This is THE argument to working less IMO. However, if we do not take into account which forces drive long working hours then we will not get closer to achievin

This is THE argument to working less IMO. However, if we do not take into account which forces drive long working hours then we will not get closer to achieving short working hours. oversimplified, but, long hours, overtimes, etc are driven by the simple fact that capitalists 1) have running costs that keep running when their workers don't work 2) the technological degradation of the means of production accelerates as time goes by. Thus, an enterprise has the economic motive to squeeze out as much value as possible, as soon as possible out of their productive means (machinery, buildings, equipment). However, the only way to do that is to get people to work. Taylorism may had it's problems (as described in this article - I do not have any sources) but in general, higher work intensity and longer hours do produce higher yields in industry and manual jobs. in such jobs, stress and burnout are not a considerable factor to employers because of how easily replacable their workers are. Simply put, workers are being squeezed empty and thrown away when they are unable to carry on. That's why younger people are prefered due to their bilogical ability to endure more compared to older people. Surely I see why shorter hours are more productive and that was also proven in the past durring the times when workers demanded 12 - 10 - 8 hour days. But I do not see why the majority of the global enterprises will choose employee wellness over constant use of their machinery, I think they can only be forced into such a change, not convinced