[laughfactory]

Ever since graduating from college, I've adhered to one principle: I only work for employers who either 1) value output, not seat time, or 2) who explicitly require 40 hours a week (no more, no less; this can be an average over the previous year). It's not because I'm not dedicated, or a high performer--in fact, I'd argue my preferences are rooted in actually being a high performer. I know that not much of additional value occurs beyond 40 hours, and I value time beyond that 40 hour mark at an exponentially increasing premium.

So for me, I do a very solid, focused, and productive 40 hours and leave time in life for everything else which matters: family, friends, hobbies, sleep.

I definitely have experienced the judgment of my peers for being so strict about how I work. Even though I do great work, they frequently give me a hard time for, apparently, not being dedicated enough. But isn't that a little ridiculous? When you're an employee, even of a great employer, it's still just a job. If, in that job, you cease to be an asset (no matter the quality of your work, or the number of hours you put in), you will be reassigned or terminated. To me it's idiotic to treat any job as being anything other than that: a job. There's good, interesting jobs with lots of challenges and great pay; there's really horrible jobs which are menial, micromanaged, abusive bosses, with low pay. It's a continuum of jobs, but that's all they are: jobs. It's almost like people are turning work into a religion. Or that there's a belief that if you sacrifice your life, health, etc. for work that you are to be honored and respected. But that's just masochistic.

Work to live, not the other way around.

[mark_l_watson]

I totally agree. For about 30 years I usually set my cap at 32 hours/week, which worked well for me. Now that I am in my 60s, I set the cap at about 20 hours a week, and actually prefer 15 hours a week.

The 'extra' time allowed me to write a lot of books (a fun activity) and spend more time with friends and family.

[Rainymood]

Interesting perspective. I completely agree with most of your sentiments but I just can't shake the feeling that this kind of attitude is much more difficult for people who are non-knowledge workers with more labor intensive work (i.e. cleaning etc).

[shostack]

It is absolutely more difficult. It is very easy to wax poetic about the types of jobs one will and will not do when one has job security in the form of many readily available, high-paying jobs. Most are not that lucky and in fact would be grateful to work more hours because it might put them over the threshold to full time and benefits for example.

Others like lawyers, are on a similar situation treadmill tied to hours worked. It is often up or out at big firms, and going up always entails working lots of billable hours. Work fewer hours, make less money and no great future.

Ultimately, the path to success increasingly seems to be freeing yourself from a single entity that controls your pay (i.e. Employer, single client or customer, etc.). From there it is down to finding ways to scale your output beyond your hourly constraint (you only have so many hours in a day you can work, even for high pay) and ways to diversify income to reduce risk.

[AznHisoka]

For others live to work is a reasonable motto as well. it is deeply ingrained with their life purpose. of course its probably easier if your job is something very valuable to society like a nurse, doctor or police officer as opposed to a cube rodent