Glad to see you bring this up because I've been thinking about this a lot lately. I get the feeling that many people are on board with the idea that productivity trumps all and are willing to be like rags to be squeezed by their employers until every last productivity drop comes out.

I think this needs to be talked about more with an eye towards reducing the amount people must work.

To be fair, I'm also happier now than I've ever been in work too. It turns out that I produce much better work at a faster rate when I'm happier.

Its not a moral truth, its an economic one. If you want to charge a premium price for your labor, you had better be offering a premium product, or your customers won't buy it.

It's also not an economic one. My salary is locked in. So long as I don't get fired, I get paid the same. So I can give different outputs and get paid that same "premium price." Just have to meet the bar. So it's in my interest to reduce how much work I do in order to increase my de factor hourly rate. If you factor in promotions etc, it's the same thing - just a different bar.

I guess you could say I'm offering a "premium product" either way and be right, but my original point stands. I don't need to be giving 100% to get that money. And the longer I'm at a job, the more I can understand the effort bar I need to meet and influence it downward.

Do you seriously think that you should get full pay for part-time work? If you only want to work part-time, then by all means feel free to pursue part-time employment. But if your employer finds out that they've been paying for full-time labor and getting only part-time labor, don't act surprised and indignant if they fire you.

Yes I should get paid my current salary for my current work. Feedback on my work is that it is "Good" which means the employer is happy paying me for my contributions. I'm not being paid for my labor and time - I'm being paid so long as my employer thinks what I'm giving them is worth it. I'm not grifting anyone - I'm just in an at-will employment arrangement.

Caring about hours worked is for bad managers, plain and simple. The biggest reason to not work in the office is that it's easier to avoid these bottom-of-the-barrel, butts-in-seats leaders. With them out of the way, you're free to tune your output in such a way that keeps your employer happy while also freeing up your life.

Its not about "hours worked." Its about available throughput.

If you're under-loaded, then a good manager can shift the balance around the team. Maybe someone else is over-loaded. If the whole team is under-loaded, then maybe the team can deliver more features. Maybe its a good time to pay down some of last year's technical debt. Maybe its a good time to take a bet on a higher-risk research project.

If I spend 4 hours working and the result is enough throughput to make my team and manager happy, then that's what I'm going to do and I'll do everything in my power to keep it that way. Everyone's happy, what's wrong with that?

I just can't relate to this mindset that is oriented around optimizing company success. I'm more focused on my own success.

My peak throughput isn't necessarily there for the company's taking. I guard it as my greatest secret. My manager only gets 2 signals from me regarding load: It's good..or I'm overloaded. Never the truth when I'm underloaded if everyone's happy - that would just be harming myself for some company's benefit.

Can you elaborate a little on how maximizing productivity is directly related to offering a premium product? For what it's worth I disagree, this doesn't seem like a truth at all.