The Evolution of the Work-Life Ratio on the Way to a Sustainable Economy
My recent story The Man in the White Suit or Towards a Sustainable Textile Industry led me to think further on the implications of what happens when a certain part of the economy becomes obsolete through a considerable gain in labour productivity, in particular in the context of an evolution towards a sustainable economy. Even though these aspects might look unrelated, there is a philosophical question behind them which I would like to share in this short story.
Use of Time
First, what activities do really matter for us human beings? For some it may be work and productivity, or some it may be leisure and art, and for most a bit of both. Extrapolating Brian Eno’s view on art in a the BBC Music John Peel Lecture “… art is everything that you don’t have to do” (see “The World View of a Simple Mind”) let’s define the use of time in our life:
- WORK for activities we have to do in order to maintain and evolve our material basis, or accumulate material and financial assets; it is productivity focused, work proper, things we have to do, things that are usually a means to something else:
- employment, in general “the economy”, paid work for contributing to the “economy” which supplies the material basis, sometimes called market work as in work that has market value;
- unpaid maintenance work, keeping up the house, jobs and chores, sometimes called home production as in work that has no market value
- in essence struggle for subsistence, or all efforts against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. - LIFE for activities we derive enjoyment from, i.e. things we do not have to do in the interpretation of Brian Eno, things we like doing, things that have their purpose in themselves, things that make us humans after all:
- science, reading, understanding;
- art, any form of art, painting, music, film;
- social interaction, sharing and caring, celebrating;
- games and sports, procrastination, even day-time television.
I would go as far as to say that I would measure the evolutionary state of a civilisation by how much of the second activities it can support given certain material inputs. That said, an economy is highly evolved if it permits a high LIFE/TOTAL ratio where TOTAL is the total number of hours lived and LIFE is the number of hours spent for the LIFE-like activities. Conversely, the WORK/TOTAL ratio would be small in a highly evolved civilisation. Put together, the LIFE/WORK ratio reflects the work-life balance with larger ratios meaning more time for LIFE.
Technology, as applied science, is employed and harnessed to make life easier, to allow LIFE as being the main purpose. WORK only plays a supporting role.
Keynes’ Prediction
John Maynard Keynes predicted in a short essay entitled Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1931) that in 100 years hence people would only need to work 15 hours per week (as opposed to about 48 hours/week in the 1930ies, i.e. a drop to less than a 1/3). He was right and wrong at the same time. On the one hand, we still work about 35–40 hour weeks in Europe and most parts of the world. However, since life expectancy has increased significantly over the past 100 years, the ratio of total number of hours worked over an entire life span has decreased due to more time spent in retirement. See Nicholas Craft’s The 15-Hour Week: Keynes’s Prediction Revisited for more details.
One important aspect why the working hours have only dropped to about 3/4 compared to the 1930ies is the fact that in order being able to enjoy leisure in retirement, personal assets have to be accumulated over an intense working life with say 40h/week, at least in our current economic system. An alternative model is conceivable for a stationary society but probably difficult to obtain in an evolving world. In a steady state economy governed by a “generation contract” the working generation could support the retired generation, directly, like in an utopian society depicted by Edward Belamy in Looking backward: 2000–1887.
Evolution of the Work/Life Ratio
As a thought experiment, let’s assume an economic system, a society, at a certain state of production and consumption, with a certain amount of goods and services; all that needs a certain amount of WORK, resources and energy as an input, and affords all members of that society a certain standard of living, including LIFE time in the above sense. Further assume that through some innovation and investment, everything else being equal, labour productivity is increased such that less WORK will be needed to generate the same output. Less WORK entails:
- less salary expenses and higher margins for the owners of productive assets, and a return on investments for investors,
- smaller work force, some job losses, unemployment increases, lower purchasing power, lower demand, etc.
This incremental change in labour productivity will cause a certain danger of an economic contraction and downwards spiral. It could be compensated in various ways:
- invest all gains further in the of production of new products in combination with an instigation of consumption through more advertising. The generation of new economic output has to compensate the productivity gain in order to keep the system stable, the foundation of a growth-based economic system;
- share the gains from labour productivity across the entire society such that freed up labour time WORK is converted to human time LIFE yielding a better LIFE/WORK ratio. However, at this moment I cannot quite see how that could technically work unless all investment is carried out by a societal entity, perhaps on a global scale.
In reality, and in the past, there was a combination of both which afforded Western societies an increase in the LIFE/WORK ratio. In view of a planet with finite resources, however, the contribution for material economic growth to allow part (1) is limited and bound to decrease. Different economic models will be needed to allow growth in human activities relying mostly on part (2). Consequently, any labour productivity gain will be converted into an increase in the LIFE/WORK ratio. Only little work may be required to maintain the material status quo, or in Keynes’ words:
We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while.
Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren continues to predict a state of the economy when “problems of economic necessity have been practically removed”; then mankind can focus on purely human activities and “We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well.“ Again, given limited resources on a finite planet, this state will not be a choice but a necessity and reminds me again of Edward Belamy’s social utopia from 1887.
