Merz Sparks Fierce Debate: Could Longer Working Hours Threaten Germany’s Prosperity?
Germany’s debate over working hours has returned to the center of economic policy after Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz argued that reducing work through measures like Work-Life-Balance and the Viertagewoche could endanger the country’s prosperity and competitiveness.
Friedrich Merz recently intensified the discussion by stating that Germany must work more to preserve its wealth. His argument follows a simple logic: fewer working hours threaten prosperity, while longer hours could safeguard it. However, many economists argue that this simplified view overlooks deeper economic realities and the real obstacles slowing Germany’s growth.
While increasing working hours could theoretically boost economic output, it represents only one element in a much larger equation. Economic performance also depends on factors such as productivity and investment. Experts note that Germany is facing long-standing problems including a historic investment backlog and a lack of significant productivity gains.
Data from the Organisatie voor Economische Samenwerking en Ontwikkeling (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD) shows that Germany averages about 1,331 working hours per year—among the lowest in industrialized countries. However, analysts say this figure is partly influenced by the country’s high rate of part-time work, particularly among women.
Despite fewer hours worked overall, Germany remains highly efficient. According to OECD data, labor productivity measured as gross domestic product per hour worked increased from about 92.4 US dollars in 2022 to around 93.72 dollars in 2023, reaching approximately 98.39 dollars in 2024. This places Germany in the upper middle range among OECD economies.
Economists also point to an apparent paradox ignored in the current debate: countries with very long working hours, such as Mexico, often generate far less wealth per hour worked. In advanced economies, prosperity is often linked more strongly to productivity than to the sheer number of hours employees spend at work.
Demographic trends are partly driving the political focus on longer working hours. Germany’s Statistisches Bundesamt predicts that the number of people aged 20 to 66 will decline in the coming years. The Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung estimates that the country’s potential workforce could shrink by about 7.2 million people between 2020 and 2035.
To compensate for that decline purely through longer working hours would require roughly 15 percent more work from each employee—almost 200 additional hours per year. Critics warn that this assumption treats human labor as if it could be expanded indefinitely without consequences.
Research suggests otherwise. A widely cited study by Stanford economist John Pencavel for the Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for the Study of Labor, IZA) found that productivity no longer increases proportionally after a certain number of working hours. In knowledge-based professions, diminishing returns often appear even earlier than in traditional industries.
Health risks are another concern. Estimates from the Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (World Health Organization, WHO) and the Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie (International Labour Organization, ILO) show that working more than 55 hours per week significantly raises the risk of strokes and heart disease. Although some researchers debate the exact methodology, most agree that excessively long working hours carry real health costs.
The economic impact of illness is already substantial. According to a report by DAK-Gesundheit, sick leave costs Germany nearly 77 billion euros each year. Mental health issues and burnout alone led to a more than 14 percent increase in lost workdays during the first half of 2024, highlighting concerns that pushing employees to work longer could ultimately reduce effective productivity rather than increase it.