The Modern Paradox of Work
Do we actually want a 15 hour work week?
I have had several conversations in different business settings this week about the frustration many people feel about lack of exercise or balance in their life… long hours at the desk and commuting time, plus family, rest and eating, leave little time for physical exercise. We carry supercomputers in our pockets, yet feel more time-starved than our ancestors who plowed fields by hand. This is the modern paradox of work. An era of unprecedented technological advancement has not brought us the leisurely life John Maynard Keynes, ever the optimist, famously prophesied in his must cited 1930 essay, Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren. By 2020, he had predicted, we’d all be luxuriating in a 15-hour workweek, dedicating our abundant free time to art, philosophy, and the finer pleasures of existence. And yet here we are, shackled not to the machinery of industry, but to the equally unrelenting treadmill of modern labor. Why hasn’t economic growth liberated us from the grind?
Economic Forces at Play
In Tyler Cowen’s illuminating lecture, “Why hasn’t economic growth lowered working hours more?”, he dismantles this enigma with his sharp mind and vigorous intellectual questioning. At the heart of Cowen’s analysis lies a battle between two forces, the income effect and the substitution effect. The income effect suggests that as earnings grow, individuals can afford to work less, prioritizing leisure and personal time. In contrast, the substitution effect argues that rising wages increase the opportunity cost of leisure, making work more attractive.
Imagine a seesaw balanced precariously, one end urges us toward relaxation, while the other tempts us with greater rewards. This tension ensures the equilibrium remains elusive, explaining why economic growth has not universally reduced working hours. The income effect tells us that as we earn more, we should work less. After all, who wouldn’t prefer leisure when financial security is assured? But the substitution effect has its own sly logic, as wages rise, the opportunity cost of leisure also climbs, each hour spent not working becomes an hour of foregone earnings. And so, instead of retreating into idleness, many of us double down, seduced by the prospect of greater rewards. Keynes, for all his brilliance, underestimated this tug-of-war.
Shifting Trends
Cowen highlights some surprising trends. Older Americans, buoyed by Social Security, have moved closer to the Keynesian ideal, significantly reducing their work hours. Teenagers, too, are working less than in decades past. So the workforce is strongly made up of people between the age of 22 and 60/65. Whereas in the past it would be 16 to 65 years or older, especially in rural communities. Yet despite these reductions, the overall hours worked in the economy remain steady. What fills this gap? Women entered the labor force, their participation has surged, particularly among those balancing careers with parenting. Is this shift driven by opportunity or necessity? Cowen suggests the answer lies in a complex interplay of economic pressures and societal changes. Yet these shifts haven’t collectively reduced the total hours worked in the economy. Is this a triumph of opportunity or a concession to necessity? The answer, as Cowen suggests, is complicated mix of economic, cultural, and technological factors.
Technology
The impact of technology creates another twist in the tale. While dishwashers, washing machines, and other domestic marvels have liberated us from hours of drudgery, this newfound time hasn’t been poured into leisure. Instead, technology has blurred work-life boundaries, enabling constant connectivity and intensifying work demands. Emails and instant messages tether us to our jobs long after we leave the office, while the need for digital literacy and upskilling creates new pressures, ensuring that the liberation promised by technological progress remains tantalizingly out of reach. Instead, it’s been redirected toward paid labor, as if we are compelled to fill every temporal void with toil. And yet, Cowen provocatively posits, what if we don’t work merely out of necessity or compulsion? What if, heresy of heresies, we actually enjoy it?
The Psychology of Work
Psychological research offers intriguing insights into this question. Studies reveal that work provides more than financial stability, it fulfills psychological needs for structure, competence, and social connection. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of 'flow' illustrates how deeply engaging tasks can lead to profound satisfaction, even in the workplace. For many, work serves as a source of identity and purpose, shaping how they see themselves and their role in society. On the other hand, the lack of meaningful work has been linked to feelings of alienation and diminished mental health. These psychological dimensions suggest that while work can be draining, it also holds the potential to nourish the human spirit.
Studies support this counterintuitive notion. Lottery winners in Sweden, suddenly unshackled from financial constraints, often choose to keep working. Similarly, trends in early retirement reveal how some opt for reduced hours to enjoy leisure, while others re-enter part-time work for purpose or social engagement. On the flip side, the gig economy exemplifies the substitution effect, professionals often take on additional projects, drawn by the immediate financial rewards of flexible, high-paying opportunities. These examples illustrate how the income and substitution effects manifest in diverse and tangible ways. Work, it seems, provides more than a paycheck, it offers structure, purpose, even identity. Could it be that Keynes, in his quest for leisure, misunderstood something fundamental about human nature?
Labor Inequities
Of course, this romanticization of labor must be tempered by a hard look at reality. Work is not universally fulfilling. For many, it is exploitative, monotonous, and underpaid. The systemic inequities Cowen points to, stagnant median wages for men since 1969, persistent workplace discrimination, and unequal access to education, cannot be ignored. If work is to be reimagined as a source of joy and meaning, these barriers must be dismantled. Policymakers could introduce shorter workweeks, ensuring employees have more time for personal fulfillment without sacrificing productivity. Mandatory vacation policies and improved parental leave could alleviate burnout and support work-life balance. Additionally, investing in robust social safety nets, such as universal basic income or expanded access to quality education and retraining programs, would enable individuals to pursue meaningful work without the constant specter of financial insecurity.
The Future of Work
Transitions to the future bring with them profound uncertainty, automation and artificial intelligence loom as both a promise and a threat. Will these innovations finally deliver Keynes’s utopia, or will they deepen existing inequalities, displacing workers faster than new opportunities arise? Cowen wisely avoids prophecy, instead urging us to shape the future of work with intention. This requires policies that promote fair wages, invest in education and training, and foster workplaces where dignity and creativity thrive.
So where does this leave us? Tyler suggests perhaps the answer lies not in escaping work but in transforming it. If we are to spend so much of our lives laboring, shouldn’t that time be enriching rather than depleting? Shouldn’t our jobs challenge us, align with our values, and connect us to something greater than ourselves? Keynes dreamed of leisure, Cowen invites us to dream of meaningful work. Is it time to rethink our relationship with work and champion transformative policies that ensure it is equitable, enriching, and aligned with human flourishing? Whether through advocating for shorter workweeks, promoting fair wages, or redesigning workplaces to nurture creativity and dignity.
My own belief, from 40 plus years of work experience, is that we hold the power to shape a future where work complements life rather than consumes it.
Stay curious
Colin
Image Tyler Cowen from this YouTube video
I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs adds explanatory power on this topic. For some people, work is just to cover the basic needs. For others, they need work to give them psychological needs as well. Yet others continue to work as an act of self-realisation through building a business, or whatever.
In the current economy, for the majority I am guessing, work is done for the basic two needs. Two jobs just to pay the rent. Cameraderie in adversity (working for Amazon) may provide some higher needs, but that's hardly a healthy way of fullfilling them.
As an aside, recently Portugal passed a law that employees had the right NOT to be contacted at home after working hours. (https://www.mercer.com/insights/law-and-policy/portugal-employers-prohibited-from-contacting-employees-after-hours/) And a company was prosecuted for breaking that law soon after it came into force.
Excellent post!
As someone reflecting on retirement (and likely reaching financial independence in the next decade), I've been thinking about how to stay purposeful and engaged after stepping away from full-time work. Observing my father, who has been retired for over two decades, and my grandfather, who spent an astonishing 41 years in retirement, has given me insight into the challenges and opportunities of this transition. The most important thing I saw was their ability to find purpose, from reading to taking care of different things around the home and staying engaged with friends and family.
You highlight an important point: work gives us purpose. While many people are dissatisfied with their jobs, this dissatisfaction often stems from a single factor—poor management. As the saying goes, "People leave managers, not companies." Beyond purpose, work also provides structure, compelling us to get out of bed, prepare for the day, and invest significant time—often 10 hours or more, including commutes. This rhythm, while imperfect, shapes our lives in profound ways.
However, if we examine productivity closely, we see significant inefficiencies. Do most people provide 40 hours of actual productivity each week? Likely not. Many spend only a few hours per day on genuinely productive work. At the same time, the rest is consumed by meetings (many of which are unnecessary), unrelated tasks, or distractions like scanning the internet. While some individuals exceed expectations, they are often the exception, not the rule. This aligns with Parkinson's Law: "Work expands to fill the time allotted." Deadlines push us to be productive, but on most days, output falls short of the full 40 hours.
Realistically, I estimate that most people provide 15–20 hours of actual productivity per week. This raises an important question: Should we adjust our workweeks to better align with actual productivity? Moving to a shorter workweek, such as four days, could be a practical first step. This would give people three days for personal development, hobbies, or family time. Interestingly, we might even see a boost in productivity in the short and medium term as people focus more during their reduced working hours. I have read a few studies confirming it.
Of course, this transition wouldn't be easy. Many individuals are tied to their current income levels due to lifestyle creep—as salaries increase, so do housing, dining, and entertainment expenses. Few people willingly take a pay cut, even if their workload decreases. Universal Basic Income (UBI) could help, but it's unlikely to fully address the challenges of transitioning to shorter workweeks without financial sacrifices.
Looking ahead, AI presents an exciting possibility. If AI continues to evolve, it could take over significant portions of our work, potentially allowing us to work just a few hours per day while maintaining current productivity levels. This would be a seismic shift in how we think about work and purpose. However, this raises another question: What would we do with all the free time AI enables? While this is a topic for another day, it's clear that finding purpose outside of traditional work will be a defining challenge of the AI era.
In the meantime, transitioning to a four-day workweek seems like a practical experiment. It could improve work-life balance, reduce burnout, and even enhance productivity. As we navigate these changes, it's worth considering how we can redefine purpose through work and meaningful activities that fulfill us differently.