評(píng)論
打印
In an uncertain job market, fortunate people with steady paying gigs often think twice before shutting down for the day. But is\ there any benefit to responding to those additional emails or hanging around the office for that extra hour? Is there a weekly hour sweet spot?
當(dāng)前，就業(yè)市場(chǎng)充滿了不確定因素。因此，那些擁有穩(wěn)定報(bào)酬的幸運(yùn)兒們?cè)谑展ぶ巴ǔ６紩?huì)三思而行。但是，再多回復(fù)幾封電子郵件，或者在辦公室無所事事地多呆一個(gè)小時(shí)，到底有沒有好處呢？每周的工作時(shí)長(zhǎng)是否有一個(gè)最佳上限呢？
It's a tricky question. One hour per week is too little to do a job well, and 168 -- the total number of hours in a week -- isn't right either. Such a sleep-deprived person would be non-functional (not to mention smelly from a lack of showering).
這個(gè)問題非常棘手。每周工作1小時(shí)，肯定不可能做好工作；每周工作168個(gè)小時(shí)——整整一周全天24小時(shí)工作——也并不合適。因?yàn)橐粋€(gè)睡眠不足的人不可能正常工作（更不用說長(zhǎng)時(shí)間不洗澡還會(huì)產(chǎn)生難聞的異味）。
The answer must be somewhere in the middle; a point of diminishing returns where previous hours boost productivity by a large margin, and additional work hours wouldn't help much. But what amount of hours could that be?
答案肯定是介于兩者之間的收益遞減點(diǎn)，在這個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)之前的工作時(shí)間可以大幅提高生產(chǎn)效率，但之后的額外工作時(shí)間卻并沒太大好處。問題是，到底多少個(gè)小時(shí)最合適呢？
