I think it's just inflammatory link bait, in the same vein as Calacanis' OP. The bottom line is there are many ways to run a business. Personally I would not fire a great person regardless of whether they worked 20 hours or 100 hours a week, but I understand that there may be social dynamics at play that shouldn't be ignored.

Jason is an expert at leveraging hyperbole to a) get attention and b) initiate constructive dialogue. I respect him for his ability to do both.

But sometimes I feel what he writes needs to have a disclaimer at the top that says, "This is what worked for me in my very unique business. It may be disastrous in yours."

Basically, I view Jason as a conversation starter, not someone whose advice I'm necessarily going to follow. And having talked to him a few times at cons I've gotten the feeling that's really what he wants.

> But sometimes I feel what he writes needs to have a disclaimer at the top that says, "This is what worked for me in my very unique business. It may be disastrous in yours."

That doesn't need to be stated, it's a given. They never say our way is the only way to do things; they're just telling you what works for them.

Workaholics are (most often) passionate about their work.

It's interesting to see how often the word "passion" comes up with regards to worker productivity, especially when written from the company's perspective. The common refrain seems to be that "more time spent at work = sign of a more passionate employee". I have a hunch though that if all companies had to pay overtime rates for every hour an employee spent over 40 hours per week, you'd see fewer articles that equate "more time at work = more passion", and start seeing more more articles that equate "more time at work = bad time management skills".

As it is though, companies arguably have an incentive to focus on measuring the amount of time you spend at work, simply because the more time a salaried employee spends at work, the less it costs the employer on an hourly basis.

For instance, given 52 weeks per year minus 4 weeks vacation/holidays/sick-leave, a salaried employee has around 48 weeks per year to work, which translates into the following number of hours:

  48 weeks * 40 hours/week = 1920 hours
  48 weeks * 50 hours/week = 2400 hours
  48 weeks * 60 hours/week = 2880 hours

Going forward with this, let's say the employee's annual salary is $85k, then disregarding benefits/social security/etc. he's costing his employer the following:

  40 hour work weeks: $85000 / 1920 hours = $44/hour
  50 hour work weeks: $85000 / 2400 hours = $35/hour
  60 hour work weeks: $85000 / 2880 hours = $29/hour

"The more hours you work, the less I'll pay you (on an hourly rate)" doesn't sound quite as good as "passionate employees spend lots of time at work." Of course, the salaried employee could be working longer hours in anticipation of future rewards such as a raise, cashing in stock options, etc. The point though is that simply framing employees who spend lots of time at work as being more passionate is a little disingenuous.

When companies hire contractors there is often a clause in the contract that limits the number of hours the contractor can bill. This isn't because companies are trying to limit how "passionate" a contractor can be. It's because, unlike a salaried employee, a contractor's hourly rate doesn't go down over 40 hours/week.

You get paid for making the right thing, not the most thing. If long hours is accomplishing that, and making you happy, go nuts. But it's not the only, or necessarily the best, way to get there.