[chaostheory]

There's already plenty of evidence that working beyond 40 hours a week translates into a reduction in productivity. This is not some new, revolutionary insight; it's old news yet so many people and organizations ignore it at the cost of efficiency. The 40 hour work week is not just for your sake, but it's in the company's interests as well. I could be wrong but a lot of the data from was from WWII. When your country's survival is on the line, most civilians will be very motivated to work as much as possible producing municitions and war machines. Some researchers measured productivity vs work hours during this time and they found a certain point where productivity just plummets.

Unfortunately these are the only links I can find given 2 min and I don't believe that they cite WWII research:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/12/working-...

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

https://medium.com/building-asana/work-hard-live-well-ead679...

(What I like about Dustin's post is that he mentions that you can have a boost in productivity if you work longer hours temporarily like say for two weeks. Beyond that, there's no gain in productivity and most often there's actually a net loss)

[flamedoge]

I would dangerously extrapolate that it's not just productivity that suffers, but also correctness. Anecdotally I made more mistakes and was off mark the longer I extended myself.

[chaostheory]

Yeah that's accounted for as part of productivity as defined by the researchers. Still it's a good point since I didn't mention it.