The Trending 996 Model. 67. Skibidi. All Senseless?

One trending topic zig-zagging through the AI boom is the idea that workers should adopt what has been the norm in some Asian countries: The 996 model.

This means working 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week.

Sounds like fun, eh?

The Great Paradox of the AI Boom

It’s almost 2026. We're having serious conversations about this, while others predict 30-80 percent job losses due to AI.

The paradox? Work 996 to eventually put yourself and your teammates on the unemployment line?

When Long Hours are a Reality (But Not a “Model”)

Let's be fair. Long hours aren't new.

Farmers have historically had those 996 demands beat, working 12 hours a day, seven days a week. It’s a lifestyle.
Purpose-Driven Startups can inspire this kind of focused commitment.
Special Projects or event-driven situations (like accountants in tax season) sometimes require intense dedication.
Making Ends Meet: Lots of people work two jobs that amount to that many hours.

Why 996 is Ill-Advised for Most

However, for most employees and situations, the 996 model is ill-advised and even dysfunctional to our well-being.

Research questions the output and efficiency related to these kinds of hours.
Measuring “time punched” is little more than command-and-control appeasement.

As noted in a recent Fortune magazine on the topic:

“It’s ironic that this is happening now, just as AI is revolutionizing everything... But at what cost? More and more people suffer from depression, stress, or severe anxiety. Are we really willing to sacrifice our lives for a job? To live endlessly under the glow of office LEDs?”

A Rebellious Conclusion

The most fitting response might be to adopt language to address this stupidity the way school kids are mischievous and rebellious in using the phrase “67” (pronounced six-sevuuhn) with the accompanying hand gestures - annoying the heck out of educators and parents.

I deeply believe in having a purpose-driven life that involves constant personal equity growth: spiritual, emotional, experiential, physical, and financial.

This does not include working crazy hours out of fear or a willingness to risk our well-being for someone else’s dream.

Skibidi!

Think Big, Start Small, Act Now

— Lorne

Garrett’s View: Some people believe the 996 model might be the best way to navigate the uncertainty of rapidly changing industries.

You can only address a problem if you propose a solution. The unfortunate thing about 67, and Skibidi is they are nonsensical terms that elicit a reaction, but have no meaning or definition.

The solution is purpose.

So, will our purpose take 996 to achieve? Maybe.
Can it be somewhere in the middle? Ideally.
But with no purpose, all we have is 67 and skibidi.

- Garrett

AI Response: While the 996 model promises relentless output, global data confirms its inefficiency and human cost. A comprehensive study by the World Health Organization found that working 55 hours or more per week is associated with a 35% higher risk of stroke and a 17% higher risk of dying from heart disease. Furthermore, research from Stanford University shows that productivity per hour declines sharply after 50 hours per week, and someone working 70 hours produces nothing more with those extra 15 hours. In the era of AI, where a McKinsey study estimates that 30% of hours worked today could be automated by 2030, the solution isn't working harder with outdated, dangerous models, but working smarter by leveraging technology to augment human potential, not replace our well-being.

The Trending 996 Model. 67. Skibidi. All Senseless?

Search Blog Posts:

Follow Us: