.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
John Porcella
2004-07-20 23:37:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Imran Ghory
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.
For some reason, that really gets my back up. 8-6? That's fucking
ridiculous. Between getting up before 7 and going to bed by midnight, when
are you to do the decent amount of relaxing that'll ensure you're /happy/ at
work/?
We're apparently not terribly productive in this country, considering the
working hours. (There was something about this on the radio earlier,
actually) I've heard theories that it's because we're quite bad at
separating 'worktime' and 'playtime' and consequently hang around the office
for ages doing very little.
I suspect that it is more to do with the relatively low rates of
unemployment in the UK vis-a-vis some of our European neighbours. People
that in Germany would not be in the workforce ARE working in this country,
but they are not the best of workers. You will see productivity figures
shoot up when Britain starts to experience increasing unemployment.

There's some kind of chauvinistic attitude in
Post by Becky Loader
this country that you're somehow more virtuous for hanging around the office
for longer. Contrast that with the attitude in many other European
countries where working longer hours is seen to reflect of your
incompetence: you can't get your work done on time.
...and hence why the UK economy is in a better state than some of its near
neighbours.
Post by Becky Loader
Good luck to you. I wouldn't be prepared to do it, and that's why you'll be
far richer than me. (This is also a big reason why I'm not planning to go
into teaching at the moment! I don't want to regret the fact that the
evenings of my mid- and late twenties were spent marking/in the
office/school, not the pub/friends' houses/the bank manager's office,
attempting to extend my overdraft. Maybe I'm just a lazy sod.)
Nothing wrong with the latter if you can afford it and are unlikely to cry
about missed opportunities later.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Davido
2004-07-21 21:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Imran Ghory
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.
For some reason, that really gets my back up. 8-6? That's fucking
ridiculous. Between getting up before 7 and going to bed by midnight, when
are you to do the decent amount of relaxing that'll ensure you're /happy/ at
work/?
9am - 1am the last couple of days, with 20 min lunch break. Bring it on ;-)

Some in other divisions here start at 5am, others finish their work then.

To quote McDonalds, I'm lovin' it.
Imran Ghory
2004-07-22 20:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Post by Imran Ghory
I haven't started yet, but I will be working 8-6 (also 1hr break). But
then again I'll be working for a City firm so longer hours are to be
expected.
For some reason, that really gets my back up. 8-6? That's fucking
ridiculous. Between getting up before 7 and going to bed by midnight, when
are you to do the decent amount of relaxing that'll ensure you're /happy/ at
work/?
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).

At least I get to have some time and the evening, and also get the
bonus of working for a company which has fitted televisions in the
bathrooms :-)

Imran
Adam Atkinson
2004-07-23 04:27:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this? Add travel time to this and what is the point
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
--
Adam Atkinson (***@mistral.co.uk)
WWJD? JWRTFM
John Porcella
2004-07-23 16:18:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..

Add travel time to this and what is the point
Post by Adam Atkinson
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
What do you think cocaine was invented for?

8-))
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Matthew Huntbach
2004-07-23 16:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
This is part of an extremely silly long hours culture. The reality is that
after 8 hours or so you can't work nearly as effectively as your maximum
ability. These investment banks would actually do better to employ more
people on shorter hours and pay them less. It's not like there's a shortage
of people wanting to do the job. And having seen the pitiful performance
that many of these investment analysts achieve, scarcely any different from
what would have been achieved by a completely random stock selection,
I'm not convinced they do very much of value.

Matthew Huntbach
Gaurav Sharma
2004-07-23 22:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
This is part of an extremely silly long hours culture. The reality is that
after 8 hours or so you can't work nearly as effectively as your maximum
ability. These investment banks would actually do better to employ more
people on shorter hours and pay them less. It's not like there's a shortage
of people wanting to do the job. And having seen the pitiful performance
that many of these investment analysts achieve, scarcely any different from
what would have been achieved by a completely random stock selection,
I'm not convinced they do very much of value.
Matthew Huntbach
Totally agree with the above.
13 hours a day of work is kind of sad, I'd seriously just quit that
within a few days regardless of pay. I suppose as long as there's
people willing to do it for the money, it'll be there. But I can't
help but imagine how bad it would affect the general livelyhood of
such workers.
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:44:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
This is part of an extremely silly long hours culture. The reality is that
after 8 hours or so you can't work nearly as effectively as your maximum
ability. These investment banks would actually do better to employ more
people on shorter hours and pay them less. It's not like there's a shortage
of people wanting to do the job. And having seen the pitiful performance
that many of these investment analysts achieve, scarcely any different from
what would have been achieved by a completely random stock selection,
I'm not convinced they do very much of value.
Matthew Huntbach
Totally agree with the above.
13 hours a day of work is kind of sad, I'd seriously just quit that
within a few days regardless of pay. I suppose as long as there's
people willing to do it for the money, it'll be there. But I can't
help but imagine how bad it would affect the general livelyhood of
such workers.
But there are people that cope just fine with it. I wouldn't fancy my
chances at doing more than 50 hours a week in a tough job (I think I can
handle up to 50 though), so if a £50k job requiring that came up, I wouldn't
go for it. But the few people that can cope rightly should be rewarded as
such - they're in demand. I couldn't cope with, I don't know, Steve
Redgrave's old training regime, and so I wouldn't expect to get 5 gold
medals, for example.

As much as I disagree with Stuart's assessment that people who can't handle
40+ hours a week shouldn't expect to get decent salaries, I disagree with
the opinion that working long hours is akin to an act of insanity and greed
at the expense of satisfaction.
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
This is part of an extremely silly long hours culture. The reality is that
after 8 hours or so you can't work nearly as effectively as your maximum
ability.
I have to say that that comes down to the individual. You might argue that
scientific studies show that this is true, which is all well and good, but
there are people who can do long hours consistently.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
These investment banks would actually do better to employ more
people on shorter hours and pay them less.
Or pay the ones that can cope with this sort of thing (and there clearly are
people who can) more, which is exactly what they do.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
It's not like there's a shortage
of people wanting to do the job.
The reason people want the job in the first place is because of the money.
They don't go all out in interviews and assessments because they're looking
forward to doing long hours or a challenge, no matter what they claim in
their interview - going into investment banking is almost all about money.
Post by Matthew Huntbach
And having seen the pitiful performance
that many of these investment analysts achieve, scarcely any different from
what would have been achieved by a completely random stock selection,
I'm not convinced they do very much of value.
I did read something like that in the papers several years back. But I think
your view shows a bit of a misunderstanding of what investment banks
actually do. It's not all about trading shares and commodities, and in fact,
some investment banks do not do much of this. And while things like
derivatives, futures options, risk management all pretty much boil down to
the same sort of thing as trading, the markets in those are nowhere near as
random as the shares used in those comparisons.
John Porcella
2004-07-27 00:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
This is part of an extremely silly long hours culture. The reality is that
after 8 hours or so you can't work nearly as effectively as your maximum
ability.
Perhaps they do not have to work at 100% of efficiency at all
times...perhaps there is time waiting for calls.

These investment banks would actually do better to employ more
Post by Matthew Huntbach
people on shorter hours and pay them less.
I am sure that they would pay less if they could, but it seems in the bosses
interests to be generous with bonuses to their staff, more to justify them
for themselves.


It's not like there's a shortage
Post by Matthew Huntbach
of people wanting to do the job.
Because of the large wages, which you wish reduced.


And having seen the pitiful performance
Post by Matthew Huntbach
that many of these investment analysts achieve, scarcely any different from
what would have been achieved by a completely random stock selection,
I'm not convinced they do very much of value.
I cannot disagree...hence the popularity of 'tracker' funds where
subjectivity goes out of the window.
--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella
Post by Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
Adam Atkinson
2004-07-23 17:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
Well, motivation or not, experience has shown me that after about 2
weeks of that I would be a member of the undead. What is the point of
having all that money if you're a zombie? This _is_ just stupid.
--
Adam Atkinson (***@mistral.co.uk)
Volemo er verde!
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:45:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by John Porcella
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this?
Motivation from themselves and by the money to be made in bonuses..
Well, motivation or not, experience has shown me that after about 2
weeks of that I would be a member of the undead. What is the point of
having all that money if you're a zombie? This _is_ just stupid.
Well you've naturally done the right thing in not going for those jobs. But
the people who wouldn't become a zombie (and they do exist) are getting the
reward for their ability.
Adam Atkinson
2004-07-24 03:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Well, motivation or not, experience has shown me that after about 2
weeks of that I would be a member of the undead. What is the point of
having all that money if you're a zombie? This _is_ just stupid.
Well you've naturally done the right thing in not going for those jobs. But
the people who wouldn't become a zombie (and they do exist) are getting the
reward for their ability.
When do they ever get to spend it on anything?
--
Adam Atkinson (***@mistral.co.uk)
The gostak distims the doshes.
Ray Pang
2004-07-24 17:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Well, motivation or not, experience has shown me that after about 2
weeks of that I would be a member of the undead. What is the point of
having all that money if you're a zombie? This _is_ just stupid.
Well you've naturally done the right thing in not going for those jobs. But
the people who wouldn't become a zombie (and they do exist) are getting the
reward for their ability.
When do they ever get to spend it on anything?
The odd evening out and weekends, and/or on a mortgage. The story that they
don't get any weekday evenings is a myth conjured out of exaggeration and
sterotyping.
Ray Pang
2004-07-23 23:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this? Add travel time to this and what is the point
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
They do have beds and showers in investment banks.
Max Power
2004-07-24 11:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this? Add travel time to this and what is the point
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
They do have beds and showers in investment banks.
Does that mean you could just live in the investment bank,
if you wanted to?
Ray Pang
2004-07-24 17:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Power
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this? Add travel time to this and what is the point
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
They do have beds and showers in investment banks.
Does that mean you could just live in the investment bank,
if you wanted to?
Er, theoretically speaking, probably. But where would you hang or iron your
shirts? Coming in after a night out and a few drinks probably wouldn't be
too wise either.
Davido
2004-07-24 18:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Power
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Adam Atkinson
Post by Imran Ghory
It's actually quite reasonable compared to some of the investment
banks, analysts at places like UBS commonly work 9-10 (13 hours).
How do they do this? Add travel time to this and what is the point
of the exercise? Do they all have bunkbeds in their offices or
something?
They do have beds and showers in investment banks.
Does that mean you could just live in the investment bank,
if you wanted to?
At what IBs are there beds and showers?

I suppose you could live in your office, but who would want to do
that? I've done a 100 hour week this week (currently Saturday 8pm, in
the office). But still been to pubs, bars, nightclubs, seen a film,
visited friends etc (maybe because I'm infamous for a complete lack of
need to sleep). 9-5 would just bore me.
Becky Loader
2004-07-24 19:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
I suppose you could live in your office, but who would want to do
that? I've done a 100 hour week this week (currently Saturday 8pm, in
the office). But still been to pubs, bars, nightclubs, seen a film,
visited friends etc (maybe because I'm infamous for a complete lack of
need to sleep). 9-5 would just bore me.
Doesn't that make you think you might lack a bit of imagination?

Becky
Davido
2004-07-24 22:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Becky Loader
Doesn't that make you think you might lack a bit of imagination?
Becky
There's no lack of imagination. Just that a lot of people doing 9-5
hours seem to have quite boring, monotonous lives. Working 9-5, then
spending evenings in the pub or watching telly, talking about getting
pissed at the weekend, getting pissed at the weekend, back to work 9-5
on Monday...
Toby
2004-07-25 11:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Becky Loader
Doesn't that make you think you might lack a bit of imagination?
Becky
There's no lack of imagination. Just that a lot of people doing 9-5
hours seem to have quite boring, monotonous lives. Working 9-5, then
spending evenings in the pub or watching telly, talking about getting
pissed at the weekend, getting pissed at the weekend, back to work 9-5
on Monday...
Where do ya work at the moment?
Davido
2004-07-25 19:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toby
Where do ya work at the moment?
I'm interning at an investment bank in London.
Ray Pang
2004-07-25 20:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Toby
Where do ya work at the moment?
I'm interning at an investment bank in London.
Any clues as to which one?
Davido
2004-07-26 07:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Davido
Post by Toby
Where do ya work at the moment?
I'm interning at an investment bank in London.
Any clues as to which one?
The Dutch one.
Toby
2004-07-26 10:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Davido
Post by Toby
Where do ya work at the moment?
I'm interning at an investment bank in London.
Any clues as to which one?
The Dutch one.
ING? :)

Do you get paid? And how are you sorting out accommodation, assuming
you don't live in London?
Davido
2004-07-27 09:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toby
Do you get paid? And how are you sorting out accommodation, assuming
you don't live in London?
Yeah, half a grand a week. Not as much as the bigger IBs but for a 2nd
yr undergrad I really can't complain... staying in UCL accommodation.
Toby
2004-07-27 10:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Toby
Do you get paid? And how are you sorting out accommodation, assuming
you don't live in London?
Yeah, half a grand a week. Not as much as the bigger IBs but for a 2nd
yr undergrad I really can't complain... staying in UCL accommodation.
Sounds good to me! Good luck with it.
Ray Pang
2004-07-27 20:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Toby
Do you get paid? And how are you sorting out accommodation, assuming
you don't live in London?
Yeah, half a grand a week. Not as much as the bigger IBs but for a 2nd
yr undergrad I really can't complain... staying in UCL accommodation.
That's pretty much the going rate for internships, give or take, even at the
big investment banks.
Davido
2004-07-28 19:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
That's pretty much the going rate for internships, give or take, even at the
big investment banks.
It's bottom of the pile. To my knowledge Citigroup and Deutsche are
£600-650/week, Goldman Sachs/JPMorgan £580 + housing allowance, BarCap
£670, etc... As I said I'm not complaining. Until Mr Taxman and Mr NI
reduce it to £375/week...
Ray Pang
2004-07-28 20:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by Ray Pang
That's pretty much the going rate for internships, give or take, even at the
big investment banks.
It's bottom of the pile. To my knowledge Citigroup and Deutsche are
£600-650/week, Goldman Sachs/JPMorgan £580 + housing allowance, BarCap
£670, etc... As I said I'm not complaining. Until Mr Taxman and Mr NI
reduce it to £375/week...
BarCap £670? Where did you hear that?
jaime
2004-07-28 21:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Davido
Post by Ray Pang
That's pretty much the going rate for internships, give or take, even
at
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Davido
Post by Ray Pang
the
big investment banks.
It's bottom of the pile. To my knowledge Citigroup and Deutsche are
£600-650/week, Goldman Sachs/JPMorgan £580 + housing allowance, BarCap
£670, etc... As I said I'm not complaining. Until Mr Taxman and Mr NI
reduce it to £375/week...
BarCap £670? Where did you hear that?
Also where did the Citigroup £600 - £650 come from.
Davido
2004-07-29 10:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by jaime
Post by Ray Pang
BarCap £670? Where did you hear that?
Also where did the Citigroup £600 - £650 come from.
Citigroup's definitely £600-650, I've got a few mates interning there.
Though they're in Investment Banking Division; it may be less for
other divisions. For example I believe Goldman Sachs Operations dept
interns are on £500/week.

BarCap isn't confirmed, though it may be just for the Quants dept =
hardcore Mathematics.
Ray Pang
2004-07-29 10:46:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Davido
Post by jaime
Post by Ray Pang
BarCap £670? Where did you hear that?
Also where did the Citigroup £600 - £650 come from.
Citigroup's definitely £600-650, I've got a few mates interning there.
Though they're in Investment Banking Division; it may be less for
other divisions. For example I believe Goldman Sachs Operations dept
interns are on £500/week.
BarCap isn't confirmed, though it may be just for the Quants dept =
hardcore Mathematics.
Ah. Well I was on quite a bit less than £670 a week last summer, and I'll be
starting on less than that in a month.

p***@btinternet.com
2004-07-20 20:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Gaurav
i work 9 30 to 5 30, which ain't too bad.
Ian/Cath Ford
2004-07-20 21:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@btinternet.com
i work 9 30 to 5 30, which ain't too bad.
You *work*? :-)

Harsh, probably. What do you work at these days old capricious one?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin & Calum Ford
The view from Beccles

I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

No e-mail address. If you want to talk to me then talk here to start with and we can go back to your place later...
paulenski englestein
2004-07-21 18:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Post by p***@btinternet.com
i work 9 30 to 5 30, which ain't too bad.
You *work*? :-)
i do indeed. the poetry dried up, i faced a fine for having the wrong
ticket on the the tube (the bastards), i was on the verge of being
booted from my house and me and my bean were pretty sure we were going
to have to buy an abortion (we haven't had to so far, thankfully, with
any luck i'm infertile!). its not so bad actually, even quite fun.
perhaps the only job in the world i'd actually like to do. yay.
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Harsh, probably. What do you work at these days old capricious one?
meeb moob.
Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin & Calum Ford
The view from Beccles
I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday
No e-mail address. If you want to talk to me then talk here to start with and we can go back to your place later...
Chris Higham
2004-07-20 22:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
What job do you do?
Chris Higham
2004-07-20 23:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Oh and in my current role I can pretty much do whatever hours I like but
I'm generally in between half 8 and 9 and don't leave much before half 5
- I was at work until 9 yesterday because I got a bit carried away...
Max Power
2004-07-21 07:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Higham
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Oh and in my current role I can pretty much do whatever hours I like but
I'm generally in between half 8 and 9 and don't leave much before half 5
- I was at work until 9 yesterday because I got a bit carried away...
That's pretty much the same with my job. I am contracted
to do 36.25 hours a week which can be whatever times suit me.
Ray Pang
2004-07-21 09:53:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Power
Post by Chris Higham
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
Oh and in my current role I can pretty much do whatever hours I like but
I'm generally in between half 8 and 9 and don't leave much before half 5
- I was at work until 9 yesterday because I got a bit carried away...
That's pretty much the same with my job. I am contracted
to do 36.25 hours a week which can be whatever times suit me.
I'm contracted to do 40 hours a week, but I get a form at the start of it
all saying whether I will do more than 48 hours if necessary, and basically
you have to tick it.
Max Power
2004-07-21 11:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ray Pang
Post by Max Power
That's pretty much the same with my job. I am contracted
to do 36.25 hours a week which can be whatever times suit me.
I'm contracted to do 40 hours a week, but I get a form at the start of it
all saying whether I will do more than 48 hours if necessary, and basically
you have to tick it.
I have a similar thing in my contract saying that I am expected to
do a certain amount of "reasonable overtime". Scandalous really.
Niall Saville
2004-07-25 23:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gaurav Sharma
just to gain some perspective on this,
what are typical graduate work hours?
I work 9-6 (1hr break) and it's fairly tiring (although flexible,
often I come in late/leave late and no one bothers me), but was
wondering whether this is a normal sort of daily work other dudes
have. pay is good, just wondering about the work hours in general.
In this country I work around 10-7. When working on-site, I work 9-8,
go back to my hotel, and work a further 2 hours.
--
"You can't trust anyone!"
- "Try pseudo-trust. Like a compromise."
sachi, 2001
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...