Whatever happened to the 15-hour workweek?

October 9, 2017 by Joshua Krook, The Conversation
Where are the benefits from all that hard work? Credit: Shutterstock

In 1930, the economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technological change and productivity improvements would eventually lead to a 15-hour workweek. But, despite significant productivity gains over the past few decades, we still work 40 hours a week on average.

Keynes's reasoning was that by producing more with less (also known as being more productive), all of our needs would be met through less work, freeing up more time for leisure. But the data and research since Keynes's time suggest that companies have kept the benefits of for themselves.

In his own time, Keynes witnessed the rise of automated factories, mass production and the greater use of electricity, steam and coal. He writes of a 40% increase in factory output in the United States from 1919 to 1925. This productivity increase allowed for a higher standard of living and radically transformed the working world. It was not a stretch for Keynes to predict future technologies would do the same thing once more.

A productivity explosion

According to one study, productivity in "office-based sectors" has increased by 84% since 1970, almost solely due to computing power. In other words, an office worker today can do in one hour what an office worker in 1970 took five hours to do. A full workday in 1970 can now be completed in 1.5 hours.

We are now twice as productive as Keynes imagined. The digital revolution has drastically increased the amount of work each individual worker can do.

Industries that benefited the most from new technology, including agriculture, had a 46% increase in productivity from 1993 to 2004 alone, at the height of the tech boom. Innovation in farming technology was the root cause of this "productivity boom."

In the legal industry, the idea of a "paperless" office dramatically increased productivity at the largest law firms from the late 1990s, when the internet came into play. Now, large law firms are investing in new technologies like cloud computing, document management systems and even rudimentary artificial intelligence. The latter could be particularly transformative, allowing firms to quickly analyse large documents and data sets.

Thanks to all of this technology, one report found that for "80% of matters" a recent law graduate is more productive than someone with ten years' experience at a law firm. In other words, technology is increasing productivity so fast that it is outpacing the productivity benefits of having actual work experience.

Stagnant work hours

Yet these significant are not translating into fewer working hours. The reason for this is partly political and partly economic.

Instead of reducing working hours, productivity gains have been met by calls for greater productivity gains. Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, for instance, are in agreement that "higher productivity … leads to more jobs and higher wages." Keynes, on the other hand, was arguing for an economy with fewer jobs, less working hours and, paradoxically, higher wages.

At an economic level, productivity gains have been absorbed into most companies' bottom line. While employee wage growth has stayed flat, CEO pay has risen dramatically over the years, stalling only recently. A report from the Economic Policy Institute found that CEO pay has increased by 937% since 1978, compared to a mere 10.2% increase in average wages. In other words, the benefits of productivity have gone straight to the top.

In many industries companies have used productivity improvements to get larger, increasing the amount of business they do. By the end of the tech boom of the 1990s, for instance, Australia had six of the world's 40 largest law firms. In accounting, the Big Four accounting firms have had record-breaking increases in revenue in the 2010s, while their employees are reportedly "worked to death."

Instead of discussing the benefits of increasing productivity even further, our politicians and business leaders need to start discussing the missed opportunities of our productivity boom. Like the missed opportunity of taxing the mining boom, Australia is missing out on a massive reduction in working hours due to us from the productivity boom of the 1990s and early 2000s.

As the spectre of AI and robotics looms ahead of us, and people again start talking about future techno utopias, we must deal with the economic realities of the past. Technology, far from freeing up our lives, has been used to keep us working the same amount of time, benefiting only the top of our society.

Properly conceived, new should give us greater leisure time than ever before. But, to do so, increases in productivity need to be directly tied to wage growth and working hours. Increases in productivity should be met either with increased wages, or a reduction in working hours at the same wage level. Failing this, the few will continue to benefit from the harder and harder work of the many.

Explore further: Women paid less for same contribution to work, and sexism is to blame – study

Related Stories

Higher wages for UK's lowest paid improve productivity

May 26, 2016

A far-reaching new study has provided the most compelling evidence yet that the introduction of the National Minimum Wage significantly increased productivity in tens of thousands of UK companies over the decade since it ...

The health risks of long work weeks

September 11, 2017

(HealthDay)—A 40-hour work week may seem normal to some and like a vacation to others. But a study in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine shows that consistently surpassing this standard can be detrimental to your ...

Rise in worker happiness leads to an increase in productivity

December 15, 2016

A new report to be published on IZA World of Labor finds that a rise in workers' happiness leads to an increase in productivity; and companies would profit from investment in their employees' well-being, following research ...

Recommended for you

New paper answers causation conundrum

November 17, 2017

In a new paper published in a special issue of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, SFI Professor Jessica Flack offers a practical answer to one of the most significant, and most confused questions in evolutionary ...

Chance discovery of forgotten 1960s 'preprint' experiment

November 16, 2017

For years, scientists have complained that it can take months or even years for a scientific discovery to be published, because of the slowness of peer review. To cut through this problem, researchers in physics and mathematics ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

julianpenrod
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2017
It's said that, a couple of hundred years ago, the English calculated that it took an Irish farmer only about 2 hours to do a days' work on their farm. That comports with Americans getting everything done in between 1.5 and 3 hours in the office. The English, though, felt that that left the Irish with that much free time to plot how to drive the British from the island. Their solution, supposedly, was to try to destroy the Irish farmers and bring in the English. Here, extra free time can give someone the opportunity to develop their own business, maybe in competition with their employer. "Busy work", to take up the time, was commonly mentioned some years ago. During the merger years, though, many employees and their positions were eliminated. Workers today may be doing the equivalent of several employees some years ago, for the same pay.
COCO
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2017
in Kanada - in government and the MUSH sector - twelve hours remains average - our socialism works for those smart enough to be an apparatchik.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.