You don't have to work 80 hours a week to be successful
twitter.com
twitter.com
I'll just say there's one hidden advantage to less crazy hours: it's a lot easier to spot mediocrity and weak-points in processes and teams. I'm not talking about people skill-building for the first time, but if someone consistently needs to work twice as long to get the same output of their peers, there really shouldn't be a social incentive structure in place to reward them for what is effectively poor performance papered over with extra hours.
People stuck in sick system jobs think that's just how the world is. The managers there are stuck in it too, so it becomes worse. The people who stick around tend to become bitter and think the world is all underpaid long-hours bureaucratic corporate shite.
I figure that the 'middle' path, of jobs that are sort of alright but not actually 'good', doesn't really exist, because there are feedback loops at both ends pushing companies away from the mean.
I have no real evidence for this other than it matching my personal experience and interacting with other people in various circumstances. It's happened more than a few times that I've interviewed somewhere and been offered half the market rate for silly amounts of responsibility by managers who seem surprised that I turn them down.
What I've found is that not only has in not harmed my career in any noticeable way, it has improved it in an unexpected way: the companies that really only expect 40 hours per week also tend to be companies that produce higher quality software, have a better working environment, and look better on my CV.