Zoho CEO Sridhar Vembu has shared his views on the ongoing 70-hour workweek debate sparked by Infosys founder Narayana Murthy. In a post on microblogging site X (formerly known as Twitter), Vembu emphasized the importance of balancing economic growth with demographic sustainability and work-life harmony. While acknowledging the economic strides made by East Asian countries, Vembu also shed light on the human cost of their rigorous work environments. “If you look at East Asia – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China have all developed through extreme hard work, often imposing punitive levels of work on their own people” he noted.
He also highlighted the unintended consequences of such intense work cultures, particularly sharp demographic declines and governments’ ongoing struggles to combat low birth rates. “Two questions arise: 1) is such hard work necessary for economic development? 2) is such a development even worth the price of a lonely old age for a large mass of people?” he questioned.
The discussion began when Murthy urged young Indians to dedicate 70 hours a week to work, drawing inspiration from countries like Japan, South Korea, and China, where intense work ethics have historically fueled rapid industrial and economic development. Critics, however, highlighted the downside of such work cultures, pointing to burnout, reduced quality of life, and declining fertility rates—issues these nations are now grappling with.
Also read: Paypal founder Peter Thiel: Silicon Valley called staff back to office as they realised that employees weren’t actually working
Here’s what Zoho CEO said
The rationale behind the 70 hour work week is “it is necessary for economic development”. If you look at East Asia – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and China have all developed through extreme hard work, often imposing punitive levels of work on their own people.
These very countries also have such low birth rates now that their governments have to beg people to make babies.
Two questions arise: 1) is such hard work necessary for economic development? 2) is such a development even worth the price of a lonely old age for a large mass of people?
My response to the first question is that it is enough if only a small percentage of the population drive themselves hard. Please note the “drive themselves” – I am in that camp but I am not willing to prescribe this to anyone else. Some percentage of the population will drive themselves hard (may be 2-5%). I believe that is sufficient for broad based economic development, and the rest of us can have decent work life balance. I believe such a balance is needed.
On the second question, no it is not worth it. I don’t want India to replicate China’s economic success if the price is China’s steep demographic decline (which has already started). India is already at replacement level fertility (southern states well below that already) and further declines to East Asian levels won’t be good.
I do believe we can develop without needing to work ourselves to demographic suicide.