[simon_000666]

“ my point is purely about the effective output of an individual. If we were fighting an existential threat, say an asteroid that would hit the earth in a year, would you really tell everyone involved in the project that they should go home after 35 hours a week, because they are harming the project if they work longer?”

— doesn’t this depend on the outcome of your work to fight an existential threat? If you fail then going home after 35hrs was exactly the right thing to do (as you’ve optimized for making the most of your remaining time on earth) if your successful then however many hours you spent was worth it.

Surely this entire argument is pointless unless you know the result of the time you spend?

[strken]

He tells you literally and exactly what he means: his "point is purely about the effective output of an individual". Emphasis is mine on effective output. His opponents argue that there's a peak in productivity, such that if workers wanted the greatest chance at stopping the asteroid, they should choose to only work 35 hours a week. He argues that this peak either does not exist, or is way more than 35 hours.

[bombcar]

It makes more sense when you think of salaried vs hourly. Because hourly people are so obviously useful on long hours that companies will pay 50% more to have them there.