Prompt: 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 ?

People have different views about the outcome of being hard-working. In my opinion, I utterly oppose the idea that longer shifts are greatly requisite for financial success regarding the adverse effects they may bring back. Ċ On the one hand, it is true that diligence is the key factor leading to a high economic growth rate due to the more demanding work requirements and fierce competition between firms. However, I believe overworking to be counter-productive. It deprives people of leisure time to make personal purchases, which is accordingly the reason for a drop in consumption. Consequently, major industries including tourism, air transport and entertainment services driving the economy in many countries would be severely affected resulting from the decline in the number of customers. Ċ In addition, the workers will be prone to physical health problems, along with mental illnesses if they exert themselves relentlessly. First of all, employees can suffer from lack of sleep, which acts as the main cause of poor performance at work. This may not only decrease productivity but also give rise to traffic accidents because of vehicles whose owners have to drive in a state of exhaustion. Undesirably, what will benefit is the medical system. Moreover, it poses a potential risk to people who are too busy for self-care. To cite an example, the Japanese office staffs frequently deal with an overwhelming workload that they feel stressful, meaningless and many even try to commit suicide. Ċ As a conclusion, it is clear to me that extended shifts have its drawbacks outweigh the advantages on the subject of the detrimental impact it could have on the economy.