Countries with a long average working time are more economically successful, but they are also likely to suffer from negative social consequences. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Someone are arguing that longer average working time could lead to better gains for national wealth but its citizen have to cope with social issues. In my opinion, I completely agree with that linkage among total of time in workplace, success in economic development and problems in the society.

Firstly

, hard-working period normally results with better outcome and

then

makes significant contributions on the success of entire country. In the long history of human being, there is no nation with full of lazy people could enter the list of developed countries.

For example

, the miracle story of Korea in 1960s was written by the generation of hard-working people who used to wholeheartedly dedicate themselves and spent more than 10 hours a day in decades. But that trade-off was worthy of that enermous sacrifice. Since

then

, they evolved from low-income country to be one of the richest in Asia in recent years.

Secondly

, more hours for professional life could reduce the amount of time for personal needs and it is the root causes for unwanted social issues. Obviously, it will be the understandable consequence if you are unable to balance the work and your own life. In Korea,

along with

the rapid development for their economy, the divorce rate is aslo experiencing increase through the years. Some evidences explain that spending too much effort in office could drive spouses to have less preference for their marial life.

This

is the obvious side-effect for communities that prefer economical success rather than well-being in their society. In conclusion,

although

intensive working schedule could play as vital role for the capital of all countries, they should anticipate the visible negative impact on social development.