It's not the input (= work) that counts, but the output (results) that you get.
A year has 52 weeks. If I take 5 weeks of vacation per year that's 10% of the time that I have. So I will be 10% less productive (if I ignore increased productivity after vacations).
For me that's a reasonable trade-off. I don't live to work, but I work to live.
In addition, I suggest that you look at the per capita GDP of different countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...). If hard work would increase your output, you would expect the US to be at the top of the list. Instead, for example at the IMF 2010 data Sweden (which gives you 5 weeks of holiday per year) is listed above the US.
"If hard work would increase your output, you would expect the US to be at the top of the list."
Ceteris paribus, but ceteris are not paribus. Additionally, nominal GDP per capita is a pretty horrible way of measuring worker output; are Norwegians nearly twice as productive as Swedes, or do they live next to a gigantic source of oil?
If you look at the per capita GDP by purchasing power parity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP...) on the other hand, only oil rich nations, Singapore, and Luxembourg are higher than the US. While Sweden ranks 13th, 14th, and 17th on the different lists.
A year has 52 weeks. If I take 5 weeks of vacation per year that's 10% of the time that I have. So I will be 10% less productive (if I ignore increased productivity after vacations).
For me that's a reasonable trade-off. I don't live to work, but I work to live.
In addition, I suggest that you look at the per capita GDP of different countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...). If hard work would increase your output, you would expect the US to be at the top of the list. Instead, for example at the IMF 2010 data Sweden (which gives you 5 weeks of holiday per year) is listed above the US.