It is. Because then the overtime is completely self-imposed.
If not, why is it okay to come to work drunk-with-fatigue?
It's just how easy the choice is that defines how good our conditions are.
> I'm sure that they do in the overwhelming majority of successful startups
You would need to back up this statement with evidence and show positive correlation between longer work hours and success of startups.
I don't care what I sound like to someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
> someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert
Your assumption is baseless and does not help your argument. Commenting on HN does not mean someone develops software for a living. HN is open for everyone.
You don't even understand that I can read all your comments on HN, as well as your profile, where you claim to be doing exactly that.
You're just wasting time and space with your insults and rhetoric.
I engage in arguments but where do you see insults?
I know very well you can read comments and profiles. I've had an HN account since 2011 and it gave me enough time to become well versed in finance. Plus I call myself software engineer because I work in quantitative finance and software engineering is big part of it. I'm also a CFA charterholder and not putting it on my HN profile doesn't make me less versed in finance.
It's ok if you don't want to engage in arguments, but don't assume you know someone by simply skimming through their HN profiles.
I worked 96 hours a week for eight weeks finishing off my dissertation. I finished it, but basically went crazy - I needed some time off, which was good because I crossed the line. Startups used to be like that I suppose, but now it takes far longer to cross the line to an exit than it used to, are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?
What does that have to do with anything? 60 hours is 50% more than 40 hours, it's regulation and not science and it's a totally different job with different risks.
> are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?
If they are working 40 hours or less, the answer is "no" with 100% certainty. Above that, it depends.
On the other hand are you sure that you are reasoning correctly? Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?
What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?
So what is your conclusion from this? That 60 hours are too much? Or is it OK to work 60 hours (i.e. more than 40)? Why bring it up if your example basically confirms that my expectations aren't unreasonable?
> Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?
Yes. And I know a couple more.
> What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?
15-30 hours/week. No product after a few financing rounds. Lack of grit. Also, very poor decisions.
Oh crumbs - sounds like a disaster! Why were you invested? Didn't the managing board raise some red flags and seek liquidation early?
There is a difference between regularly working 50-hour weeks and setting those up well, and always working 72-hour weeks, which doesn’t leave you time to do the life-admin, exercise, cooking, and sleep you need to keep a clear head.