It’s relative for sure. If you spent 20 hours in one week doing underwater welding, that would probably be considered a lot.
But let’s look at this another way- “work” vs. “On the clock.” For some people, being on the clock for 8 hours- they might spend 6 of those hours eating, taking breaks, talking, surfing the net… if you are “on the clock” 20 hours in one week and only do maybe 4 hours of work we could say that isn’t a lot- but we could say the opposite too.
I’ve had jobs where there was NOTHING to do. I had a union job once where you pretty much couldn’t do anything outside your little area and even then- there were guys for moving certain things and for cables and this and that- and it was forbidden by the rules to do their jobs. So if you didn’t have any work to do, they expected you to stay busy. Clean or catch up or do paperwork or find something. But… if you’d cleaned and were all caught up and there was literally NOTHING you could do… you still were expected to stay busy.
So when it was slow you’d have guys sweeping or dusting their little areas or rearranging things- all things they’d done maybe 3 or 4 times that day- because even IF the offer to leave early was on the table- you didn’t get paid for leaving early and a lot of positions were standby- it could be slow for hours or days and then something happens and they need all hands- so they didn’t tend to let standby and service or response/compliance teams leave when it was slow.
You could work 20,40 hours or more and you wouldn’t do much besides be bored- but 20 hours was a lot of time to be there for a couple hours of work at most.
I’ve also worked jobs where you were flat salary- work an hour or 800 and you get the same check. Some of these jobs tried to milk you for every dollar they were paying and some have just said- “go home if the work is done..” or “sure, watch videos, read, surf the net, play games or whatever as long as the work gets done..”
So in one sense if you say 20 hours is a lot of work you might be lazy or have low constitution etc- or you might be working somewhere that isn’t very effective with time.
In point of fact, on the whole while some work cultures are better than others, most of the system of work worldwide is pretty bad at this.
With automation and other factors we have lots of jobs that don’t require or shouldn’t require traditional “40 hour weeks” or schedules. In fact lots of jobs are just really not needed and pretty much exist only to provide disguised unemployment. Certain corporations are notorious for this- governments too. The need for a certain person vanishes but they are tenured or well liked or connected etc. so they are given a job with little to no real purpose. Or a person reaches a level of seniority where a raise is in order but their pay grade doesn’t justify it so some position is created, often management or quasi management- with no real purpose or power but to give them
and ego boost and a salary raise.
Another one that is more common than ever in this day where many older people continue to work far longer and occupy middle management and upper management positions without moving up or retiring is that younger talent earns their dues and accrues the time, effort, results, and trust to become team leads or directors/department heads or VP/JR VP but you’ve got a 50+ year old sitting as a JR VP because the VP slot is held by someone 50+ who can’t move up and won’t move out either- so the younger talent has no where to go and either leaves or they create increasing levels of middle managers who often manage some title so specialized they have one report or are a manager of a team that is just them.
Not all companies are heartless too to bottom either- they don’t always replace every human they can with a robot or cheaper human or automation processes etc. and many times heart or not it is either not ultimately seen as a wise move to do so from a business and perception/politics sense or other reasons, or you have management who are good at making a strong case a team is vital even if strictly speaking they could be replaced or eliminated. There’s a lot behind the scenes in these decisions and often entire departments or positions persist only because key advocates have created an image and perception that they are needed or a culture where that is a shared public perception so no one will say: “we don’t need that team” because the dogma is “that team is critical..” and if the right people say that enough all the brown nosers and people that want to fit in will repeat and support it even if they don’t believe it- so being the one voice of open dissent is often risky.
So for many jobs 20 hours a week IS a lot of work. Maybe the job is very difficult or physically or mentally or otherwise takes a strong toll, or maybe it’s not that 20 hours of work is a lot but that 20 hours on the clock is too much time wasted for the work being done. The seemingly intuitive logic is that if you could do your entire 20 hour shifts work in 4 hours that you’d only be paid for 4 hours of work- so employees aren’t super keen on maximizing their efficiency in that sense generally.
It would go against common sentiment to pay someone MORE who is able to complete all their work and go home early every day or only come kn once a month etc- on the surface it makes more sense though… but in reality that has perils and paying people to rush can often lead to mistakes and safety issues or other problems as many people will try to cut time by being clever or “cutting corners” as opposed to doing a proper job but with skill and efficiency.
Of course we have many segments like what is often called “unskilled labor” such as many retail positions where there are more than enough perspective workers for the available jobs. You don’t need 1000 people on every shift at the local retail store generally- so if we hired more pipe and had each one work less hours, we could have more jobs and more people earning a living while getting more work done with less burnout all whole each person had more free time. The obvious problem there is that many people across industries and job types struggle to make living wages and cover medical expenses etc. as is- so providing retirements and insurance and living salaries for 10x the workers will cost 10x or more as much but won’t likely generate 10x the profit- and to many the fact that each person is doing maybe 10x less work would make it seem unjustified to pay more for less to more people.
So there isn’t a one size fits all answer but we certainly have enough people who want to work or want to make a living wage to fill many more jobs than we have open of those jobs provided those things, and we can certainly structure most industries or job types to facilitate a “many hands make light work” approach- and that’s without even discussing the possibilities for cleaning up the environment and cities, public policing, and what can be called “ethical prisoner labor programs,” but working those things into our culture and economics and such isn’t so easy.
As a fun fact in closing- in Japan it has historically been a practice to give workers little to no work and pay them to just show up when you want to be rid of them.
Laws in Japan can make it very hard to get rid of an employee once they are established in a company. Because of that, it isn’t quite as simple as for example, most of the USA, to just fire someone. So they will sometimes give these workers unpleasant tasks etc. to both make it clear they are not wanted and also try and push them into quitting, but to give them effectively no work or literally no work so that they feel shame and unease and will quit rather than do nothing and be paid for it. So fun stuff.
But let’s look at this another way- “work” vs. “On the clock.” For some people, being on the clock for 8 hours- they might spend 6 of those hours eating, taking breaks, talking, surfing the net… if you are “on the clock” 20 hours in one week and only do maybe 4 hours of work we could say that isn’t a lot- but we could say the opposite too.
I’ve had jobs where there was NOTHING to do. I had a union job once where you pretty much couldn’t do anything outside your little area and even then- there were guys for moving certain things and for cables and this and that- and it was forbidden by the rules to do their jobs. So if you didn’t have any work to do, they expected you to stay busy. Clean or catch up or do paperwork or find something. But… if you’d cleaned and were all caught up and there was literally NOTHING you could do… you still were expected to stay busy.
You could work 20,40 hours or more and you wouldn’t do much besides be bored- but 20 hours was a lot of time to be there for a couple hours of work at most.
I’ve also worked jobs where you were flat salary- work an hour or 800 and you get the same check. Some of these jobs tried to milk you for every dollar they were paying and some have just said- “go home if the work is done..” or “sure, watch videos, read, surf the net, play games or whatever as long as the work gets done..”
In point of fact, on the whole while some work cultures are better than others, most of the system of work worldwide is pretty bad at this.
With automation and other factors we have lots of jobs that don’t require or shouldn’t require traditional “40 hour weeks” or schedules. In fact lots of jobs are just really not needed and pretty much exist only to provide disguised unemployment. Certain corporations are notorious for this- governments too. The need for a certain person vanishes but they are tenured or well liked or connected etc. so they are given a job with little to no real purpose. Or a person reaches a level of seniority where a raise is in order but their pay grade doesn’t justify it so some position is created, often management or quasi management- with no real purpose or power but to give them
Another one that is more common than ever in this day where many older people continue to work far longer and occupy middle management and upper management positions without moving up or retiring is that younger talent earns their dues and accrues the time, effort, results, and trust to become team leads or directors/department heads or VP/JR VP but you’ve got a 50+ year old sitting as a JR VP because the VP slot is held by someone 50+ who can’t move up and won’t move out either- so the younger talent has no where to go and either leaves or they create increasing levels of middle managers who often manage some title so specialized they have one report or are a manager of a team that is just them.
It would go against common sentiment to pay someone MORE who is able to complete all their work and go home early every day or only come kn once a month etc- on the surface it makes more sense though… but in reality that has perils and paying people to rush can often lead to mistakes and safety issues or other problems as many people will try to cut time by being clever or “cutting corners” as opposed to doing a proper job but with skill and efficiency.
Laws in Japan can make it very hard to get rid of an employee once they are established in a company. Because of that, it isn’t quite as simple as for example, most of the USA, to just fire someone. So they will sometimes give these workers unpleasant tasks etc. to both make it clear they are not wanted and also try and push them into quitting, but to give them effectively no work or literally no work so that they feel shame and unease and will quit rather than do nothing and be paid for it. So fun stuff.