Earlier this July, Greece passed a controversial new law mandating a 6-day workweek, requiring employers to pay a 40% increased wage for overtime beyond 40 hours. The aim is to combat a shrinking population and a shortage of skilled workers. Still, the law has faced widespread local and international criticism, especially as many countries are exploring four-day workweeks. Greek unions have decried this law as "barbaric," and rightly so.
This law comes from the government of Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, a man who hails from one of Greece's wealthiest political families. Mitsotakis declared earnings of 1.5 million euros in 2021 from real estate, financial activities, and inheritances. His privileged background starkly contrasts with the daily realities faced by most Greeks. How can someone so disconnected from the struggles of the average worker truly understand the impact of such a law? In very simple terms, Mr. Prime Minister, you're not helping. You're driving your citizens away and making the problem even worse.
This law reflects a fundamental misunderstanding: long work hours won't lead to increased wealth for most people but rather to poorer overall health, which can have serious long-term consequences for the economy. This brings us to the core of my article today: don't fall for the myth that long work hours are beneficial. It's a misconception that needs debunking.
But what gives? Rich people constantly work around sixty hours a week and swear it's the key to their success. Surely going from forty to forty-eight hours of work a week can only benefit those people, right? Maybe we should all stop being lazy, and all work sixty hours a week so we can all become part of the 1%, where only those who refuse to work will be poor. This sounds like a great idea, doesn't it?
Well, not quite. This is actually a very misguided view that ignores several critical factors.
Nature of Work
According to Harvard Business Review, work for high-earners like CEOs and successful entrepreneurs often involves strategic decision-making, creative problem-solving, and leadership. While mentally demanding, these tasks offer more than just productivity gains for the top 1%; they require a deep level of self-reflection and innovation. These elements are core components of self-actualization, as described by Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
In contrast, many in these groups face physically demanding or repetitive tasks. A study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that 56% of workers in the bottom quartile of earners regularly perform physically demanding tasks, compared to just 17% in the top quartile. What would this provide them if we again referred to Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
A big fat nothing.
These jobs do not fulfill higher-level psychological needs such as esteem and self-actualization. Instead, they often only satisfy basic physiological needs and, at best, safety needs. The lack of opportunities for personal growth, creativity, and self-reflection means that long hours lead to physical exhaustion and stress for these workers rather than any meaningful advancement or fulfillment.
Responsibility and accountability
Wealthy individuals who make mistakes at work face significantly fewer risks than low-wage workers. If they're tired, their livelihood isn't as much at risk.
Wealthy individuals generally do not bear any responsibility and face very few consequences compared to the average worker when they make a blunder at work. High-level executives and entrepreneurs often enjoy a cushion of safety nets and protections that insulate them from the direct consequences of their mistakes.
Entrepreneurs are not liable for bankruptcy because their company counts as an entity, while their own money is safe. Limited liability means that personal assets are protected even if the business fails. This legal structure provides a significant advantage, minimizing personal financial risk.
Wealthy people often have a lot of money to fall back on even if they are out of a job. They also have assets they can sell to allow them to refocus and find new work opportunities – which, with their previous CEO experience, will lead them to another highly-paid position. The ability to liquidate assets and leverage connections ensures a soft landing.
In contrast, low-wage workers who lose a job are often in serious trouble. According to a survey by the Federal Reserve, nearly 40% of Americans would struggle to cover an unexpected $400 expense, indicating a lack of emergency savings that leaves them vulnerable to financial shocks.
Low-wage workers, especially younger people, do not have as many assets to fall back on if they're unemployed. Without substantial savings or property to liquidate, losing a job can quickly escalate into a financial crisis, leading to issues such as eviction or inability to afford basic necessities.
Due to the nature of the job, CEOs and entrepreneurs rarely have their work scrutinized in the same way low-wage workers do. Being tired won't affect whether or not they lose their job on a given day. On the other hand, a restaurant server who drops a plate because they're overworked may be asked to pay for the damage, which, while often illegal, still happens in some place
Freelance translators have to sign contracts to pay for legal fees if there is a data breach they're responsible for. For one poor Nathan White, Writer, this would mean four lifetimes of salary. For the CEO of a large company, it would represent one less vacation that summer. Yes, I'm salty about a recent experience, and I will include it in the article. No, I did not sign the contract, but in return, I have less work available to me
Work Environment
High-earners typically enjoy comfortable, well-equipped offices or the flexibility to work from various locations. A 2023 Gallup poll found that 74% of high-income workers have the option to work remotely, compared to just 23% of low-income workers. These environments are often designed to maximize productivity and well-being, featuring ergonomic furniture, advanced technology, and amenities such as gyms, cafeterias, and quiet rooms. The flexibility to work remotely or from different locations further enhances their work-life balance and overall job satisfaction.
Additionally, high-earners have access to a wealth of resources that further improve their work environment. These can include professional development opportunities, wellness programs, comprehensive healthcare benefits, education (often funded through generational wealth), and extensive networking opportunities. Such resources are crucial for personal and professional growth, reducing stress, and enhancing job performance. You may remember the old saying, "Money doesn't buy happiness," but poverty doesn't buy anything. And I, for one, would rather be sad but comfortable than miserable and uncomfortable.
On the flip side, we have middle- and lower-class workers who endure substandard conditions. My editor recommends against using the term "shitty work conditions," but let's be honest here, that's often what they are. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reports that workers in lower-wage industries suffer 5.7 injuries per 100 full-time workers, nearly double the rate of 2.9 in higher-wage industries. And here we go full circle: how are you going to work your 60 hours a week when you're incapable of doing so because of an injury?
Those dangers aren't the workers' fault either. More often than not, those environments lack proper safety measures, ventilation, and ergonomic designs. Workers are more likely to experience physical strain, health issues, and lower job satisfaction. A National Employment Law Project study found that low-wage workers often face unsafe working conditions, insufficient breaks, and lack of access to necessary safety equipment. Furthermore, these workers generally lack access to the additional resources that high-earners benefit from, such as professional development, wellness programs, and comprehensive healthcare benefits. This limitation significantly hampers their opportunities for advancement and perpetuates ongoing economic and health disparities.
Financial and Psychological Security
Financial security significantly impacts work experience. With a median net worth of $11.1 million (according to the Federal Reserve), the top 1% work for achievement rather than survival.
Once more, just so it really sinks in: you work to stay alive. They work because they want to feel good about themselves.
Obviously, the financial cushion reduces existential stress and allows them to enjoy their work more - besides the fact that they work for their own enjoyment rather than a repetitive job required not to let your children starve.
This grants them the opposite of a vicious circle. They have the luxury of pursuing goals that align with their interests and passions, often leading to higher job satisfaction and fulfillment. The psychological benefits of financial security include reduced anxiety about the future, the ability to take calculated risks, and the freedom to innovate. Wealthy individuals can afford to focus on long-term success and personal growth without the immediate pressure of financial instability.
To reiterate, it's much easier mentally to work 60 hours a week when you are stress-free because you find purpose in it. I personally was hard-pressed to consider working at a bakery for a terrible boss my life's raison d'être.
Access to Mental Health Resources: High-earners have better access to mental health resources, such as therapy and counseling services, which can help manage stress and improve overall well-being. Lower-wage workers, on the other hand, often lack affordable access to these services. The National Alliance on Mental Illness highlights that cost is a major barrier to mental health care for many low-income individuals.
Without adequate support, financial and psychological stress can become overwhelming, negatively affecting both personal and professional life. The best example I can give you is both myself and my friend Debbie; both of us needed therapy, and neither of us could afford it. And this is despite the fact that we both live in Canada, where healthcare is generally more affordable. I shudder to think how bad it is for my American neighbors.
Work-Life Balance
High-earners often have the option to blend work and leisure seamlessly. They can afford quality childcare, housekeeping services, and rejuvenating vacations, which significantly alleviate daily stresses and free up time. I don't have a source for this, but I'm going to guess Elon Musk doesn't cook, wash his own dishes, and do laundry every day. I will assume he and other rich folks delegate many routine tasks, creating more opportunities for leisure, personal development, and family time.
This flexibility not only improves their overall quality of life but also enhances their productivity and job satisfaction. For instance, they can afford to take time off work without worrying about financial repercussions, allowing them to recharge and return to work with renewed energy and focus.
For the lower- and middle-class, rigid schedules and limited resources make work-life balance a significant challenge. The American Time Use Survey shows that low-wage workers spend 35% less time on leisure activities compared to high-wage workers. This discrepancy is largely due to the inflexible nature of their jobs, which often require long hours, shift work, and sometimes multiple jobs to make ends meet. To rephrase: even when they claim a 60-hour workweek is their gospel, high-wage workers somehow spend more time having fun than a typical factory worker.
Low-wage workers also lack the financial means to afford quality childcare, housekeeping services, or regular vacations, making it difficult to balance work with personal and family responsibilities. The stress of juggling multiple roles and responsibilities without adequate support can lead to burnout and negatively impact their mental and physical health. Additionally, the lack of leisure time (or financial ability) means they miss out on opportunities for relaxation, hobbies, and social activities, which are crucial for overall well-being.
The lack of work-life balance for low-wage workers has severe health implications. Chronic stress from long hours and financial insecurity can lead to various health problems, including cardiovascular disease, depression, and anxiety. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) notes that workers with poor work-life balance are more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and poor diet, further worsening their health issues.
Optimal Work Hours for Health and Productivity
The question of how much work humans are biologically evolved to handle in a week touches on anthropology, psychology, and occupational health. While there's no definitive "biological limit" to weekly work hours, research from various fields provides insights into optimal work durations and their effects on health and productivity.
Hunter-Gatherer Societies: Anthropological studies of hunter-gatherer societies, such as on the !Kung san of the Kalahari desert, which reflects the majority of human evolutionary history, suggests that these groups typically worked about 20-30 hours per week to secure food, shelter, and other necessities. This indicates that the human body may be adapted to a more balanced lifestyle with significant leisure time.
Occupational Health: Research consistently shows that excessive work hours (generally defined as more than 50-60 hours per week) are associated with various health risks, including cardiovascular diseases, depression, anxiety, and musculoskeletal disorders. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) report that working 55 or more hours per week increases the risk of stroke by 35% and the risk of ischemic heart disease by 17% compared to working 35-40 hours per week.
Productivity: Studies on productivity suggest that there are diminishing returns on additional hours worked. Economist John Pencavel of Stanford University found that productivity per hour declines significantly after 50 hours per week, and falls off a cliff after 55 hours. Beyond this point, fatigue and stress reduce the quality and quantity of work.
Work-Life Balance: Research from the OECD and other organizations highlights the importance of work-life balance for overall well-being. Workers with more balanced schedules report higher levels of job satisfaction, better mental health, and more stable personal relationships.
Psychological and Neurological Considerations
The brain requires adequate rest to function optimally. Prolonged work hours can lead to cognitive fatigue, impairing decision-making, creativity, and problem-solving abilities. Regular breaks and sufficient sleep are crucial for maintaining cognitive performance.
Chronic overwork can lead to burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. The American Psychological Association (APA) and other mental health organizations recommend balanced work hours and adequate downtime to prevent burnout and maintain mental health.
My final thoughts
Some argue that hard work is the key to success, regardless of starting point. While perseverance is valuable, this view oversimplifies complex socioeconomic factors. It's crucial to recognize that systemic barriers, including access to education, healthcare, and professional networks, significantly impact one's ability to advance.
Additionally, not all top earners work excessive hours, and not all lower-wage workers endure 60-hour weeks. However, the astonishing differences in working conditions and overall life quality persist across these groups.
When I personally engage in passion projects that many would qualify as "work," I have been known to be a workaholic. Back when I hosted a public Project Zomboid server, I worked between 50 to 60 hours a week on it for several months because I wanted to. However, it wasn't nearly as lucrative as being the CEO of a top corporation, and it quickly proved unsustainable for me and my health; thus, I had to make the choice to pace myself.
Today, with various high-focus projects in my sights, I have to force myself to work thirty hours at most to avoid falling into the trappings of burnout. But I don't mind it: I'm mostly my own boss, I can work whenever I want, and it's work I enjoy. If I had proper support and the numerous advantages the top 1% has, I would love nothing more than to dedicate my full life to my craft and the causes I have pledged myself to.
But if you asked me to go back to retail work? Hell, one hour a week is too many hours.
Comments