Stepping into the 21st century, economically successful countries usually adopt a structure of longer working hours. Despite potential benefits, this trend is inclined to generate a number of downsides, affecting the well-being of the state as a whole. Personally, I am of mixed opinion about this argument.
Granted, a stable state of economy could stimulate further research and studies in healthcare industries, allowing for the generation of curative medicine and preventative treatments. Long-term benefits, such as higher living standards together with longer life expectancy, could in turn be derived, enabling citizens to lead a better life. Moreover, since revenues could be allocated to the construction road infrastructure, authorities could grant residents a number of modernised routes and convenient footpaths, thus enhancing the flow of traffic and contributing to the betterment of the society.
Nonetheless, the trend could undeniably result in numerous downsides. A longer working time would lessen the chance for family and friends to gather and enjoy the sense of community. In the long run, consequences such as the suffering of isolation and stress could negatively affect the lives of many residents, leading to severe mental ailments and lowering qualities of life. Additionally, those who work long hours could be more prone to minor diseases, possessing worse immune systems and health conditions. The phenomenon could exert negative influences on their lives, engendering lower state of well-being, and hence living standards.
To conclude, I believe that the phenomenon could be considered a double-edged sword. While an advanced economy grants appealing merits, longer working hours could negatively affect the general well-being of citizens. National governments should strike the balance between the two, harnessing the merits and minimizing possible drawbacks.