First of all, you're talking right past my whole point and just restating your original point, which is pretty disrespectful of the time I put in crafting a balanced response.
You claim you want frank discussion, but then you reduce the whole debate to a time equation. The problem is that it's only as simple if you measure success by hours worked. As someone who has pulled many many 100 hour weeks, I can tell you that I'm more effective in 40 hours now then I used to be in 80. This may not be true for everybody (I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their lives), but for me, I draw energy and inspiration from the downtime. I'm in touch with real human beings outside the echo chamber, giving me insight into building products that normal people will buy. When I get to the office, most of the time I know I have only until 6pm to get my todo list done. When I was single and working 100 hour weeks, it was easy to get caught on tangents, or work when over-tired, because hey I have 12 hours on Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday to catch up.
Limiting your work hours can be constraint that leads to increased creativity and effectiveness. It also creates a buffer when you really do need to put in extra effort to make a critical deadline. Time spent away from work lets your subconscious process things and come to more optimal solutions.
I'm not denying that there is a correlation between highly successful entrepreneurs and long work hours, but it's a fallacy to treat it as a causal relationship. How many people work 24/7 in silicon valley and never get anywhere? A lot more than you think because no one is telling their stories. The focus should be on efficiency, creative thinking, intelligence and above all persistence. It's possible to jeopardize all of those by forsaking work-life balance.
You claim you want frank discussion, but then you reduce the whole debate to a time equation. The problem is that it's only as simple if you measure success by hours worked. As someone who has pulled many many 100 hour weeks, I can tell you that I'm more effective in 40 hours now then I used to be in 80. This may not be true for everybody (I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their lives), but for me, I draw energy and inspiration from the downtime. I'm in touch with real human beings outside the echo chamber, giving me insight into building products that normal people will buy. When I get to the office, most of the time I know I have only until 6pm to get my todo list done. When I was single and working 100 hour weeks, it was easy to get caught on tangents, or work when over-tired, because hey I have 12 hours on Saturday and 12 hours on Sunday to catch up.
Limiting your work hours can be constraint that leads to increased creativity and effectiveness. It also creates a buffer when you really do need to put in extra effort to make a critical deadline. Time spent away from work lets your subconscious process things and come to more optimal solutions.
I'm not denying that there is a correlation between highly successful entrepreneurs and long work hours, but it's a fallacy to treat it as a causal relationship. How many people work 24/7 in silicon valley and never get anywhere? A lot more than you think because no one is telling their stories. The focus should be on efficiency, creative thinking, intelligence and above all persistence. It's possible to jeopardize all of those by forsaking work-life balance.