"I did not want [my child] to end up like one of those weird Asian automatons who feel so much pressure . . . that they kill themselves after coming in second on the national civil service exam."
- Amy Chua, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother
Hard work and workaholism are not the same thing. Hard work is a character strength. Workaholism implies poor priorities and an imbalanced life. And yet, Americans increasingly have to be more like workaholics than hard workers to attain the highest levels of success in this country. Although many businesses, hospitals, and professional firms promote work-life balance to attract and keep high quality employees, many still have corporate cultures that value very long hours and promote employees based almost entirely on productivity ($$ per person) without regard for other circumstances. Firms say and do two different things. They advertise that they value employees and then treat them as liabilities rather than assets. In fact, many of the most prestigious career fields in America require at least a few years of totally unbalanced devotion to work. To become a top lawyer, you have to put in backbreaking billable hours as a junior associate. Then, of those workaholics, only one in five makes partner: the one who puts in the most hours. To become a physician, you have to do a few years as a resident putting in 75-hour workweeks with a frenetic schedule and then you're on call (in 2003, OSHA adopted an 80-hour limitation with exceptions, how generous of them). To become a business executive, the standard path involves doing your time at a major consulting, accounting, or investment banking firm. But, are these long hours really good for us? Or are these long-hour rites of passage really just chest pounding, bragging rights, proof of manhood? Workaholism is fostered early on too. Test scores at universities are based solely on productivity and are the greatest determinant of career opportunity. In the end, this is understandable right? Businesses are profit-maximizers and getting more work out of fewer people seems like it would cut costs and increase net income.
But, even if overworking employees does make for higher profits, isn't it the government's job to correct for the excesses of business' constant quest for profit? Shouldn't we have a system where those living a balanced lifestyle are rewarded? America lags far behind developed countries with regards to family-oriented workplace policies like maternity leave, support for working mothers, maximum working hours, and vacation time. On average, Americans work 30% more hours than Europeans, yet American and European workers are virtually equal in their productivity. Studies show that working more than 50 hours a week might increase productivity for some people, but only very marginally. In other words, if you are a workaholic, you might get the most done, but insignificantly in the big picture. The hours aren't worth the increase in productivity. Studies show that, on average, productivity after 50 hour of work in a week drops off precipitously. For example, Albert studies for 50 hours in a week and scores a 90% on his law school exam. Bertrand studies for 80 hours a week and scores a 95% on that same exam. Since most law schools have a mandatory curve, Albert gets a B+ and Bertrand gets an A. Now, in law school terms, the difference between a 3.3 (B+) GPA and a 3.7 (A-) GPA can be as much as $100,000 difference in salary. But, is that how it should work? Should we really value Bertrand's marginal increase in legal knowledge (that can be found with a click of a button) at $100k? While Bertrand was outlining campaign finance law in the library for 30 extra hours, Albert took his son fishing, his daughter to swimming lessons, went on a date with his wife, volunteered for the Special Olympics, went to the gym three times, read a book, took a nap, and helped a friend change his brake pads. Who is really more productive? Who is more honorable? Who would you want as your leader?
The overworking of Americans has a number of negative effects on individuals and on society as a whole.
Materialism: First, emphasis on long work hours puts a premium on money and devalues time (time with family, time with friends, time doing service, time on hobbies, etc). Hours worked per person in America has steadily increased since the late 1940s while salaries per hour worked have doubled since then when adjusted for inflation. In other words, Americans could work 4-hour days and have the same quality of life as they would have earned for themselves in an 8-hour work day in 1940. Commercialism has convinced too many Americans that stuff is more valuable than it really is.
Sleep: If you need an alarm clock, you are probably not getting enough sleep. Every year, the sleep deficit among American workers grows. Most Americans are getting over an hour less sleep than they should.
Experience: There is an argument that we are getting boring as we take less and less vacation and fewer and fewer hobbies. We aren't traveling as much for pleasure or learning. Jobs are requiring us to become increasingly specialized and job satisfaction declines with the diminished variety. We can't pursue hobbies or side-jobs anymore. There's not time to produce that great idea for an invention, write that book, or teach yourself to knit. We work, eat, sleep and repeat. We don't have time to meditate and think about life or to engage in meaningful conversation.
Health: Stress in American workers is measurably higher with each passing year. This contributes to a host of mental and physical health problems that are on the rise. The stress also has a negative effect on our relationships with others. We are less happy and more depressed than ever. In addition, long work schedules often make for more sedentary lifestyles that contribute to problems like, among others, obesity and cardiovascular complications.
Unemployment: Increasing hours for employees means less people get hired.
Family: This is the most unfortunate casualty of our overvaluation of long hours at work. I don't even know where to begin. Marriages are strained as husband and wife spend less time with one another and don't have time to complete household chores. Parents spend less time with kids. Kids are left home alone more and more. Even when a person has time for their spouse or children, fatigue usually makes that time less effective for bonding. Couples are putting off getting married or having kids until after school or after my first job or after whatever so that they can be more successful in their careers. I think this lack of love and spending time together leads to lower morals too. When we don't feel cared for, we generally hold ourselves to lower standards of conduct. Friends can be a strength, but family is where moral support most happens. Mothers should be able to put their families first and still become physicians, but the system does not allow it nor does the impossible ideal of "supermom" help the situation. It ignores the problem.
One way to deal with this problem would be to set a maximum work hour ceiling. Perhaps employers would be prohibited by statute to work their employees for more than an average of 60 hours a week over a ten week period. That isn't setting the ceiling too low. Or, perhaps tax incentives could be set up to encourage employers to work employees at reasonable hours and to make it not worth overworking employees. Perhaps a minimum vacation requirement of 14-days a year should be instituted. I would also like to see policy incentives for improved maternity leave and accommodations for mothers at work (e.g. breastfeeding breaks, mothers' rooms).
As an aside, I prefer that protecting employee work-life balance is better accomplished by statutes than by empowering labor unions. Labor unions have a natural tendency to carry their fight for workers to excess just as unchecked businesses seem to go too far the other way. Can everyone agree that working more than 60-hour weeks with only one week of vacation time, and zero sick pay is inconsistent with a balanced life? In my opinion, the law could appropriately set some minimum standards through taxation or outright prohibitions.
Finally, I'd like to see education policy shift to better esteem students with balanced lives and talents that fit particular career fields rather than abstract academics only. Work-life balance is not so much a problem in public high schools where the homework load is relatively quite low; but in graduate professional schools it is certainly a problem. Slightest differences in capacity are blown out of proportion in assessments and in school's representations to employers of a student's worth. Perhaps simply measuring competency in individual subject areas and forcing employers to sift through potential employees would be a better system for many professional graduate schools. The current system seems to enable elitism too much as well. I'd also like to see alternatives to medical residencies or grueling junior associate rites of passage. Perhaps a 5-year residency at 40 hours a week rather than a 3-year residency at 75 hours per week. Maybe a 12-year partnership track rather than a 7-year track.
As an aside, I prefer that protecting employee work-life balance is better accomplished by statutes than by empowering labor unions. Labor unions have a natural tendency to carry their fight for workers to excess just as unchecked businesses seem to go too far the other way. Can everyone agree that working more than 60-hour weeks with only one week of vacation time, and zero sick pay is inconsistent with a balanced life? In my opinion, the law could appropriately set some minimum standards through taxation or outright prohibitions.
Finally, I'd like to see education policy shift to better esteem students with balanced lives and talents that fit particular career fields rather than abstract academics only. Work-life balance is not so much a problem in public high schools where the homework load is relatively quite low; but in graduate professional schools it is certainly a problem. Slightest differences in capacity are blown out of proportion in assessments and in school's representations to employers of a student's worth. Perhaps simply measuring competency in individual subject areas and forcing employers to sift through potential employees would be a better system for many professional graduate schools. The current system seems to enable elitism too much as well. I'd also like to see alternatives to medical residencies or grueling junior associate rites of passage. Perhaps a 5-year residency at 40 hours a week rather than a 3-year residency at 75 hours per week. Maybe a 12-year partnership track rather than a 7-year track.
We don't want to become automatons that feel they have to sacrifice faith, family, friends, or service to become a law firm partner or a physician. For stronger families, happier citizens, and (yes) a stronger economy, we need to reward those who live balanced lives.
