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.
I decided to retire in my mid-40s and lasted 6 months, during that time I was active in triathlon training, research work on new ideas, refurbishing a house. But, I had not given consideration to how much the psychological side would impact me and it did. I returned to long working days in academia and corporations with a gusto. But I must say now I am cutting back from the business advisory and academic side and focus on what I consider more meaningful work.
Interesting. I framed my 'retirement' as a two-year sabbatical during which time I intended to 'reinvent myself through discovering the real me'. I fully expected within two years to be well off-and-running with some new venture. It happened, sort-of. But not with the energy, focus and feeling of 'on-trackness' I had expected. I'm a rower, and reasonable fitness-freak, and this kept me sane during the process - added to by some serious power-kite-buggying. I think accepting that there is no one model for life, helps.
The number of people who want to start a business is rarely mentioned, but I suspect it's rather low. Even among that brave minority, I seem to recall that something like nine out of ten new businesses fail quite soon. The tendency to talk as if almost everyone can "start their own business" and prosper reminds me of Christmas movies I have seen (and enjoyed), whose heroines live in large comfortably-furnished houses in good districts and drive newish cars on the earnings from their cookie-baking or flower-arranging businesses.
The worst offender is the TV series "Friends", in which six fairly undistinguished people with modest (if any) jobs live in spacious apartments apparently just round the corner from the Plaza Hotel in New York - and no one ever mentions, let alone sees, a single cockroach! I wonder how many hopeful immigrants set out for the USA with that kind of scenario in mind. The streets are paved with platinum and running with cream, maple syrup, and expensive brandy.
Those are very valid points Tom. It's true that starting a business is challenging, and the failure rate is significant. Although if you don't try... I personally think well calculated risk is worth it - but totally agree it is very far from glamorous.
The portrayal of entrepreneurs in popular culture, like "Friends," definitely creates a somewhat unrealistic picture, they don't always reflect the financial struggles and hard work involved in building a business, Hollywood takes a lot of liberties with reality for the sake of storytelling.
I agree with you about the "American Dream," as often depicted, it can be very misleading. Of course opportunities exist, but success requires dedication, planning, and often a bit of luck. The reality for many immigrants, and indeed many native-born citizens, is often far removed from the glamorous portrayals in some media. Certainly not all maple syrup and brandy!
What I object to most strongly is the tendency to ignore the quantitative aspect: how many people who bravely set out to start a business end up better off? Of course, we know that a few succeed magnificently; those are the ones we are forever hearing and reading about. But I suspect that for every success story, and perhaps for every five or ten who just about manage to break even, there may be 100 or more who eventually fail, losing the house they mortgaged, and wind up broke. To the wealthy, anything that creates more impoverished workers is desirable; it increases the supply and drives down wages.
Moreover, I think there is usually a rather nasty smell to the handful of extreme success stories. As Gustavus Myers wrote in his book "The Great American Fortunes",
"Through all of these pages have we searched afar with infinitesimal scrutiny for a fortune acquired by honest means. Nor have the methods been measured by the test of a code of advanced ethics, but solely by the laws as they stood in the respective times. At no time has the discovery of an ‘honest fortune’ rewarded our determined quest. Often we thought that we had come across such a specimen, only to find distressing disappointment; through all fortunes, large and small, runs the same heavy streak of fraud and theft, the little trader, with his misrepresentation and swindling, differing from the great frauds in degree only".
Honore de Balzac agreed ("Le Père Goriot", 1835):
"Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait".
(Roughly translated, "The secret of a great fortune made without apparent cause is soon forgotten, if the crime is committed in a respectable way").
And the deciding vote:
“But if you will take note of the mode of proceeding of men, you will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence. And those who, out of either little prudence or too much foolishness, shun these modes always suffocate in servitude or poverty. For faithful servants are always servants, and good men are always poor; nor do they ever rise out of servitude unless they are unfaithful and bold, nor out of poverty unless they are rapacious and fraudulent. For God and nature have put all the fortunes of men in their midst, where they are exposed more to rapine than to industry and more to wicked than to good arts, from which it arises that men devour one another and that those who can do less are always the worst off. Therefore, one should use force whenever the occasion for it is given to us… I confess this course is bold and dangerous, but when necessity presses, boldness is judged prudence; and spirited men never take account of the danger in great things, for those enterprises that are begun with danger always end with reward, and one never escapes a danger without danger”.
- Niccolo Machiavelli, “Florentine Histories,” trans. Laura F. Brandel and Harvey C. Mansfield (Princeton: Princeton, 1988), III 13, p. 123.
You're right to emphasize the numbers. The sheer volume of failed businesses compared to the few celebrated successes is often overlooked. It's a crucial point, and it supports your argument that the narrative of easy entrepreneurial success can be misleading and potentially harmful, especially to those who risk everything.
Those quotes offer a sobering perspective on the acquisition of wealth and the long-standing debate about the ethics of how fortunes are made, and the potential for exploitation and unethical behavior to play a role. I have seen a pattern of great wealth being created due to wars, this has happened in diverse industries from industrial to banking and now general financing (Blackrock).
The quantitative realities and historical context you've provided is essential to this discussion.
I think “The Great American Fortunes” will change your views about a few things. It blew me away. Especially in revealing how many of the “great and the good” of today, including famous “philanthropists”, started out as plain criminals. They or their ancestors.
From memory, Myers was writing in the 1920s about the period from the earliest colonial times to about 1914. A good follow-up for the 20th century is “The Rich and the Super-Rich” by Ferdinand Lundberg.
As you imagine, neither Myers nor Lundberg was ever praised or rewarded as a great journalist. They were far too good journalists for that.
Excellent recommendations - thank you. I think this is a topic more people should be interested in. It's staggering how the super wealthy have managed to gain their wealth. I'll read them both.
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.
The 40-hour + workweek is a relic of the industrial era, in fact, when I started work it was normal to work 5,5 days per work = Saturday morning! As you rightly point out, Parkinson's Law often dictates how we fill that time. Your suggestion of a four-day workweek is gaining traction, with numerous studies indicating its potential to boost both productivity and well-being. Several companies in the UK have this underway!
This is key - the role of AI in reshaping our relationship with work, well said. As AI takes over routine tasks, we'll need to redefine our roles and find new avenues for purpose and fulfillment. This brings us to the crucial question you raised. How do we find purpose outside of traditional work, especially in an AI-driven future?
I think we need a multifaceted approach. I like Joshua's approach of woodworking. To few have real hobbies these days. I once polled a large number of business leaders on their hobbies - very few had one. One had coin collecting, one had mountain climbing, another triathlon. Essentially, we may need to shift from a work-centric identity to a more holistic one that encompasses diverse sources of meaning.
Your perspective on your father and grandfather's retirement experiences provide a valuable real-world perspective. This highlights the importance of cultivating diverse interests and maintaining strong relationships throughout life.
I think, for many, the transition to a new paradigm of work and purpose will undoubtedly present challenges, but it also offers exciting possibilities for personal growth and societal evolution.
As far as I'm aware in tribal life, two hours a day was spent 'earning' the basics (food, shelter) and the rest of the day was spent socialising whilst making basic and art- artifacts.
I have also read that in a couple of books. However, let’s see how society adopts a lot of free time. Initially, we may be lost, but we will find our way over time.
The post sheds light on the challenges we’ll face in the future—not from AI entirely replacing our jobs, but from how it reshapes the nature of work and life. While highly skilled individuals may benefit the most, these rewards often come at the cost of job satisfaction, well-being, and authenticity.
“This is my fear about AI – not its intelligence, but its ability to strip us of ours. By outsourcing every interaction to a machine, we lose something vital: authenticity.
Apple’s recent commercials promoting its AI feature, Apple Intelligence, hint at this dystopian possibility. In one, a woman uses it to critique a document she hasn’t read. In another, she relies on AI to remember someone at a party, avoiding embarrassment. Both ads end with the grating chorus of a terrible song declaring, ‘I am genius.’
Is this what qualifies as genius these days? Simply following orders? AI does the work, and she reaps the empty reward of appearing sharp and capable to others.”
Even using AI can reduce job satisfaction and well-being, as shown by the following study:
A recent MIT study on AI in materials science R&D found that AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, filed 39% more patents, and produced 17% more product prototypes, improving R&D efficiency by 13-15% when accounting for input costs.
However, these results came at a cost to happiness and talent:
- Success with AI relied on expertise: the output of top researchers nearly doubled, while the bottom third saw little improvement (as experienced researchers have better judgment).
- Researchers reported a 44% drop in satisfaction with their work (due to reduced creativity and skill utilization) and an 82% decline in overall well-being.
This highlights a troubling reality: while AI can amplify productivity, it often diminishes the aspects of work that bring fulfillment and meaning.
That MIT study by Aidan Toner-Rodgers at MIT is a must read, I quote it often to anyone that will listen (including in a few posts here - eg. https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/ai-and-overcoming-the-threat-of-intelligence) which showed that while AI gave significant new research discovery and productivy gains, 82% of users felt less challenged and less job satisfaction ‘due to decreased creativity and skill underutilization’.
As one scientist noted in Aidan’s study:
“While I was impressed by the performance of the [AI tool]...I couldn’t help feeling that much of my education is now worthless. This is not what I was trained to do.”
So much was written about the good of that report, and much overlooked about the downside, the loss of challenge, status, meaning. It really should wake people up.
"As one scientist noted in Aidan’s study: “While I was impressed by the performance of the [AI tool]...I couldn’t help feeling that much of my education is now worthless. This is not what I was trained to do.”"
I don't use a logarithmic slide-rule any more, but I suppose I still could if I needed to. Thing is, we need FIRST to define first those elements that define us as essentially 'human', and then we can easier weigh up whether certain skill losses are critical, or not.
Hi Joshua, I know from my experience in the rainforest that the people there spent about a third of their week on food and shelter. When I stayed there, they just had so much free time to spend with family and just chatting in groups. Even when the men went hunting, it was more of an adventure than a chore. And the vegetables did take a lot of work but when engaged in as a community, there was lots of chatting and breaks, it seemed just part of life and not something separate. I definitely returned from there understanding that a different way of being was not only possible but was actually being lived. I'm not advocating that way of life but when we go to that place it allows us to come back to a more centred place in ourselves than we would have arrived at without it.
ps. and well done on taking the leap into woodworking. From the intellect academic to the 3 dimensional practical world is not an easy one in the first stages.
Thank you. How interesting must have been your time in the rainforest. So what I had read about the '2-hours' thing seems to be borne out. I am amazed where I live in the deep countryside of subsistence farmers in Portugal, that they have so much time to talk. They also work long hours but much done with neighbours helping each other out, reciprocally. Very resilient and kind-hearted people; that's what atracted us here. Community, and basic survival on the land.
Woodworking: I started off making & inventing hand-weaving looms and tools and then moved to Portugal; bought land. Took a painful hit to discover I am not a farmer but then turned to make the odd geodesic-greenhouse and other garden/small-holding structures. All the best for 2025, Vincent; Josh.
Hi Joshua, thank you for your heartfelt reply. Very similar here in Southern Italy. And I’ve a friend who went to Portugal and has the same experience. And it is as you say, lots of time, very resilient, and my God do they love to talk! My Italian is better now and so I can have better conversations about plants and vegetables and get precious local knowledge. Best to you for 2025 too.
Thank you. Italy? Ah, good choice. I think the Italian food-and-coffee-culture is superior to Portugal. And the language much easier to learn. It was one of our potential places.
Beautifully said Joshua - "The world is in desperate need of people living authentic lives." I enjoyed so much about the interview and will return to it for more insights.
Italy yes, and I agree on the language, I learned Spanish at school and I felt when I went on vacation to Lisbon that I could at least understand some basic Portugese . . . not in the slightest. It was impenetrable.
Thanks for the link Joshua I’ll gladly take a look.
I agree with you. I have spoken to a number of young people who work remotely now. The consistent theme is that away from the office they can manage to get their work done in 3 days, and take 2 days to get other things done. So exactly as you are saying the work expands to fill the 5 days but there is only 3 days work there. And that's separate from the commute, I was doing 4 hours car commute each day, 2 hours in 2 hours back, and the worse thing was, it became normal.
Thank you for the thoughtful article. Compared to Cowen, I have a very different theory of why working hours haven't declined as income has risen over the last 60 years or so. His discussion of the relative impact of the income and substitution effects implies that workers have control over their own hours and can set them according to their preference. This is a standard assumption of "Labor Econ 101" model of the leisure/leisure tradeoff. But what if it's wrong? I don't think real labor markets work this way. For full-time employees, especially those in a professional context, the choice is often between taking a job with a fixed number of hours per week or not taking it at all. The room to negotiate working hours tends to be highly limited compared to the power to negotiate salary. It's an empirical fact that part-time employees tend to be paid less (in per-hour terms) than full time employees. If not immediately, then over the longer term as a result of foregone promotions and career progression.
In other words, the fixed 40-hour work week rigs the tradeoff between leisure and consumption. It turns marginal leisure into a "cookie tomorrow" since you can't translate increased savings into more leisure until (earlier) retirement, which may be decades down the line. Whereas marginal consumption is a "cookie now". And, time preferences being what they are, people will tend to prefer "cookie now" to "cookie tomorrow". Increasing consumption is therefore “easier” than increasing leisure, because unless you want to take a big income hit, “consuming leisure” is related to low time preference, self-discipline, long-term planning, and investing knowledge. So I think the main story here is just people working 40 hours (or more) a week because that's the norm and deviating from the norm carries severe income penalties, and then spending the vast bulk of what they earn simply because most people don't plan their future leisure opportunities decades in advance. If they had more flexibility to translate less consumption into more leisure in the immediate term, they might work less.
Historically, labor unions and political organizing have played an important role in reducing working hours, because collective bargaining can contest standardized workweek norms that lone individuals may feel no choice but to acquiesce to. We didn't get to the 40 hour work week through a simple process of independent rational agents changing their preferences. It was a collective, political struggle. So I think if you want to understand why labor hours haven't declined since the 1970s, the decline in unions has to be a big part of that story.
Thank you Gaudium. Those are important points that you highlight and counterpoints to Tyler. The idea that workers can freely adjust their hours based on their preferences often doesn't hold up in practice as you say, especially for full-time employees. You are right, the choice is often between accepting a fixed number of hours or not working at all!
I really like your "cookie now vs. cookie tomorrow" analogy, this perfectly illustrates how the structure of work incentivizes immediate consumption over delayed leisure. I'll use this:-)
Excellent point about unions, I have overlooked this. When I worked in France this was very evident. The French labour law defines 35 hours per week for full time employment!
Could we see a resurgence of collective bargaining, or are there other approaches that might be more effective in today's economy?
I think a resurgence of collective bargaining is unlikely, especially for middle-class occupations. As Cowen points out, the idea of labor unions for lawyers and bankers is a bit far fetched. So for people who prefer free time to consumption, the wise thing to do in the world we have is to be very future oriented, work full time, conform to the normal career trajectory (at first), save money, retire early, and take the leisure in a lump later on rather than spreading it more equally across life. This is the approach of the FIRE movement.
Great and timely post. I'm considering your piece alongside Derek Thompson's Anti-Social Century essay in the Atlantic. What happens when we electively fill our leisure time with energy-draining activities?
I was at Airbnb 2016-2020, a poster child for the "make work meaningful" approach. We weren't employees – we were the Airfam. All well and good until Airbnb nearly died in spring 2020, at which point the Airfam was culled by layoffs. While the layoff terms were extremely generous, they reminded everyone that the conditional relationship of employment is not the same as family. (This reminder would be repeated in the great tech restructuring of 2022-2023.)
Instead of finding meaning through employment, it seems better to find it in craft. I might lose my job, but not my software engineering craft. But with AI, even craft seems at risk. What will remain when computers (and soon robots) can do everything?
One area lacking in leisure is "structure". – where do I start, how do I progress, what's the path to mastery? How do I compare to others? (For better and for worse, we're social creatures) Video games provide this structure in abundance. Some physical activities do too (CrossFit is a great example, and to a certain extent running groups can be.) But reading, or cooking, or painting, or origami... much less clear path to finding meaning through a leisure activity. At least at work, if I don't get meaning I get money.
Thank you Justin. I had no idea about Airbnb's "Airfam". It definitely highlights the potential dangers of companies trying to blur the lines between the contract obligations and intentions.
I agree that cultivating a craft can be a more sustainable source of meaning, but the rise of AI does make you wonder what the future holds - I'm erring on the side of large layoffs - and this is new for me - a shift in thinking over the last few years. It's hard to imagine what will be left for us humans to do if machines can eventually do everything. Perhaps we'll need to focus on developing uniquely human skills... those where networks and relationships are key.
Your observation about the lack of structure is spot on. I think we need to be comfortable with some form of unstructured environments, but structure as you describe it is critical - and the path to mastery, which I term exceptionalism.
I also appreciate your point about the social aspect of leisure. We're social creatures, and we crave connection and community. Structured activities provide that, but it's harder to find that sense of community in solitary pursuits. Substack is great for connectivity. Triathlon training is too, you need a group for pelaton, improved swimming and running in a group is great, although sometimes I like the loneliness of the long distance runner and morning quiet time for reading ;-)
The nature of meaning and how we find i is so important and varies for everyone. Is it something inherent in the activity itself, or is it something we create through our own engagement and interpretation? And how can we find meaning in a world where technology is constantly changing the landscape of work and leisure?
Thanks again Justin, your comments and others have given me a lot to ponder.
Colin, thank you for writing about this. I'm 66 next week and nothing in school or university prepared me for what I found in life. Only spending time with a quantum physicist, a mystic in the mountains of Peru and a tribe in the rainforests of West Papua, did I discover that life was about so much more than what we are told. I wandered through doing the things society wanted me to do thinking that was all thee was. Why are we not shown all the alternatives? Thankfully I was blessed to explore them over the last 25 years in tandem with working and so I could begin to make sense of it all.
I've written about it on Substack, we live in a 'pseudoculture' and it doesn't support what our psyche needs (meaning is just one of these things). And so continually try and fill the void inside us that society seems quite happy for us to do and we are never told about how a True Culture operates and how it provides, including but not limited to:
- Belonging
- identity
- meaning
- support
- context
- connection
- and love
It becomes quite straightforward when we see the difference between the 'pseudoculture' and a True Culture. And all the research is there, psychological, sociological and anthropological.
In a pseudoculture, we will try and get these things through work, or consuming or trying to 'amplify' our identity, all in search of what our psyche knows is available to us in a True Culture.
Thank you Vincent. I really like the idea of your journey, from traditional expectations to exploring alternative perspectives with a quantum physicist, a mystic, and a rainforest tribe, this speaks volumes about the human quest for meaning beyond the conventional.
You raise a crucial point about the limitations of our "pseudoculture", and how we seek meaning and amplification of our identity, with its inability to fulfill our deeper psychological needs. There is clearly a sense of emptiness.
A "True Culture", with the 7 extremely important values you mention, offering belonging, identity, meaning, and connection is something that I believe was there in my childhood, but society disintegrated in many ways. When I read the biographies of the prolific people from the past, it is incredible how they sought out community, for intellectual stimulation, emotional well-being and so on. And then how many had hobbies, woodworking like Joshua mentions, or anthropological as your quest seems to indicate.
Thank you for highlighting the contrast between "pseudoculture" and "True Culture."
The sad part is that we don’t consciously know what we are searching for, I didn’t. And yet my psyche was driving the yearning.
Our pseudoculture is continual cathartic dopamine hits but zero transformation and so we replay the movies, songs etc. and only get short temporary catharsis which we now have become addicted to.
Transformation is what a True Culture provides and so we can progress through life’s stages rather than be kept in early stage development with a counterfeit experience of transformation.
That is an important conversation, the distinction between catharsis and transformation Our pseudoculture thrives on instant gratification, offering fleeting dopamine hits that keep us hooked on repetitive cycles. The challenge lies in recognizing the counterfeit experiences and actual transformation.
One area where lies is in providing the context for genuine personal development.
You are right, an increased self-awareness and a willingness to challenge the prevailing narratives of our pseudoculture, is one the values of a True Culture.
Snow and sleet here Colin so today I’m on Substack. 👀
The main way for me to understand the difference is very simple,
Catharsis we come back for again and again (concerts, movies etc.)
Transformation - there is no way I want to go back and do that again! (does the butterfly want to back through the ‘caterpillar turning to mush stage’ before it became a butterfly?)
And yes for me we can either challenge the narratives or together build a new boat. I’ve written about that here: https://tinyurl.com/bpa5srtr
Got it, and yes agree with the differences between catharsis and transformation.
I just read the sample to your book on Amazon, are you still in Cilento? That must be a wonderful location to live, not overcrowded? I've been considering Lake Garda, but for sure somewhere in Italy within 2 years.
Yes the Cilento. The largest national park in Italy.
There is definitely a substantive difference between north and south Italy, it almost feels like two different countries. It obviously all depends on what you are looking for.
It's a very interesting question. I read Anna Karenina last year, and it seemed like most of the russian elites in that book did not work much -- they spent time visiting each other, going to societal functions, on education and sports. They were active, but not a ton of work.
On the other hand, the people I know today who come from generational wealth tend to work in finance or consulting and work a lot.
It seems to me like it is status-driven, but I am not sure why rich people today feel the need to work to gain status, whereas people in russia did not.
That is a good point Joe.. same in many of the great works of literature, or if you read Churchill's early books. Except for some form of military, politics the landed gentry had ample time for fox hunting and constant travels and balls! There is the psychological need to work, to connect, to be challenged.. and as you say work a lot. I can think of a few people from old money that work hard as you say. @katherineDee also has the concept of status driven - I wonder if it is status and stability?
As far as I'm aware, the 'Victorian Ideal' was to have enough money so you didn't have to work; that was the whole point of it. And then you could pursue your interests if you wished to become an 'amateur professional' in a certain field. Work was for the lower classes. Personally, as soon as I reckoned I had enough money to survive without regular employment, (aged 44) I gave up my job like a shot (nice academic most), went on a woodworking course and have done what I wanted ever since. Much more interesting and fulfilling. So I guess I'm a middle-class Victorian at heart. (Ref also Keith Richards' definition of a successful life -- you get up each day, and eventually go to bed having done exactly what you wanted -- or something like that)
I had never heard that Keith Richards quote but I love it
Interesting perspective! And feels much more rational. Do you have a theory as to why that is not a more common path for people who have a lot of money today?
Sorry, really can't remember where I picked up that 'quote'.
My theory is that people just don't know who they are sufficiently well enough to know what to do with their lives when money is taken care of. The 'life-plan' of "I'll make a load of money first, then do what I really want" seems not to get carried through because of this lack of self-knowledge.
And such a life-plan in the first place betrays some unresolved issue/trauma, for which earning money is a compensation. If you stop being busy with the money-compensation-thing, then you have to face the pain of healing the trauma. And from personal experience, the process can plunge you into a deep abyss from which you sometimes believe you will never get out. It's a big unknown; and people fear the unknown. (Well, that's my theory, anyway).
Now look at what’s happened to taxes and the value of the money since (say) 1971. In the UK taxes are at their highest since WW2, and £ has lost about 90% of its value!!
"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".
I don't believe that for a moment. People nowadays who have three jobs still can't make ends meet. That means they can't pay for necessities, never mind luxuries. They aren't seduced by "the prospect of greater rewards", but by the hope of eating, clothing themselves, having somewhere private to sleep and maybe - one day - even being able to afford a family.
And talk of "retreating into idleness" is deceptive. Neither Keynes nor Bertrand Russell, who reasoned in the same way, ever said anything about "idleness". Indeed, I strongly suspect whoever speaks of "idleness" in such a context of being American. British and European people, and I think most others, know that there are other alternatives to the 40-, 50- or 60-hour grind of employment other than "idleness". Art, music, reading, debate, hobbies and crafts, gardening, growing food, tending to animals, sport, exercise, yoga, and self-motivated research are not "idleness". If citizens had more time free from the chains of employment, they could - if they chose - spend some of it learning about their world and playing more active roles in politics and their community life.
I strongly suspect those are among the main reasons so many powerful people want the masses to go on working long hours and coming home exhausted and demoralised.
The work you are describing is middle class or higher. I don’t think the cashier at the grocery store or the women who clean your house could relate to much of what you say here. How does the working class fit into your idea? Meaningful work suggests an elitist mindset. There will always be work that needs to be done that is tedious and mind-numbing. Not everyone can do the “fun” jobs. I don’t think AI will clean bathrooms.
It is a very good point. I've had this discussion with students many few times, and several have convinced me that irrespective of the job people can find meaning, even polling friends and family, and including mind-numbing jobs... I've certainly asked people directly (albeit a small sample) and they have said it is how they approach work and they know that they bring satisfaction to others which gives them meaning - it may not be as challenging as some jobs, but has meaning for them - of course I accept for many it is a means to an end. The quandary of work and bills - for sure I have been there!
Thank you. Slop and status, fascinating ideas. You could be onto something important with this and lack of meaningful work.
There was a paper recently from MIT where researchers, who had status, felt they had lost meaning and challenge at work as an AI tool was introduced and accelerated discovery and they were left with the 'slop'.
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.
I decided to retire in my mid-40s and lasted 6 months, during that time I was active in triathlon training, research work on new ideas, refurbishing a house. But, I had not given consideration to how much the psychological side would impact me and it did. I returned to long working days in academia and corporations with a gusto. But I must say now I am cutting back from the business advisory and academic side and focus on what I consider more meaningful work.
Interesting. I framed my 'retirement' as a two-year sabbatical during which time I intended to 'reinvent myself through discovering the real me'. I fully expected within two years to be well off-and-running with some new venture. It happened, sort-of. But not with the energy, focus and feeling of 'on-trackness' I had expected. I'm a rower, and reasonable fitness-freak, and this kept me sane during the process - added to by some serious power-kite-buggying. I think accepting that there is no one model for life, helps.
This is so true - "there is no one model for life."
Same in Poland under the labor code. But I often get calls in the evening:-)
The number of people who want to start a business is rarely mentioned, but I suspect it's rather low. Even among that brave minority, I seem to recall that something like nine out of ten new businesses fail quite soon. The tendency to talk as if almost everyone can "start their own business" and prosper reminds me of Christmas movies I have seen (and enjoyed), whose heroines live in large comfortably-furnished houses in good districts and drive newish cars on the earnings from their cookie-baking or flower-arranging businesses.
The worst offender is the TV series "Friends", in which six fairly undistinguished people with modest (if any) jobs live in spacious apartments apparently just round the corner from the Plaza Hotel in New York - and no one ever mentions, let alone sees, a single cockroach! I wonder how many hopeful immigrants set out for the USA with that kind of scenario in mind. The streets are paved with platinum and running with cream, maple syrup, and expensive brandy.
Those are very valid points Tom. It's true that starting a business is challenging, and the failure rate is significant. Although if you don't try... I personally think well calculated risk is worth it - but totally agree it is very far from glamorous.
The portrayal of entrepreneurs in popular culture, like "Friends," definitely creates a somewhat unrealistic picture, they don't always reflect the financial struggles and hard work involved in building a business, Hollywood takes a lot of liberties with reality for the sake of storytelling.
I agree with you about the "American Dream," as often depicted, it can be very misleading. Of course opportunities exist, but success requires dedication, planning, and often a bit of luck. The reality for many immigrants, and indeed many native-born citizens, is often far removed from the glamorous portrayals in some media. Certainly not all maple syrup and brandy!
What I object to most strongly is the tendency to ignore the quantitative aspect: how many people who bravely set out to start a business end up better off? Of course, we know that a few succeed magnificently; those are the ones we are forever hearing and reading about. But I suspect that for every success story, and perhaps for every five or ten who just about manage to break even, there may be 100 or more who eventually fail, losing the house they mortgaged, and wind up broke. To the wealthy, anything that creates more impoverished workers is desirable; it increases the supply and drives down wages.
Moreover, I think there is usually a rather nasty smell to the handful of extreme success stories. As Gustavus Myers wrote in his book "The Great American Fortunes",
"Through all of these pages have we searched afar with infinitesimal scrutiny for a fortune acquired by honest means. Nor have the methods been measured by the test of a code of advanced ethics, but solely by the laws as they stood in the respective times. At no time has the discovery of an ‘honest fortune’ rewarded our determined quest. Often we thought that we had come across such a specimen, only to find distressing disappointment; through all fortunes, large and small, runs the same heavy streak of fraud and theft, the little trader, with his misrepresentation and swindling, differing from the great frauds in degree only".
Honore de Balzac agreed ("Le Père Goriot", 1835):
"Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait".
(Roughly translated, "The secret of a great fortune made without apparent cause is soon forgotten, if the crime is committed in a respectable way").
And the deciding vote:
“But if you will take note of the mode of proceeding of men, you will see that all those who come to great riches and great power have obtained them either by fraud or by force; and afterwards, to hide the ugliness of acquisition, they make it decent by applying the false title of earnings to things they have usurped by deceit or by violence. And those who, out of either little prudence or too much foolishness, shun these modes always suffocate in servitude or poverty. For faithful servants are always servants, and good men are always poor; nor do they ever rise out of servitude unless they are unfaithful and bold, nor out of poverty unless they are rapacious and fraudulent. For God and nature have put all the fortunes of men in their midst, where they are exposed more to rapine than to industry and more to wicked than to good arts, from which it arises that men devour one another and that those who can do less are always the worst off. Therefore, one should use force whenever the occasion for it is given to us… I confess this course is bold and dangerous, but when necessity presses, boldness is judged prudence; and spirited men never take account of the danger in great things, for those enterprises that are begun with danger always end with reward, and one never escapes a danger without danger”.
- Niccolo Machiavelli, “Florentine Histories,” trans. Laura F. Brandel and Harvey C. Mansfield (Princeton: Princeton, 1988), III 13, p. 123.
You're right to emphasize the numbers. The sheer volume of failed businesses compared to the few celebrated successes is often overlooked. It's a crucial point, and it supports your argument that the narrative of easy entrepreneurial success can be misleading and potentially harmful, especially to those who risk everything.
Those quotes offer a sobering perspective on the acquisition of wealth and the long-standing debate about the ethics of how fortunes are made, and the potential for exploitation and unethical behavior to play a role. I have seen a pattern of great wealth being created due to wars, this has happened in diverse industries from industrial to banking and now general financing (Blackrock).
The quantitative realities and historical context you've provided is essential to this discussion.
I will read "The Great American Fortunes".
I think “The Great American Fortunes” will change your views about a few things. It blew me away. Especially in revealing how many of the “great and the good” of today, including famous “philanthropists”, started out as plain criminals. They or their ancestors.
From memory, Myers was writing in the 1920s about the period from the earliest colonial times to about 1914. A good follow-up for the 20th century is “The Rich and the Super-Rich” by Ferdinand Lundberg.
As you imagine, neither Myers nor Lundberg was ever praised or rewarded as a great journalist. They were far too good journalists for that.
Excellent recommendations - thank you. I think this is a topic more people should be interested in. It's staggering how the super wealthy have managed to gain their wealth. I'll read them both.
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.
The 40-hour + workweek is a relic of the industrial era, in fact, when I started work it was normal to work 5,5 days per work = Saturday morning! As you rightly point out, Parkinson's Law often dictates how we fill that time. Your suggestion of a four-day workweek is gaining traction, with numerous studies indicating its potential to boost both productivity and well-being. Several companies in the UK have this underway!
This is key - the role of AI in reshaping our relationship with work, well said. As AI takes over routine tasks, we'll need to redefine our roles and find new avenues for purpose and fulfillment. This brings us to the crucial question you raised. How do we find purpose outside of traditional work, especially in an AI-driven future?
I think we need a multifaceted approach. I like Joshua's approach of woodworking. To few have real hobbies these days. I once polled a large number of business leaders on their hobbies - very few had one. One had coin collecting, one had mountain climbing, another triathlon. Essentially, we may need to shift from a work-centric identity to a more holistic one that encompasses diverse sources of meaning.
Your perspective on your father and grandfather's retirement experiences provide a valuable real-world perspective. This highlights the importance of cultivating diverse interests and maintaining strong relationships throughout life.
I think, for many, the transition to a new paradigm of work and purpose will undoubtedly present challenges, but it also offers exciting possibilities for personal growth and societal evolution.
As far as I'm aware in tribal life, two hours a day was spent 'earning' the basics (food, shelter) and the rest of the day was spent socialising whilst making basic and art- artifacts.
I have also read that in a couple of books. However, let’s see how society adopts a lot of free time. Initially, we may be lost, but we will find our way over time.
The post sheds light on the challenges we’ll face in the future—not from AI entirely replacing our jobs, but from how it reshapes the nature of work and life. While highly skilled individuals may benefit the most, these rewards often come at the cost of job satisfaction, well-being, and authenticity.
As the following post and MIT study highlights:
https://open.substack.com/pub/rootofall/p/why-you-should-pursue-the-unnecessary?r=8n4qz&utm_medium=ios
“This is my fear about AI – not its intelligence, but its ability to strip us of ours. By outsourcing every interaction to a machine, we lose something vital: authenticity.
Apple’s recent commercials promoting its AI feature, Apple Intelligence, hint at this dystopian possibility. In one, a woman uses it to critique a document she hasn’t read. In another, she relies on AI to remember someone at a party, avoiding embarrassment. Both ads end with the grating chorus of a terrible song declaring, ‘I am genius.’
Is this what qualifies as genius these days? Simply following orders? AI does the work, and she reaps the empty reward of appearing sharp and capable to others.”
Even using AI can reduce job satisfaction and well-being, as shown by the following study:
A recent MIT study on AI in materials science R&D found that AI-assisted researchers discovered 44% more materials, filed 39% more patents, and produced 17% more product prototypes, improving R&D efficiency by 13-15% when accounting for input costs.
However, these results came at a cost to happiness and talent:
- Success with AI relied on expertise: the output of top researchers nearly doubled, while the bottom third saw little improvement (as experienced researchers have better judgment).
- Researchers reported a 44% drop in satisfaction with their work (due to reduced creativity and skill utilization) and an 82% decline in overall well-being.
This highlights a troubling reality: while AI can amplify productivity, it often diminishes the aspects of work that bring fulfillment and meaning.
That MIT study by Aidan Toner-Rodgers at MIT is a must read, I quote it often to anyone that will listen (including in a few posts here - eg. https://onepercentrule.substack.com/p/ai-and-overcoming-the-threat-of-intelligence) which showed that while AI gave significant new research discovery and productivy gains, 82% of users felt less challenged and less job satisfaction ‘due to decreased creativity and skill underutilization’.
As one scientist noted in Aidan’s study:
“While I was impressed by the performance of the [AI tool]...I couldn’t help feeling that much of my education is now worthless. This is not what I was trained to do.”
So much was written about the good of that report, and much overlooked about the downside, the loss of challenge, status, meaning. It really should wake people up.
"As one scientist noted in Aidan’s study: “While I was impressed by the performance of the [AI tool]...I couldn’t help feeling that much of my education is now worthless. This is not what I was trained to do.”"
I don't use a logarithmic slide-rule any more, but I suppose I still could if I needed to. Thing is, we need FIRST to define first those elements that define us as essentially 'human', and then we can easier weigh up whether certain skill losses are critical, or not.
Hi Joshua, I know from my experience in the rainforest that the people there spent about a third of their week on food and shelter. When I stayed there, they just had so much free time to spend with family and just chatting in groups. Even when the men went hunting, it was more of an adventure than a chore. And the vegetables did take a lot of work but when engaged in as a community, there was lots of chatting and breaks, it seemed just part of life and not something separate. I definitely returned from there understanding that a different way of being was not only possible but was actually being lived. I'm not advocating that way of life but when we go to that place it allows us to come back to a more centred place in ourselves than we would have arrived at without it.
ps. and well done on taking the leap into woodworking. From the intellect academic to the 3 dimensional practical world is not an easy one in the first stages.
Thank you. How interesting must have been your time in the rainforest. So what I had read about the '2-hours' thing seems to be borne out. I am amazed where I live in the deep countryside of subsistence farmers in Portugal, that they have so much time to talk. They also work long hours but much done with neighbours helping each other out, reciprocally. Very resilient and kind-hearted people; that's what atracted us here. Community, and basic survival on the land.
Woodworking: I started off making & inventing hand-weaving looms and tools and then moved to Portugal; bought land. Took a painful hit to discover I am not a farmer but then turned to make the odd geodesic-greenhouse and other garden/small-holding structures. All the best for 2025, Vincent; Josh.
Hi Joshua, thank you for your heartfelt reply. Very similar here in Southern Italy. And I’ve a friend who went to Portugal and has the same experience. And it is as you say, lots of time, very resilient, and my God do they love to talk! My Italian is better now and so I can have better conversations about plants and vegetables and get precious local knowledge. Best to you for 2025 too.
Vincent
Thank you. Italy? Ah, good choice. I think the Italian food-and-coffee-culture is superior to Portugal. And the language much easier to learn. It was one of our potential places.
As an aside, if it's of any interest, my longer story is here: https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-journey
Beautifully said Joshua - "The world is in desperate need of people living authentic lives." I enjoyed so much about the interview and will return to it for more insights.
Italy yes, and I agree on the language, I learned Spanish at school and I felt when I went on vacation to Lisbon that I could at least understand some basic Portugese . . . not in the slightest. It was impenetrable.
Thanks for the link Joshua I’ll gladly take a look.
I agree with you. I have spoken to a number of young people who work remotely now. The consistent theme is that away from the office they can manage to get their work done in 3 days, and take 2 days to get other things done. So exactly as you are saying the work expands to fill the 5 days but there is only 3 days work there. And that's separate from the commute, I was doing 4 hours car commute each day, 2 hours in 2 hours back, and the worse thing was, it became normal.
Depends on the level of agency within the job at hand.
That is very true Matt
Hi Colin,
Thank you for the thoughtful article. Compared to Cowen, I have a very different theory of why working hours haven't declined as income has risen over the last 60 years or so. His discussion of the relative impact of the income and substitution effects implies that workers have control over their own hours and can set them according to their preference. This is a standard assumption of "Labor Econ 101" model of the leisure/leisure tradeoff. But what if it's wrong? I don't think real labor markets work this way. For full-time employees, especially those in a professional context, the choice is often between taking a job with a fixed number of hours per week or not taking it at all. The room to negotiate working hours tends to be highly limited compared to the power to negotiate salary. It's an empirical fact that part-time employees tend to be paid less (in per-hour terms) than full time employees. If not immediately, then over the longer term as a result of foregone promotions and career progression.
In other words, the fixed 40-hour work week rigs the tradeoff between leisure and consumption. It turns marginal leisure into a "cookie tomorrow" since you can't translate increased savings into more leisure until (earlier) retirement, which may be decades down the line. Whereas marginal consumption is a "cookie now". And, time preferences being what they are, people will tend to prefer "cookie now" to "cookie tomorrow". Increasing consumption is therefore “easier” than increasing leisure, because unless you want to take a big income hit, “consuming leisure” is related to low time preference, self-discipline, long-term planning, and investing knowledge. So I think the main story here is just people working 40 hours (or more) a week because that's the norm and deviating from the norm carries severe income penalties, and then spending the vast bulk of what they earn simply because most people don't plan their future leisure opportunities decades in advance. If they had more flexibility to translate less consumption into more leisure in the immediate term, they might work less.
Historically, labor unions and political organizing have played an important role in reducing working hours, because collective bargaining can contest standardized workweek norms that lone individuals may feel no choice but to acquiesce to. We didn't get to the 40 hour work week through a simple process of independent rational agents changing their preferences. It was a collective, political struggle. So I think if you want to understand why labor hours haven't declined since the 1970s, the decline in unions has to be a big part of that story.
Thank you Gaudium. Those are important points that you highlight and counterpoints to Tyler. The idea that workers can freely adjust their hours based on their preferences often doesn't hold up in practice as you say, especially for full-time employees. You are right, the choice is often between accepting a fixed number of hours or not working at all!
I really like your "cookie now vs. cookie tomorrow" analogy, this perfectly illustrates how the structure of work incentivizes immediate consumption over delayed leisure. I'll use this:-)
Excellent point about unions, I have overlooked this. When I worked in France this was very evident. The French labour law defines 35 hours per week for full time employment!
Could we see a resurgence of collective bargaining, or are there other approaches that might be more effective in today's economy?
I think a resurgence of collective bargaining is unlikely, especially for middle-class occupations. As Cowen points out, the idea of labor unions for lawyers and bankers is a bit far fetched. So for people who prefer free time to consumption, the wise thing to do in the world we have is to be very future oriented, work full time, conform to the normal career trajectory (at first), save money, retire early, and take the leisure in a lump later on rather than spreading it more equally across life. This is the approach of the FIRE movement.
I agree Gaudium, I know that the big 4 accounting firms employees sought to collectively bring in unions, but that failed.
You are absolutely right to be very future orientated and to take the approach of the FIRE movement.
Great and timely post. I'm considering your piece alongside Derek Thompson's Anti-Social Century essay in the Atlantic. What happens when we electively fill our leisure time with energy-draining activities?
I was at Airbnb 2016-2020, a poster child for the "make work meaningful" approach. We weren't employees – we were the Airfam. All well and good until Airbnb nearly died in spring 2020, at which point the Airfam was culled by layoffs. While the layoff terms were extremely generous, they reminded everyone that the conditional relationship of employment is not the same as family. (This reminder would be repeated in the great tech restructuring of 2022-2023.)
Instead of finding meaning through employment, it seems better to find it in craft. I might lose my job, but not my software engineering craft. But with AI, even craft seems at risk. What will remain when computers (and soon robots) can do everything?
One area lacking in leisure is "structure". – where do I start, how do I progress, what's the path to mastery? How do I compare to others? (For better and for worse, we're social creatures) Video games provide this structure in abundance. Some physical activities do too (CrossFit is a great example, and to a certain extent running groups can be.) But reading, or cooking, or painting, or origami... much less clear path to finding meaning through a leisure activity. At least at work, if I don't get meaning I get money.
Thank you Justin. I had no idea about Airbnb's "Airfam". It definitely highlights the potential dangers of companies trying to blur the lines between the contract obligations and intentions.
I agree that cultivating a craft can be a more sustainable source of meaning, but the rise of AI does make you wonder what the future holds - I'm erring on the side of large layoffs - and this is new for me - a shift in thinking over the last few years. It's hard to imagine what will be left for us humans to do if machines can eventually do everything. Perhaps we'll need to focus on developing uniquely human skills... those where networks and relationships are key.
Your observation about the lack of structure is spot on. I think we need to be comfortable with some form of unstructured environments, but structure as you describe it is critical - and the path to mastery, which I term exceptionalism.
I also appreciate your point about the social aspect of leisure. We're social creatures, and we crave connection and community. Structured activities provide that, but it's harder to find that sense of community in solitary pursuits. Substack is great for connectivity. Triathlon training is too, you need a group for pelaton, improved swimming and running in a group is great, although sometimes I like the loneliness of the long distance runner and morning quiet time for reading ;-)
The nature of meaning and how we find i is so important and varies for everyone. Is it something inherent in the activity itself, or is it something we create through our own engagement and interpretation? And how can we find meaning in a world where technology is constantly changing the landscape of work and leisure?
Thanks again Justin, your comments and others have given me a lot to ponder.
Colin, thank you for writing about this. I'm 66 next week and nothing in school or university prepared me for what I found in life. Only spending time with a quantum physicist, a mystic in the mountains of Peru and a tribe in the rainforests of West Papua, did I discover that life was about so much more than what we are told. I wandered through doing the things society wanted me to do thinking that was all thee was. Why are we not shown all the alternatives? Thankfully I was blessed to explore them over the last 25 years in tandem with working and so I could begin to make sense of it all.
I've written about it on Substack, we live in a 'pseudoculture' and it doesn't support what our psyche needs (meaning is just one of these things). And so continually try and fill the void inside us that society seems quite happy for us to do and we are never told about how a True Culture operates and how it provides, including but not limited to:
- Belonging
- identity
- meaning
- support
- context
- connection
- and love
It becomes quite straightforward when we see the difference between the 'pseudoculture' and a True Culture. And all the research is there, psychological, sociological and anthropological.
In a pseudoculture, we will try and get these things through work, or consuming or trying to 'amplify' our identity, all in search of what our psyche knows is available to us in a True Culture.
Thank you Vincent. I really like the idea of your journey, from traditional expectations to exploring alternative perspectives with a quantum physicist, a mystic, and a rainforest tribe, this speaks volumes about the human quest for meaning beyond the conventional.
You raise a crucial point about the limitations of our "pseudoculture", and how we seek meaning and amplification of our identity, with its inability to fulfill our deeper psychological needs. There is clearly a sense of emptiness.
A "True Culture", with the 7 extremely important values you mention, offering belonging, identity, meaning, and connection is something that I believe was there in my childhood, but society disintegrated in many ways. When I read the biographies of the prolific people from the past, it is incredible how they sought out community, for intellectual stimulation, emotional well-being and so on. And then how many had hobbies, woodworking like Joshua mentions, or anthropological as your quest seems to indicate.
Thank you for highlighting the contrast between "pseudoculture" and "True Culture."
Thank you for replying Colin.
The sad part is that we don’t consciously know what we are searching for, I didn’t. And yet my psyche was driving the yearning.
Our pseudoculture is continual cathartic dopamine hits but zero transformation and so we replay the movies, songs etc. and only get short temporary catharsis which we now have become addicted to.
Transformation is what a True Culture provides and so we can progress through life’s stages rather than be kept in early stage development with a counterfeit experience of transformation.
Anyhow it’s the weekend, time for a pause. 😎
That is an important conversation, the distinction between catharsis and transformation Our pseudoculture thrives on instant gratification, offering fleeting dopamine hits that keep us hooked on repetitive cycles. The challenge lies in recognizing the counterfeit experiences and actual transformation.
One area where lies is in providing the context for genuine personal development.
You are right, an increased self-awareness and a willingness to challenge the prevailing narratives of our pseudoculture, is one the values of a True Culture.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Snow and sleet here Colin so today I’m on Substack. 👀
The main way for me to understand the difference is very simple,
Catharsis we come back for again and again (concerts, movies etc.)
Transformation - there is no way I want to go back and do that again! (does the butterfly want to back through the ‘caterpillar turning to mush stage’ before it became a butterfly?)
And yes for me we can either challenge the narratives or together build a new boat. I’ve written about that here: https://tinyurl.com/bpa5srtr
Snow and sleet here too.
Got it, and yes agree with the differences between catharsis and transformation.
I just read the sample to your book on Amazon, are you still in Cilento? That must be a wonderful location to live, not overcrowded? I've been considering Lake Garda, but for sure somewhere in Italy within 2 years.
Yes the Cilento. The largest national park in Italy.
There is definitely a substantive difference between north and south Italy, it almost feels like two different countries. It obviously all depends on what you are looking for.
It's a very interesting question. I read Anna Karenina last year, and it seemed like most of the russian elites in that book did not work much -- they spent time visiting each other, going to societal functions, on education and sports. They were active, but not a ton of work.
On the other hand, the people I know today who come from generational wealth tend to work in finance or consulting and work a lot.
It seems to me like it is status-driven, but I am not sure why rich people today feel the need to work to gain status, whereas people in russia did not.
That is a good point Joe.. same in many of the great works of literature, or if you read Churchill's early books. Except for some form of military, politics the landed gentry had ample time for fox hunting and constant travels and balls! There is the psychological need to work, to connect, to be challenged.. and as you say work a lot. I can think of a few people from old money that work hard as you say. @katherineDee also has the concept of status driven - I wonder if it is status and stability?
As far as I'm aware, the 'Victorian Ideal' was to have enough money so you didn't have to work; that was the whole point of it. And then you could pursue your interests if you wished to become an 'amateur professional' in a certain field. Work was for the lower classes. Personally, as soon as I reckoned I had enough money to survive without regular employment, (aged 44) I gave up my job like a shot (nice academic most), went on a woodworking course and have done what I wanted ever since. Much more interesting and fulfilling. So I guess I'm a middle-class Victorian at heart. (Ref also Keith Richards' definition of a successful life -- you get up each day, and eventually go to bed having done exactly what you wanted -- or something like that)
I had never heard that Keith Richards quote but I love it
Interesting perspective! And feels much more rational. Do you have a theory as to why that is not a more common path for people who have a lot of money today?
Sorry, really can't remember where I picked up that 'quote'.
My theory is that people just don't know who they are sufficiently well enough to know what to do with their lives when money is taken care of. The 'life-plan' of "I'll make a load of money first, then do what I really want" seems not to get carried through because of this lack of self-knowledge.
And such a life-plan in the first place betrays some unresolved issue/trauma, for which earning money is a compensation. If you stop being busy with the money-compensation-thing, then you have to face the pain of healing the trauma. And from personal experience, the process can plunge you into a deep abyss from which you sometimes believe you will never get out. It's a big unknown; and people fear the unknown. (Well, that's my theory, anyway).
That rings true to me. thank you for the thoughts!
Now look at what’s happened to taxes and the value of the money since (say) 1971. In the UK taxes are at their highest since WW2, and £ has lost about 90% of its value!!
"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".
I don't believe that for a moment. People nowadays who have three jobs still can't make ends meet. That means they can't pay for necessities, never mind luxuries. They aren't seduced by "the prospect of greater rewards", but by the hope of eating, clothing themselves, having somewhere private to sleep and maybe - one day - even being able to afford a family.
And talk of "retreating into idleness" is deceptive. Neither Keynes nor Bertrand Russell, who reasoned in the same way, ever said anything about "idleness". Indeed, I strongly suspect whoever speaks of "idleness" in such a context of being American. British and European people, and I think most others, know that there are other alternatives to the 40-, 50- or 60-hour grind of employment other than "idleness". Art, music, reading, debate, hobbies and crafts, gardening, growing food, tending to animals, sport, exercise, yoga, and self-motivated research are not "idleness". If citizens had more time free from the chains of employment, they could - if they chose - spend some of it learning about their world and playing more active roles in politics and their community life.
I strongly suspect those are among the main reasons so many powerful people want the masses to go on working long hours and coming home exhausted and demoralised.
The work you are describing is middle class or higher. I don’t think the cashier at the grocery store or the women who clean your house could relate to much of what you say here. How does the working class fit into your idea? Meaningful work suggests an elitist mindset. There will always be work that needs to be done that is tedious and mind-numbing. Not everyone can do the “fun” jobs. I don’t think AI will clean bathrooms.
It is a very good point. I've had this discussion with students many few times, and several have convinced me that irrespective of the job people can find meaning, even polling friends and family, and including mind-numbing jobs... I've certainly asked people directly (albeit a small sample) and they have said it is how they approach work and they know that they bring satisfaction to others which gives them meaning - it may not be as challenging as some jobs, but has meaning for them - of course I accept for many it is a means to an end. The quandary of work and bills - for sure I have been there!
Another great post. Makes me think that so-called "slop" might be an outgrowth of not enough meaningful work.
Thank you. Slop and status, fascinating ideas. You could be onto something important with this and lack of meaningful work.
There was a paper recently from MIT where researchers, who had status, felt they had lost meaning and challenge at work as an AI tool was introduced and accelerated discovery and they were left with the 'slop'.
Here it is ..."82% of scientists report reduced satisfaction with their work due to decreased creativity and skill underutilization." https://aidantr.github.io/files/AI_innovation.pdf