Depression and Work Hours

From Tamara Cohen:

Workers who spend long hours at the office are more than twice as likely to develop depression as those who do a standard day, according to a study.

British researchers found those who spend more than 11 hours a day – or 55 hours a week – at their desk faced a higher risk.

The most susceptible were women, younger people and those on a low pay grade with moderate alcohol consumption.

About Scot McKnight

Scot McKnight is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. McKnight, author of more than fifty books, is the Professor of New Testament at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL.

  • Amos Paul

    Attempting to resist the urge to post a “You don’t say!” in reponse to this…

    Dangit, it looks like I just did. Heck, I usually spend 45 hours in the office. I think that’s 5 hours too much.

  • Chris Miller

    When did we decide 40 hours was the norm and anything more depresses us? 35 to 37 hours is the norm for many work places, I think. So will a future study find out that 45 hours a week is too much? I’m getting depressed just thinking about all this change.

  • http://LostCodex.com DRT

    If you enjoy what you do you will never work a day in your life. I bet Scot does not consider a lot of his work to be work.

    Too bad more people cannot do what they enjoy.

  • http://Www.sacreddigital.com Chuckk Gerwig

    So a pastor sporting a y chromosome -working high hours but drinking immoderately is technically safe, good news. :) greetings from Santa Cruz.

  • Fish

    Who in this country has the capability of doing what they enjoy? We’re told to get to work. Period. I never even encountered the paradigm of enjoying one’s job until I was years out of college.

    Capitalism is not oriented around doing what is enjoyable. It is oriented around producing the maximum profit for the minimum amount of resources. The worker’s feelings about his or her job are friction in the system.

  • Amos Paul

    Fish,

    I don’t know if you’re even still going to come back to this thread, but I must assert that I don’t think you’re defining ‘Capitalism’ very well. I mean, you are if you’re taking a sort of Marxist criticism of Capitalism–that the ‘system’ is nothing but a bunch of alienation and profit mongering. But that’s not really a very good defintion of the category (despite what ‘ole Marxy claimed).

    Capitalism, itself, is somewhat vague. Yet, included within it is the idea of *voluntarism*. Basic human motivation and preference is *supposed* to be at the heart and center of the idea of Capitalism. I would argue that if the idea of human preferance has escaped the system, then what we have is no longer classic Capitalism, but the modern ideal of Coporate Capitalism. There are, indeed, mutliple, specific sub-forms of the Capitalistic idea. And Corporate Capitalism is an ursupation of the system from the hands of society at large, whereas classic Capitalism advanced ideas of personal liberty, property, voluntarisim, et al into the roots of our modern societies.

    Even the idea that *money* is the only kind of capital to be gained and pursued is an infringement upon classic Capitalism at large. Wealth and the means of production may mean practical goods, but they may also refer to abstract goods of beauty, happiness, etc. You may recall the Declaration of the early Americans concerning one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Classic capitalism was conceived as a ‘system’ of economic order that ought to empower individuals to pursue what *they* desire. If you don’t have that ability, then, again, I argue that you don’t *truly* have Capitalism, but some new, more specific defition of Capitalism that has overtaken the full idea of the Capitlastic idea.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X