Work-Life Balance Is Not a Weekly Equation

When Narayana Murthy suggested in October 2023 that young Indians should work 70 hours a week, I found myself agreeing with one part of the argument — and disagreeing with the way we usually frame the question.

I actually used to work 12–15 hours a day when I was skilling up early in my career at CodeMyMobile.

And honestly, I don't regret it.

There was a phase of my life when the return on those extra hours was enormous. I was learning, building things, becoming better at what I did. Those hours weren't just hours spent working. They were an investment in the person I would become.

But I don't think that means I should work 12–15 hours a day forever.

This is where I think the work-life balance conversation gets interesting.

Imagine you have roughly 20 years of work that needs to be done.

You could distribute it evenly — say 40 hours a week for 20 years.

Or you could do significantly more in the first 10 years and significantly less in the next 10.

For example:

40 hours × 50 weeks × 20 years = 40,000 hours
60 hours × 50 weeks × 10 years = 30,000 hours
20 hours × 50 weeks × 10 years = 10,000 hours

Same 40,000 hours.

But the outcome doesn't have to be the same.

Because work can compound.

Skills compound. Experience compounds. Reputation compounds. Money compounds. Relationships compound. The opportunities created by one year of intense work can change the value of the next ten years.

It's the same reason ₹10 lakh invested at 25 isn't equivalent to ₹10 lakh invested at 45.

But there's another side to this.

Life changes too.

Your 20s might be the phase where you have enormous amounts of time and relatively few responsibilities.

Your 30s might look very different. A partner, children, family responsibilities, ageing parents, or simply different priorities can change the equation.

And your 40s might be different again.

There isn't even a fixed sequence. Some people find their calling at 22. Some at 35. Some have children early, some later, some don't have them at all. Some want to build a company in their 40s. Some want to spend their 30s with their family.

And obviously, this doesn't apply to everyone.

Some people need to prioritize family early. Some have health constraints. Some simply don't want their career to be the center of their life — and that's a perfectly legitimate choice.

The point isn't that everyone should front-load work.

It's that there shouldn't be a universal curve.

My 20s aren't your 20s. My priorities aren't yours. And what makes sense for me at 25 may not make sense for me at 35.

That's why I think companies should optimize their work culture for different people and different phases of life.

If someone wants to work 70 hours because they're building something they deeply care about, the company should enable that without making it the expectation for everyone.

And if someone wants to work 40 hours because they're raising young children, caring for family, or simply have different priorities, that shouldn't make them a less committed employee.

The interesting question isn't:

"How many hours should everyone work?"

It's:

"How can we create an environment where people can allocate their limited time intelligently across the different phases of their lives — while still doing meaningful, productive work?"

Work-life balance, to me, isn't necessarily 50/50 every week.

It's about balancing the arc of your life.

Some phases you go all in.

Some phases you pull back.

And if you are thoughtful about when you do which, the compounding can work in both directions.

That's probably a much better conversation than arguing over whether 40 or 70 is the "correct" number of hours.