[sam0x17]

> I also think "productivity" is the wrong way to frame the problem. Some things, like work-life balance, are a net good and worth a hit on productivity. The economy should serve society and not the other way around.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, especially about going across industries, but I do believe it is quite easy to lower productivity, regardless of the industry, by dramatically imbalancing work-life balance. Put another way, having good work-life balance is a net good, partially _because_ people with good work-life balance are more productive than people who are burned out.

Your medical doctor isn't going to be very good at diagnosing patients when he's in his 140th working hour of the week, if he were to attempt such a thing (with ~3 hours of sleep per night and no time off other than that)

[bumby]

>having good work-life balance is a net good, partially _because_ people with good work-life balance are more productive

This is actually what I'm pushing against. I don't like productivity being a primary principle. I'm saying it's worthwhile irrespective of the impact on productivity. (the use of 'net good' was a bad choice on my part because it implies a balancing act).

It's quite common for healthcare workers (particularly surgeons) to work extremely long hours, but that's being re-thought in some areas (esp. in regards to residents). To your point, though, I think a lot of the rethinking is driven by trying to reduce medical errors. It's more related to quality than productivity, but I don't think they can be easily parsed.