Števo writes*
Every adult who enters their first full-time job quickly understands that time is our most important asset. Weekends always seem short, rest is rare, and work suddenly devours a massive part of our life. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted a fifteen-hour workweek by 2030. That result would release us from these pressures, but it does not seem likely.
That said, the ±40-hour workweek has become the norm in many countries, and average yearly working hours are falling. On the other hand, this trend has stagnated or completely halted for full-time workers in many western countries over the last 40 years.
Instead of more leisure time, citizens embrace consumerism, politicians strive to grow GDP, and “being busy“ has become a status symbol of the higher classes. Today, with sustainability at the forefront of many political discussions, some are exploring the possibility of a shorter workweek as a solution to both lowering out footprint on the planet while also freeing more time for ourselves. Some studies show that countries and households with longer working hours have larger climate footprints, but would decreasing our work time really deliver sustainability?
There are many caveats and possible ways to reduce working hours. If there is a top-down decrease in the working week, for example through a four-day workweek, shorter workday or more vacation days, it is important whether the wage will stay constant or decrease proportionally. If it were lowered, people would be forced to consume less, in theory decreasing production and our material footprint; but less income is also associated with austerity, which would hurt “precariats” who are already economically struggling. If salary stays the same, then the environmental impact would depend on people’s use of their leisure time. Would they spend it cooking organic meals at home, or on more fast food or on a holiday in the Maldives?
Another option to reduce working hours would involve taxes that would internalize the negative externalities (spill over costs) from unsustainable consumption. The resulting higher prices would lower consumption and thus production, which would decrease working hours or even increase unemployment.
A third option would combine government support for better work-life balance with a revolution in social norms, so that people decided to both work and consume less.
Even if we could get lower production without harming the poor and a sustainable use of extra leisure time, there’s still another problem: fossil fuels. Cheap fossil fuels have really boosted productivity and efficiency in our economy. In a post-fossil world, certain sectors would need more work, i.e., “what capital will no longer do, humans will have to do.”
Bottom Line: Working less would reduce environmental stress, but it’s hard to see how to reduce working hours without big changes in social norms, lifestyles and preferences.
* Please help my Real Donut Economics** students by commenting on unclear analysis, alternative perspectives, better data sources, or maybe just saying something nice 🙂
** Why “Real”? In short, because (a) Raworth’s claims to being a “21st century economist” denies that all of her ideas were presented by others in the 20th century and (b) she presents no viable mechanisms (besides “be nice”) for achieving equality and sustainability. My students are more realistic. In long? Read this.
The taxing authorities get to tell me what’s “unsustainable consumption”, and penalize me if I disobey. Likewise, they decide how hard I’m allowed to work. Doesn’t sound to me like a planet worth saving.
Hi Philip,
I understand your point, however we do live on a planet which has finite resources and our actions do have effects on other human beings. I actually believe the opposite: our lives would be better off, our relationships deeper and of higher quality if we focused on things that matter, rather than infinite levels of consumerism. Additionally, “the taxing authorities” are ideally also your representatives, elected and chosen through democratic processes, not authoritarian technocrats, not responsive to citizens’ (and yours) demands.
Hi Števo, cool topic! I have a few points/questions:
1) If employees work less without fair compensation, they may still try to maintain their usual consumption levels. People are conditioned to a certain standard of living, and consumption often has an addictive quality. This dependency can lead them to seek cheaper alternatives, potentially increasing demand for low-cost goods and services, without the necessary social adjustments to make this transition sustainable.
2) The same applies to taxation. If the cost of living rises due to higher taxes, workers might respond by working even more to sustain their lifestyle, counteracting the goal of reducing working hours. Worse, if businesses cut jobs instead of reducing work hours, we might not see shorter workweeks at all; just higher unemployment and greater inequality.
3) Couldn’t the productivity and efficiency we currently get from fossil fuels be replaced by renewable energy? If so, wouldn’t this incentivize us to maintain economic output while transitioning to a more sustainable system?
Leaving me with enough food for thought 🙂 I agree that we “simply” need a reconstruction of social norms.
Hi Sarah, thank you for all these comments
1. and 2. You are right, and therefore, I believe these policies will not be successful by themselves, and will necessitate a larger package of reforms, ex Green New Deal, and as you say “reconstruction of social norms.”
And when it comes to 3. while in some sectors we will be able to “just” move to renewables, some other sectors do not have such easy and effective (lower productivity) solutions, such as fertilizers as far as I understood some of the critique.
My aunt used to work at a very corporate job, high pay but also incredibly long working hours. One thing I remember she used to complain about was “I earn a lot of money, but I don’t have the time to spend it on things that I like.” So, I think your point of lowering working hours would be welcomed by tired and over-worked employees. However, if my aunt’s logic holds for the general population, the increased leisure time with the same income would lead to increased consumption, which is a point you bring up. But, on the contrary, if the income goes down with less working hours, then I don’t think this would be very welcomed by the employees because as we talk about in class, no one wants to be worse off. Which means a change in preference structure is necessary so that lower income-low working hours is a better off scenario than high income-high working hours. So, the question becomes, how can we change norms and preferences to change the payoff structure of these two options. Isn’t this in a way a question on how to bring people back into the Donut? If so, do you have any tangible ideas, in the scope of your research, on how to do this?
Thank you for the comment! And, yes the way people would use their new time & income is crucial, however, it is not at bleak as it may sound, that it would necessarily lead to much new consumption: studies, surveys and evidence show us that people us that time to socialize more and take part in activities that are less carbon-intensive, that they could not before. And yes, a crucial thing will be to change relative prices, by internalizing the externalities so that if people will want to consume more in their free time, they will be disincentivized to do it. On one hand, this can be the basic of environmental economics: taxes, cap&trade and regulations, or more broad changes in our economic system, such as what beyond-growthers call for.
Hey. Very interesting topic, and even more interesting points you brought up. I would like to focus a little bit more on the fact that working hard is considered to be a status symbol. It is true that working hard seems a symbol of status, but only in a job where the wages make up for the long hours. If someone working in a mine works 60 hours a week, I doubt that would make them high of status. On the other hand, if a CEO works 60 hours a week, they must have a very important job. Thus I’m wondering, what draws the line between these jobs? Is it some wage threshold? Maybe a job that requires academic knowledge? If we are able to identify what makes a job acquire status, there might also be policies that can be implemented to change public opinion, and as a result, the amount of hours we work.
That is a very good point, which you raise. As I understand it, it may be similar to the Veblen effect in that it comes from the top – very wealthy people business owners, managers, etc often are perceived to work upwards of 60 hours a week, and then everyone else in the society compares themselves to this, which has created a norm, that working hard and long is something valuable, without respect to what actually makes life worthwhile…
Today, I do not think it is anymore connected to some specific wage or academic background as so many people strive for this…To change public opinion, as per usual, you might need a combination of top-down approaches = giving space through policies for lower or flexible working hours and bottom-down education/empowerment in that workaholism is not worth it, and that by some point, one can not even properly use that excess money and wealth for actual increases in happiness and welfare.
Hi Števo, I find your topic to be very interesting, it raises questions of both the economic and social challenges that would come with it. Ultimately, I agree with you; the only way to achieve a working week with significantly lower hours is to alter behaviours and preferences. Even if income does not change with less working hours, how people will spend their free time will be vital, would everyone be able to cope with being ‘less busy’, and if social norms are not changed, wouldn’t earning the same amount of money, just mean that people will have more time to consume?
I also wonder how this would be enforced, would there be a cap on working hours for all professions, or just ones that produce goods that lead to negative externalities? Wouldn’t this require more workers in fields that must operate 24/7, like doctors, firefighters, etc.?
Ultimately, to me this does not seem to be a realistic way that sustainable production and consumption could shift in the world, as the change would be far too drastic and will likely be met with a lot of opposition.
Hi, thanks for the comment Mihaela!
I personally do not believe that decreasing working hours is anything drastic. As I mentioned, annual working hours have been decreasing since the Industrial Revolution and only in the last decades have we lowered or stopped this trend. Thanks to consumerism and neoliberalism! Most work time reduction propositions also think in this manner: it would be gradual and in a span of multiple years, not that next year everyone will be mandated to work less in the whole economy.
That connects to your second point, that some jobs will necessitate the same or even more labor in the future = care work for example in the many countries of the Global North which face the demography crisis. This is true, however, work time reduction policies would not necessarily decrease the overall working hours, just decrease them per person in those sectors, which basically means that some work will be more shared, where someone today works a 10 or 12 hour shift, in the future that some labor can be done by 2 people and since some sectors will need less employment, in theory this is labor that can be moved into sectors which will need more of it. But again, this is very theoretical and would be happening over long periods of time and gradually.
‘On the other hand, this trend has stagnated or completely halted for full-time workers in many western countries over the last 40 years.’ Števo I Can’t believe you just used ‘on the other hand’ on this blog. Otherwise liked your post:)
Oops, I will try to be more opinionated next time! 🙂 and thanks!