Infosys founder defends call for 70-hour workweeks, says he "doesn't believe in a work/life balance"

"We owe it to the poor people to work hard and make the quality of their life a little bit better," he said... Oh, please, talk about spin. Does anyone actually believe this guy is doing it for the poor people? How does he say this BS with a straight face? :joy:
 
70hour work weeks? What drugs is that guy on? My employer barely gets 32 hours a week out of me.
People have personal lives. NO employer will ever get me for more than 40. Ever, no matter how much they pay.
 
In youth, we spend our health pursuing wealth, and later spend our wealth pursuing health.

W/ that said, we go through seasons in life. Sometimes you will have to work like crazy, but once u have a family and relationships, it's not sustainable unless you want delinquent children and a divorce.
 
People who work much more than the average person when they're young usually end up extremely successful , it's the ones that do the bare minimum that are very rarely successful or end up independently wealthy.

Everybody I have known throughout my life who went the extra mile or worked longer than required ended up being extremely financially secure and much more successful than the ones who did not.
 
That is total bunk. Complete myth.

What a surprise , the guy who said the below disagrees ha ha ha ha ha ha

"My employer barely gets 32 hours a week out of me. . NO employer will ever get me for more than 40. Ever, no matter how much they pay"

 
To recap, many poor countries needed to do that in order to industrialize. For example, in the 1950s onward, workers in Japan had to work 12 hours a day for long pay, but in return they got job security and a social safety net.
 
70hour work weeks? What drugs is that guy on? My employer barely gets 32 hours a week out of me.
People have personal lives. NO employer will ever get me for more than 40. Ever, no matter how much they pay.

That also takes place in poor countries, but the pay is low, credit is tight, and the cost of living is relatively higher, so they have to work more hours.

In short, he's likely talking to those who are experiencing opposite conditions, not to those who are already working more hours because they have no choice.

For example, according to Numbeo, the ave. mo. pay after tax for places like the U.S. is $4,400 while the mo. cost of living plus rent is $3,000.


In places like India, though, the cost is $600 and ave. pay's $550.


But even India is lucky compared to others. For example, the cost of living plus rent in places like the Philippines is $820, but the ave. pay is $380.


BTW, these are averages, so they will differ from what you know, but I think the results will still be similar.
 
Unfortunately, that works against doing business, which needs more workers and consumers each time.
What is correct and right isn't always good for business. Much of the time, those ideals conflict, which should say a lot about business.
 
Last edited:
What a surprise , the guy who said the below disagrees ha ha ha ha ha ha

"My employer barely gets 32 hours a week out of me. . NO employer will ever get me for more than 40. Ever, no matter how much they pay"
Was that an attempt and a condescending insult? Do you really think I care about your estimation of my self value & worth?
 
I've finished working now but, when I was working on projects that I'd designed, I often worked 40 hour weeks. My wife would even find me sketching out designs for new systems in my spare time. In all honesty, I quite enjoyed my work. I'll admit the concept of working longer hours with the hope of being paid more is completely alien to me. You should get paid for what you do, not the time you spend doing it.

When I went contracting, it was purely for the money. I was often pulled in to try and perform miracles on systems that really just needed rewriting from scratch. Unfortunately that never was an option. I probably did 30 hour weeks (if that) on these gigs and I just pitied the employees that were stuck with these systems.

I retired in my early 50's and now do 60 hour weeks writing my own arcade games purely for fun.
 
He probably spend His adult life working even more, and made billions. The twist is: He's 35 years old!

Also, quoting Japan and Germany is probably not the best idea. Hard work to rebuild was, You know, kinda punishment?
 
His 15 minutes of fame were up. So here we go again.
I worked for an individual such as this, my shortest ever week was 65h. My average was around 82h. The difference in our jobs was we were on the floor installing and commissioning equipment in 40C heat while he was sitting comfortably in an air conditioned office, pushing us around via radio. The monumental narcissist would add insult to injury by coming every hour downstairs to push us around some more and pat himself on the back for how great a boss he was, while citing examples of leadership and brotherhood from Band of Brothers.
My colleagues were making bets on how long he would last before being fragged.
 
Last edited:
When asked if he regretted not spending more time with his children instead of working, he said quality was more important than quantity, and that the hour and a half to two hours he spent with the children at dinner when he returned home were "lots of fun."

As someone whose father felt the same I feel bad for his kids.
 
People who work much more than the average person when they're young usually end up extremely successful , it's the ones that do the bare minimum that are very rarely successful or end up independently wealthy.

Everybody I have known throughout my life who went the extra mile or worked longer than required ended up being extremely financially secure and much more successful than the ones who did not.
Remember the difference between correlation and causation. There is more to it than just number of hours worked. Otherwise, the hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of people around the world who work all day everyday would no longer be poor.

What this guy is asking is for his employees to work longer hours. Not to work smarter, not to work better, not to be treated better by their employer, but to work longer. Why isn't he advocating for better access to education and living essentials. He knows that India has a long way to go on those two fronts. But, instead, he is babbling like an old fool about the good old times of "when he was our age."

My former manager came from that culture, straight out of Mumbai. He told me himself that it's an unhealthy work culture. He remains a workaholic, but he does so because his job is his hobby. He never, ever expected me to work the long hours that he did if I felt differently.
 
What is correct and right isn't always good for business. Much of the time, those ideals conflict, which should say a lot about business.

For-profit businesses require more workers and consumers because they need to expand as part of competition and can only profit if what they produce is sold.
 
Remember the difference between correlation and causation. There is more to it than just number of hours worked. Otherwise, the hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of people around the world who work all day everyday would no longer be poor.

What this guy is asking is for his employees to work longer hours. Not to work smarter, not to work better, not to be treated better by their employer, but to work longer. Why isn't he advocating for better access to education and living essentials. He knows that India has a long way to go on those two fronts. But, instead, he is babbling like an old fool about the good old times of "when he was our age."

My former manager came from that culture, straight out of Mumbai. He told me himself that it's an unhealthy work culture. He remains a workaholic, but he does so because his job is his hobby. He never, ever expected me to work the long hours that he did if I felt differently.

I don't think he was arguing that workers shouldn't be smarter, or not work better, or not to be treated better by employers, or that they shouldn't be getting access to education, but that he doesn't believe in the concept of "work-life balance". His point is that poor countries like India can't afford to look at that because they have to work harder in order to diminish poverty ASAP.

The same thing happened to Japan and others, as shown in the video I shared here:


They worked 10-12 hours a day, and even on weekends, for low pay, to build ships, and their top officials worked even longer hours, and in exchange for job security and social welfare safety nets. In fact, what Murthy said about getting up early and finishing work late mirrors what Japanese managers had been doing: the first to arrive and the last to leave.

And on top of that, they had to get things right. That reminds me of the time I visited one plant making South Korean appliances during the 1980s, and they had a large sign with "0" on it. I asked the workers what that meant, and they said that's their goal: zero defects.

Believe it or not, similar happened in Europe and in the U.S. until they became wealthier. It was only then that more could only not slow down but even do things like attend college, and then with more credit work fewer hours while still availing of middle class conveniences, like buying houses and cars.

Here's what Murthy didn't mention: in many of those once-poor countries in Asia (probably not India) work did not simply involve enriching oneself. Rather, it was part of team work and nationalism, and your team mates were your countrymen. If you let yourself down, then you let everyone down.
 
You'd regret the 70 hours work life faster than you expect.

I've been there and while not at CEO salary level I made way more money than I could find time to use. And this include spending silly money to save some time by paying for people doing things I would normally happily do my self.

At first while working like that I saw just the money, but eventually I woke up and realized how much I was missing out on. Putting it bluntly I had money but no life.
Now not having any money also sucks, but finding a balance whit some money and not working more than the standard 37 hour makes more a much better life. And I will go far that given a time machine those 70 hour years I would go back and instead work like a normal person, the money I made was after all just money the time on the other hand was more valuable than I ever imagined.
Today if I get the choice between a raise and time off then I take the time off.
Working 70 hours a week on a CEO salary means you can retire in a year. With an average of CEO salary of $17 million a year I could just do the 70 hours a week for a year then retire. The guy is worth $5.1 Billion. He could have retired decades ago.
 
Yes he's exactly what I want if I were in the business of funding new start-up companies, but as for workers he's asking people to work extraordinary hours for regular money because they are just as dedicated to his company as he is...and that's where the problem lies. NO ONE cares about HIS company like he does, not even his own family, and he seems to be oblivious to that.
 
Back