Maybe people can't produce more than 4 days of work per week or 5 hours per day; in that case the productivity would be the same and people working more are essentially wasting time.
My empirical evidence say otherwise (sample_size=1) I can be quite productive up to ~70hrs doing knowledge work (I've been on it for 8 months, hours are tracked and connected to tasks, no idling is counted), but that's pushing it and it might not be sustainable for longer period of time. My will to live is certainly at historical lows.
Lawyers in big law can also do 60-80 hours (while ruining their life) so I think it's reasonable.
I've heard people in other professions (eg. nurses) pushing 90-100hrs but they are not actively thinking all their working time.
It invalidates their point because what’s stopping you from saying say “you can be outcompeted by someone willing to work 168 hours a week.”
it’s not diminishing positive returns. Eventually you work so much the returns go negative.
According to you it doesn’t matter if on the 49th consecutive hour the worker is basically dead and unable to come into work the next week. Overwork leads to loss of productivity and possible negative outcomes for the business if mistakes happen because of exhaustion.
In the real world there is probably some equilibrium for maximizing productivity vs hours work vs supply of workers capable of working those hours to that quality consistently.
Actually, that isn't true. The marginal output of working more than about 40 hours per week turns negative after about 4 weeks of doing so. There's plenty of research on this.
That doesn’t consider the greater picture and all the costs.
If the harder worker becomes dissatisfied sooner and leaves the position sooner than the worker putting in fewer hours, that increased employee turnover will result in lower company productivity and higher overhead.
If 4-day workers are 25% more productive than 5-day workers, or 5-day workers are 20% less productive than 4-day workers, then no.
While it's hard to increase productivity by 25%, it's not a problem for workers to drop productivity by 20%. Owners can work as much as they want, of course.
Maybe people can't produce more than 4 days of work per week or 5 hours per day; in that case the productivity would be the same and people working more are essentially wasting time.
My empirical evidence say otherwise (sample_size=1) I can be quite productive up to ~70hrs doing knowledge work (I've been on it for 8 months, hours are tracked and connected to tasks, no idling is counted), but that's pushing it and it might not be sustainable for longer period of time. My will to live is certainly at historical lows.
Lawyers in big law can also do 60-80 hours (while ruining their life) so I think it's reasonable.
I've heard people in other professions (eg. nurses) pushing 90-100hrs but they are not actively thinking all their working time.