Countries with a long average working time are more economically successfull than those countries which do not have a long working time. To what extend you agree or disagree?

Some people believe that lengthening the working

time

of citizens could allow the country to have better economic development than the nations that have shorter office hours.

This

essay completely disagrees with that argument for some reasons.

Firstly

, a long working day is not enough if people don’t use effective management.

Therefore

, increasing working

time

is not helpful without the use of technologies.

For instance

, it is widely known that North Korea’s population is considered the most working population globally. An average working day there lasts for nine hours.

However

,

this

country is not economically advanced.

This

means that the length of the working hours does not affect economic development.

Secondly

, a long working

time

does not guarantee a high outcome.

On the contrary

, it negatively impacts the results since long-hour workers are likely to have higher fatigue. They

consequently

cause a lack of concentration and decreased productivity. In the worst case, they might get a work-related disease

such

as depression or even suicide.

For example

, the Japanese are well-known as long-

time

workers, and their industriousness has contributed to the development of the economy since the end of the 2nd World War. Nowadays, the suicide rate among the working generation is relatively high, and the economy of Japan is becoming slower and slower. These health problems are not suitable for economic growth, but they will

also

cost immaterial to society. To conclude, work quality does not measure by the length of working

time

. I believe that well-being conditions are essential to contribute to the economy.