Re:AI coding made me faster, but I can't code to music anymore
by SketchySeaBeast on Friday August 29, 2025 @09:46AM
(#45064073)
That's funny, because, at more than one place I've worked as a salaried employee, when I had to work OT, the narrative was "you're salary because you're paid to get the job done, doesn't matter how many hours it takes". Unfortunately, "the job" somehow never worked out to be less than 40 hours a week.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:AI coding made me faster, but I can't code to music anymore
by tom_ on Friday August 29, 2025 @12:27PM
(#45066150)
In many (most?) salary jobs, employees are typically paid both to get the job done, and to supply at least N hours of their time for the company to have them use as it sees fit.
Re:AI coding made me faster, but I can't code to music anymore
by SketchySeaBeast on Friday August 29, 2025 @12:58PM
(#45066572)
Yeah, I've been in industry for over a decade, still don't understand the value of salary for the devs.
Re:AI coding made me faster, but I can't code to music anymore
by zdragnar on Friday August 29, 2025 @09:13PM
(#45071081)
> you are paid for your time, with minimum expectations of productivity
There's legal distinctions between part time and full time employment. Hence, you are expected to put in a minimum number of hours. However, there's nothing to say that the minimum expectation is the minimum for classification for full time employment.
If AI lets you get the job done in 1 hour when you otherwise would have worked overtime, you're still technically being paid to work more than that one hour, and I don't know of any employer that'll pay you to do nothing.