This is the actual issue. You have caricatured people you disagree with in order to make their position sound weaker than it really is. This is not about objectivism, this is about humane work conditions.
It is better if we do not promote a fashion of 160-hour work weeks, because that is bad for human beings. If you run a company, holding people's lives in your hands, you should try to be a good person who makes a good difference in those lives. From a production perspective, productivity actually drops off as fatigue increases. From a business standpoint you should want employees who generate significant value to be happy so they will be loyal rather than leaving or melting down. And it's probably better
NOT to become known for squeezing dimes to the detriment of others' health because you thought that was a better way of making money than growing the business.
That isn't "sniping at hard workers" and it isn't "self-victimization." It is resisting the attempt of some employers to give everyone 160 hour work weeks and classify people who don't accept that as antisocial communist complainers. That isn't free-market capitalism, it is the company store.
Give people who bring value to your business fair conditions and fair pay. If a few people want to spend more time for some specific reason that doesn't need to be specifically encouraged and made into a fashion or a de facto requirement. This makes people miserable and it kills them early and it is wrong.
> It is better if we do not promote a fashion of 160-hour work weeks
If you disagree with the substance of what I'm saying, I'll happily discuss the finer points and think about my arguments vs the ones you're offering. I'm here to actively learn, share, and find motivation -- not really to just howl and argue by using fallacious reasoning and cheap debating tactics.
If all you can do is throw up straw men[1], then I'm going to have to challenge you to show where I've made any such arguments. You'll need to show where anyone is advocating 160 hour work weeks, much less "forcing" others to work 160 hour work weeks. That you're distorting the facts of easily-referenced articles[2] is troubling.
Seriously, I'm happy to concede a point and learn from my mistake... but if you think I'm making one, you'll need to provide better arguments.
It is better if we do not promote a fashion of 160-hour work weeks, because that is bad for human beings. If you run a company, holding people's lives in your hands, you should try to be a good person who makes a good difference in those lives. From a production perspective, productivity actually drops off as fatigue increases. From a business standpoint you should want employees who generate significant value to be happy so they will be loyal rather than leaving or melting down. And it's probably better NOT to become known for squeezing dimes to the detriment of others' health because you thought that was a better way of making money than growing the business.
That isn't "sniping at hard workers" and it isn't "self-victimization." It is resisting the attempt of some employers to give everyone 160 hour work weeks and classify people who don't accept that as antisocial communist complainers. That isn't free-market capitalism, it is the company store.
Give people who bring value to your business fair conditions and fair pay. If a few people want to spend more time for some specific reason that doesn't need to be specifically encouraged and made into a fashion or a de facto requirement. This makes people miserable and it kills them early and it is wrong.