...that workers are making?

No doubt there is mounting pressure to take on more work, stay later, come in more often. But two statements stuck out to me:

"We are forever receiving co-worker or client messages on our BlackBerries, or responding to work e-mails on our home computers on weekends, or lugging our laptops on vacation."

and

"Jeffrey Immelt, GE's chief executive, has boasted of working 100 hours a week for more than two decades."

Why does everyone feel they need Blackberries, or laptops at the beach? I would argue that these and similar high tech accessories started out at least partly as status symbols, a way of demonstrating how "indispensible" you are, and became self-fulfilling prophesies.

And a culture that allows anybody to "boast" (and that is exactly what it is) of working a schedule that if taken literally would kill a mortal is showing what a low priority leisure time really has.

Similarly, in certain sectors and contexts people brag about being workaholics (couched in faux self-deprecation as if they think it's a character law), about not having taken a vacation in years, about how they need to cash out all the vacation time they've accumulated because they can't carry any more over.

I believe at least part of the problem is a lingering Puritan streak in the American psyche - that work is blessed, idleness to be deplored, and if you aren't being "productive" you aren't really doing anything "useful".

I agree with you, especially about the effect of our lingering Puritan ethos.

I grew up in a strong Union home, where paid vacations, holidays, and sick leave were taken for granted; I was stunned when I entered the private sector and started meeting people who were PROUD of working 70 hour weeks and never taking time off. (This still seems like lunatic behavior to me.) An exec I know recently took his first family vacation in years and sat at his computer the entire time, checking up on his staff via email.

So many Americans suffer from the infantile delusion that if they just keep plugging away, they could strike it rich and become millionaires tomorrow. "Time off? Why would I take time off?" they seem to ask. "If I drop out the race for even a minute I might not WIN!"

The imaginary carrot of (what is in reality) unattainable wealth tempts us onward, and the stick of ever-more-demanding work requirements goads us forward. Meanwhile, those who profit from our labors recline on their yachts and petulantly demand another .01% return on their investment in the companies that employ us, and so our managers increase our work hours and cut back on the office supply budget...

When the sham that is the American economy collapses in the next 8-15 years, I think a lot of moguls are going to have a lot of 'splaining to do.

I think a certain percentage of it is a choice that workers are making, yes.

The problem is that the more workers do this, the more it becomes a societal expectation, so that workers who would like to choose differently can't do it while still finding decent employment.

I agree with all of you. Personally, I need a vacation to work efficiently. If I had to work at my job 52 weeks a year with no break, I'd go bonkers from the monotony of it all. Taking a week or two off a year to travel refreshes me and helps me from being bogged down by routine. I think most other humans are the same, nearly every society has broken up the daily life routine with festivals and holidays to cause a change and allow people to relax. It helps people not to do the same thing day in and day out.

One thing that I disagreed with the article is the primary cause in the decline of the vacation. The article tries to show it as being primarily caused by globalization and technology. I personally place the main blame on conservative politicians who oppose even the slightest government regulation in the economy as communism and fought to reduce union power. This left business free to impose ridiculous working hours and no vacations on the American worker. Businessmen like the aforementioned GE chief executive may boast of working ridiculous hours but I have my doubts. Even if true, they enjoy more in their off time than nearly all of their workers and do not have to worry about things like cleaning the house and grocery shopping when not at work unlike their workers since they have servants to take care of that.

I think there should be federal mandated vacation time. I also think that restoring the blue laws or at least requiring businesses to close one day a week might not be a bad idea either. Conservatives and libertarians while holler communism but say it will lead to economic collapse. To them I say boo hoo and point to Europe where such things seem to work fine. People need time off and if employers will not provide it for employees willingly than it should be required by law if necessary.

Good points above by all and a solid article.

But I think the article's author made a mistake in picking such extreme examples. So, the GE exec boasts about working 100-hour weeks. It might not even be true, given it's self-serving for him to brag about how hard he works. And the video game designer didn't "have" to work 179 of 180 days. If they needed him that badly in the first place, they basically would have been forced to give him more time off had he demanded it. (No way could they have hired somebody new and gotten them up to speed in less time than the guy's vacation would have taken.) Stories from the fringe where workaholics brag about it or blame it on society don't really make the case. What people can relate to is being bugged on vacation by unnecessary work calls and then returning to tons of pointless email that probably never needed to be sent in the first place, let alone when the co-workers knew you were gone. Oh, and all the TPS reports. We can't forget those.

No, that video game designer most definitely "had" to work 179 days straight. Do a search for "Electronic Arts insane hours" and you'll see what kind of corporate culture s/he was working in. I can assure you that many, many people have to choose between working ridiculous hours and not working at all, and a hell of a lot of them don't make all that much.

I take my vacation every year (at least one, sometimes two). I don't take anything with me (no pager, no Blackberry, no checking work emails) and, incredibly, the world goes on without me and my participation. I return from vacation to a mess, which I work very hard to clean up for about three weeks. I am extremely focused at work, do a great job, make a reasonably good living for myself, although I have specifically chosen a line of work that is not quite as lucrative as some others in my field in part because I don't have to worry about taking those vacation days when I want to take them.

Who are these people who believe that the sun will not rise if they don't put in their 12 hour days? Really, how many people in the world are so important that they are needed at their desk every single day? Perhaps the most accomplished neurosurgeon in the U.S.; maybe that GE guy making his 27 bazillion dollars, but seriously, insurance adjusters and middle managers and accountants and lawyers don't do anything so important that the world will stop if they take a damn day off.

Mind, I'm not talking about the workers who are so unskilled and so fungible that you can fire them and replace them in the span of five minutes. But for those workers who have some skills and who require training, seriously, is an employer going to fire them if they take their allotted 2 weeks vacation? Of course not. Buckle down, plan your vacation, take it, when your boss asks if you can be reached, politely say no, and if he/she says what happens if there is an emergency, tell him that he should pick up the phone and call 9-1-1.

Emmajane:

I take my vacation every year (at least one, sometimes two). I don't take anything with me (no pager, no Blackberry, no checking work emails) and, incredibly, the world goes on without me and my participation... Buckle down, plan your vacation, take it, when your boss asks if you can be reached, politely say no, and if he/she says what happens if there is an emergency, tell him that he should pick up the phone and call 9-1-1.

Amen.

This is a lesson I learned about 10 years ago when I started my current job. We just bought a lake cabin and were hot to spend time there. My boss wanted a phone number but the cabin didn't have a phone yet. Long story short, I had to overcome resistance but we took two weeks (at separate times) that summer without being in contact.

We still do. But I am still one of the very few at my company who does. There have been zero negative consequences, rasies, bonuses and so on in lockstep with everybody else, lots of people say they envy me, but hardly anyone takes more than a couple of days at a time.

I realize I'm lucky to be in this position vis a vis the rest of the economy and I do not take it lightly. But my coworkers could be doing the same and they're afraid or at least unwilling to. I've heard the usual wan rationales - too hard to catch up, too much going on, etc - and I don't understand it.

While I agree with the original poster that many white collar workers are partially, though by no means entirely, to blame for working so mcuh, the problem of spending so much time working is greater than the article in question suggests. Workers outside of white collar professions are also having to work more and more and these are the workers who don't have a choice as they are doing so in order to make ends meet. Unfortunately, I assume that the vast majority of Slate readers and Fray posters are either white collar workers or (like myself) students. As such we often forget about the millions of families and single-parents are forced to work 60 hour weeks and take on two jobs just to pay the bills and feed their children, and are still living from paycheck to paycheck. If anything, we need to address this before we start mandating paid vacation for white collar workers. I'm not saying we can't do both; we should. Rather, I believe in focusing on overworked white collar workers we leave behind the overworked blue collar workers who are suffering even more and with less notice.

Don't depend on stock options, raises, bonuses or ladder climbing in corp Amerika in any way shape or form, that's a pipe dream for most because corp Amerika doesn't care.

A possible solution out there at this time is to fund your 401k early. Go into low cost index funds if available. Keep spending & debt to a minimum, then by your mid 40's you have a chance to have some financial freedom because of savings/investments. You can then afford to quit that crap job and move elsewhere for less pay , more pay etc.

This was a fascinating article to me. I grew up in a Teamster family and we always had a two week summer family driving vacation in the 1970s. My dad also had a couple of other weeks off that we spend at home. We were (and still are) a close family and I think that time with my parents is a root cause. Many of my best childhood memories are those trips to the Smoky Mountains and Cape Cod.

Which leads me to my point. I am a teacher. After the school year is out, I dedicate the first two weeks to planning and meeting with colleagues for a quick review of the past year and we consider changes to our curriculum. This year, I'm taking classes at the local community college two days per week. But I set aside August for me and only me. I go to Northern Michigan with my dog and we hike and go on my friend's boat. It's great, and I come back to teach relaxed and refreshed.

Before I get the response that I expect from some on these boards regarding that teachers are overpaid, I'll add that I changed careers at age 30. I got out of the private business sector where I received no paid sick days and one week of vacation time. When I shifted to teaching, I took a 40% pay cut instantly. But I received a 100% sanity raise. Time away from one's job is wonderful for recharging the batteries.

One possibility missed here is that those people who work long hours actually really enjoy what they are doing - it IS their pastime. I've met enough of them to know their numbers are not insignificant. No one can judge them for that, so don't tell me or anyone else that they are wrong. I would guess, too, that most of those people with that love of their work are also not reading Slate and making comments here.

A source of trouble lies in being compared to those people, especially if you don't love your work. Then the pressure mounts to try and be just as productive, leading to long work hours and burnout.

So, perhaps, one source of the "problem" is how we compare ourselves to one another, not in how many hours someone works.

All of them. No matter what rung of the ladder you are on, to excuse your unending presence at your office as some variance of "I'm indispensible" will only prove the opposite. Take your days and don't be swayed by mini-lectures otherwise from your boss. IF you are indispensible, a vacation will only prove that further and you come back with a headache and boatload of work, but an even stronger negotiating hand in your position. IF you might be dispensible, hiding behind a facade of worth will only clue your boss into your lack of confidence in your own work. In the most counterintuitive way, you'll work your way into the lower rung position in the office of "untalented scrambler." Where people respect your ethic, but at the expense of their perception of your talent. So take your days, and take them confidently. IF you are absolutely indispensible, you're in the wrong job/position.

So take a vacation and spend the time figuring out what/where you need to be in life to be indispensible.