It is believed that economies with extended working hours are more progressive than the countries with comparatively shorter working hours. I completely disagree with this statement and this essay will explain reasons for my argument.
Firstly, longer duration of work is always associated with high cost to the government. To employ labor in any field of occupation, countries spend substantial amount of it’s revenue. If governments decided to increase the average 8 hours duration to 10 hours or more than that, it will obviously escalates the salary of employees as well as state expenditure on remuneration. For example, Japanese government pay twenty percent higher salary to the workers who agree to work extra hours. Consequently, it is common that many nations that have implemented lengthy working times have to face various challenges owing to increasing demand for salary increment. Thus, such policies are extremely problematic and challenging to implement successfully.
Another point to consider is employees become less productive and efficient when it comes to longer job duration. It is a proven fact that when people engaged in similar activities in a longer period of time, the efficiency level and effectiveness decrease due to the fact that it is more exhausted. For example, some countries have become successful by applying 6 hours routine, in light of the fact that labors become more loyal and happy. Conversely, when Japan increased their duration of work, they have experienced increased suicidal rate among their employees due to work-place stress. Accordingly, it is clear that lengthy working hours have not always been economical.
In conclusion, This essay argued that countries with extended duration of work not always successful due to high cost and lower productivity of employees. It is recommended to be more cautious when introducing such policies. 
It  
is believed
 that economies with extended  
working
  hours
 are more progressive than the  
countries
 with  
comparatively
 shorter  
working
  hours
. I completely disagree with this statement and this essay will  
explain
 reasons for my argument. 
Firstly
, longer  
duration
 of  
work
 is always associated with high cost to the  
government
. To employ labor in any field of occupation,  
countries
 spend substantial amount  
of it’s revenue
. If  
governments
 decided to increase the average 8  
hours
  duration
 to 10  
hours
 or more than that, it will  
obviously
  escalates
 the salary of  
employees
  as well
 as state expenditure on remuneration.  
For example
, Japanese  
government
 pay twenty percent higher salary to the workers who  
agree
 to  
work
 extra  
hours
.  
Consequently
, it is common that  
many
 nations that have implemented lengthy  
working
 times  
have to
 face various challenges owing to increasing demand for salary increment.  
Thus
, such policies are  
extremely
 problematic and challenging  
to implement
  successfully
.
Another point to consider is  
employees
 become less productive and efficient when it  
comes
 to longer job  
duration
. It is a proven fact that when  
people
 engaged in similar activities in a longer period of time, the efficiency level and effectiveness decrease due to the fact that it is more exhausted.  
For example
,  
some
  countries
 have become successful by applying 6  
hours
 routine, in light of the fact that labors become more loyal and happy.  
Conversely
, when Japan increased their  
duration
 of  
work
, they have experienced increased suicidal rate among their  
employees
 due to work-place  
stress
.  
Accordingly
, it is  
clear
 that lengthy  
working
  hours
 have not always been economical. 
In conclusion
, This essay argued that  
countries
 with extended  
duration
 of  
work
 not always successful due to high cost and lower productivity of  
employees
. It  
is recommended
 to be more cautious when introducing such policies.