> I'm sure that they do in the overwhelming majority of successful startups
You would need to back up this statement with evidence and show positive correlation between longer work hours and success of startups.
I don't care what I sound like to someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
> someone who develops software and pretends to be some sort of financial expert
Your assumption is baseless and does not help your argument. Commenting on HN does not mean someone develops software for a living. HN is open for everyone.
I worked 96 hours a week for eight weeks finishing off my dissertation. I finished it, but basically went crazy - I needed some time off, which was good because I crossed the line. Startups used to be like that I suppose, but now it takes far longer to cross the line to an exit than it used to, are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?
What does that have to do with anything? 60 hours is 50% more than 40 hours, it's regulation and not science and it's a totally different job with different risks.
> are you making the best use of the human capital you are deploying?
If they are working 40 hours or less, the answer is "no" with 100% certainty. Above that, it depends.
On the other hand are you sure that you are reasoning correctly? Have any of the companies that you have worked with failed because the founders have worked too little?
What was the least working that you saw? What was the outcome and the driver there?
There is a difference between regularly working 50-hour weeks and setting those up well, and always working 72-hour weeks, which doesn’t leave you time to do the life-admin, exercise, cooking, and sleep you need to keep a clear head.
