Countries with a long average working time are more economically successful than those countries which do not have a long working time. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is often argued that nations, which have a longer working schedule, are more economically successful than those with shorter working times. This essay disagrees with that statement because western countries do not have a long working time and long working hours put an adverse effect on a country’s economy.
The primary reason long working hours are not beneficial to enhance the economy of a nation because the Western world does not follow this trend. This is because countries, in North America and Europe, have eight hours of working schedule in a day and have time off at weekends because these countries give emphasis to work-life balance. This results in them enhancing their productivity, which eventually boosts the economy of the country. For instance, the USA has 8 hours shift in a day for most of the jobs and individuals are usually free at weekends, which is the key attribute for their rising economy.
Another reason is that a long working schedule is detrimental to the economy of a nation. This is because when citizens spend more than twelve hours a day at the workplace doing the same monotonous jobs, they get bored because their jobs are not fulfilling. As a result, they do not put their efforts into work, which is not beneficial for the economic condition of their nation. For example, in India, the people usually spend 12 hours at their work doing tiring jobs. Consequently, the workers do not put their best into their jobs.
In conclusion, a long working time is not as good as a short working schedule for the economic success of a country because many western countries have moderate working schedules and spending so much time at work is not beneficial for the economy of a nation.
