Debunking the 70 hour work week
-Vaishnavi Ganpule
SY BSc (2022-25)
Reading time: 5 minutes
“70 or 60 hours is not the issue, the issue is that we have to work hard in this country because we owe it to the poor farmers and factory workers who work very hard.”
Source: Moneycontrol
Narayan Murthy recently appeared in an interview with Mohandas Pai titled ‘Leadership by example’ on their series ‘The Record’. In the entire interview, he recommends speedy bureaucracy and makes a passing reference to reducing corruption in the government. He then appeals to corporate leaders and urges the youth to take charge and “build the country with gusto”. Assuming we do start working for even 60 hours a week, how much would that really help? Working for longer hours is not going to magically increase productivity. The main crux of the problem is reforming a fundamentally flawed system, not laziness.
A report released by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in 2021 showed that Indian workers are one of the most overworked and underpaid workers in the world. While it is no surprise that urban and rural wage earners are in this situation, the report also reveals that salaried men work longer than casual wage earners.
The first thing economics students learn in production optimization is that the marginal productivity of inputs must be equal to their marginal cost (wages, interest rate etc.). Research proves that as working hours increase, productivity increases at a decreasing rate. After a point, working for 70 hours a week results in the same output as working for 50 hours. Romanticising hustle culture is dangerous. WHO has officially acknowledged that longer working hours are a serious health hazard. The ILO report published in 2021 shows that people working for more than 55 hours a week are more prone to heart diseases and strokes. Longer working hours also aggravate anxiety, depression and burnout.
Condescending the youth by patronising the farmers is a misguided statement at best. Yes, farmers work hard, but glorifying their struggle diverts our attention from a worrying pattern of increasing farmer suicides. Farmer suicides must not be studied individually and chalked off solely to mental health. It is a sign of a failed system. Declining public expenditure in agriculture, inefficient formal lending channels, and stagnant growth of real wages threaten famer’s livelihoods. Add to that are the changing weather patterns due to climate change that have perplexed farmers.
It is true that India must not be satisfied with the current rate of growth, but it must not come at the cost of human development. We have a great many examples of countries growing fast. They all followed different paths to get where they are. The USA chose free market capitalism, Germany grew due to the industrial revolution, South Korea incentivized investment in the country while also opening up their economy, and Japan improved the quality of labour and technology. One thing that unites these examples is mutual cooperation of all institutions and most importantly, people working towards a common goal. India can’t simply replicate these policies in its economy. The policies must be tailored to suit our diverse, unique culture and today’s fast moving world.
Successive governments have tried their hand at improving the country’s economy. However, execution is still poor and loopholes are ruthlessly exploited. We must not aim for a one size fits all policy. Different states and regions within the states face distinct problems. Whether it is Punjab reeling from the Akali Dal rule, Odisha with its short-sightedness regarding the iron ore boom or Tamil Nadu, plagued by a water crisis. In all this, the common people are neglected.
The path to growth for India is hampered due to a myopic executive and bureaucracy, corruption and disillusioned citizens. The answer is not long working hours, but restoring the confidence of people in political and social systems. This requires active participation of all institutions in the economy- government, industries and households.
Private investment in the country is necessary- with the added condition that long term growth is considered. If rising inequality has taught us anything, it is naïve to depend on the benevolence of large corporations to lead India’s economy. Government policies must be inclusive and benefit SMEs and workers, not just conglomerates.
In another interview, Narayan Murthy was asked about the backlash after his statement. He said he would only regret making that statement if a person as successful as him criticised his solution. It is unknown whether he was referring to employees working more than what they are paid for, or wealthy individuals such as himself.
Narayan Murthy’s statement and his defence for said statement sound peculiarly like a masterclass at capitalist exploitation. While his statement might be considered as a sincere attempt to encourage the masses, it is not a feasible solution. With the ruins and successes of economies before us, how do we as a country go forward? Do we follow other development stories, or do we create our own?