I suppose to me it seems pretty intuitive that holding all else equal, the person who puts more work in (days per year) will have a better outcome. There isn't always a trade off, some people can just work more before losing capacity. There are those people in every industry; and that is my point, the mere existence of these people as your competition means they will be able to outwork you if you have a lower stress tolerance.

The standard counter is that some X-factor like a creativity multiplier comes into play that the "overworked" person doesn't have. I have also heard/read the "Over x amount of hours worked per day productivity drops." I think that holds for most people but not for the outliers who choose not to take vacations.

Interesting interpretation as well about markets as all of the examples I gave were decidedly not entrepreneurial in nature so I don't agree with your assessment that I made that "bold" claim, however I would probably extend the theory there as well.

Nothing you've said backs up the claim that more days per year = more profit or output for the business, or that these so-called outliers exist. Never heard the adage "work smarter, not harder"? If I was going to take outliers it would be on the intelligence and creativity scales, not the physiological hardiness scale.

This idea of more work is better is intuitive only at a completely trivial level and one that's unlikely to bear out in an environment of any sort of complexity.

Sure, I suppose if you're talking about a widgit factories where people repeat a task and have quotes, maybe more hours is better. (Though even then maybe not if on the whole you have higher burnout rates.)

You appear to take this at face value without even doing much digging. There is a myriad of evidence to support the contrary to your claim. Heck try Googling: "Working more hours is more productive" and you'll only find articles supporting the contrary.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=working+longer+hours+is+more+...