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?

In some countries working long hours is regarded the norm. Economic success resulting from long task hours comes at a price for families, people’s health and may contribute to higher unemployment. In my opinion the long term consequences are too grave to ignore and an effort must be made to reduce long working hours. 

To begin

with, lengthening the duration of hours per employee has not necessarily improved the productivity rate of labour. Substantial scientific evidence demonstrated that extended work schedules adversely affect the health and well-being of workers. To enumerate person's task long hours are vulnerable to illness, including fatigue, endeavours stress and depression,

thus

, decline their performance.

Accordingly

, the rate of sick leave is likely to increase, in a long run, which is regarded as a cost which would hold back the economic success.

Hence

, a long average working time is associated with diminished output. Prolonged working is not always associated with economic benefits because it leads to work stress which affects productivity. Extensive research has / studies have demonstrated that extended hours spent in the office are closely related to work stress and have a negative impact on quality of life. When people suffer from weight, their concentration decreases rapidly and

this

slows down their productivity In con

clusi

Suggestion

hour

on, I believe that the economic success of a nation does not only depend on working hours, but less working hours jobs can

also

magnify  the economy of the nation