[VLM]

That seems to have a peculiar and unlikely assumption that they would have produced less by working fewer hours, while almost all human experiences show those at the top of their profession rarely if ever got there by merely punching a timeclock more than the next tier down.

I will never be a world class ballet dancer or world class basketball player simply by putting in a little more time than the next guy.

[danielweber]

It definitely depends on the field.

Plus, in certain fields, even if you are experiencing diminishing returns, you can still squeeze more value out of those additional hours than someone else can.

Imagine one Friday your company calls the law firm you have on retainer. The guy handling your case has already put in 50 hours this week and is only operating at 80% capacity. You are still going to get better work out of him than his coworker, because your guy has everything about your case stored in his head without reading any notes.

On the other hand, if someone was on some type of monitoring duty, where usually nothing happens but if something does happen it's very important that he make the right call (ie guard duty, nuclear power plant operator) I would want to split his work over many people.

Sometimes two 30-hour workers perform better than one 60-hour worker, and sometimes they perform worse.

[crazy1van]

Yes more time won't make you world class, but I bet the world class ballet dancer and basketball players often put in more than 8 hours a day.

[aestra]

Probably but at some point you get diminishing returns. The human body needs rest to recover.

[crazy1van]

Absolutely. But I bet the world class athlete knows where that point is for themselves far better than a legislator.