>What's wrong with that? If I'm being hired on with a salary, that's my expectation. They can ask me to work extra, but they can also pay me to do that.

I've been under the assumption that by going on salary, you pretty much forfeit your right to get paid more(forget bonuses for a moment) if you work more hours. Conversely, you will still get paid for 40 hours of work even if the week is slow and you only really needed to do, say, 36.

Yes but there's a difference between occasional extra work to hit a tight deadline and routine 60 hour weeks. You will want to know what you're getting into.

In that case I definitely agree. I thought it was +/- 2 hours or something. Anything over, let's say 45-50 hours per week, is terrible in my opinion.

There's no absolute good or bad when it comes to work expectations.

Investment bankers work 60+ hrs/wk and make $200K a year and get massive bonuses. Most of them are mercenaries who will go wherever they can get the best comp, because what they're selling is the opportunity for the bank to generate profit from their ideas/network whatever. (Please try to read the previous without getting wound around the axle about financiers moral value.)

So, to the extent that you view yourself in the business of "selling value I create," then a few things follow... 1) you'll want highly measurable criteria for success, 2) you'll want comp that is highly meritocratic, and 3) and hours worked don't matter much at all.

Clearly, this post was geared to people who view themselves as being in the business of selling their time, not their value.

Yeah, and there have been numerous studies showing that extended work weeks reduce productivity overall as well. I don't mind putting in an extra few hours to get a new feature out the door; I'm not going to work 60 hour weeks without additional compensation.