[evincarofautumn]

Forcing someone to punch a clock is definitely misguided. But work hours are a useful proxy for effort spent, provided you have good estimation of your pace. And being in the office not only puts you in a “work” frame of mind, but also promotes serendipitous sharing with your coworkers—swapping productivity tips, planning features, explaining systems.

So even in a quite results-oriented workplace, with almost total freedom over my hours, I still often choose to go into the office for about six hours a day.

[seanstickle]

Work hours are certainly a good proxy for effort spent. But companies don't (or shouldn't) pay for effort, they pay for results.

Take 2 people: one a talented auto mechanic, one is me (not mechanically talented). Give us both the task of changing all 4 tires on a car.

I take 8 hours. The mechanic takes 1. (Made up numbers, but you get the idea).

8 hours reflect my effort, sure. But you want the tires changed. If the mechanic finishes in 1 hour, great. That's what you're paying for — changed tires. Not hours.

[evincarofautumn]

Sure, but I would be equally happy to pay either of you by the hour if you set your rates according to your respective skill levels, because the price would come out the same. Also there is an implicit expectation of reasonable competence.

For example, hourly pay is quite reasonable in jobs that just need a competent body to fill a shift—i.e., where the only “result” you want is “the shift gets filled”. When I was working in a kitchen, I put in the same four-hour shift every time I went into work—prep, serve, clean. If I worked n shifts a week, I got kn dollars that week, fair and square.