The Paradox of Progress: Why Do We Work So Much in the Age of Technology?
I call for a reevaluation of economic priorities to focus on reducing work hours for enhanced personal well-being and global sustainability
Spain is currently negotiating a possible reduction of the working day, which would be the first since the approval of the 40-hour workweek in 1982. Other European governments, however, have different inspirations, and, for example, Greece has just approved a working day of up to thirteen hours. This contrast reflects different responses to address the central question faced by every society: how much do we need to work and for what purpose?
Work is an essential part of social reproduction, that is, the ability of our species to continue to exist across different generations. For social reproduction to be feasible, humans need to have access to natural resources and energy, which they will use to spend time caring for members of society and producing goods and services to meet their needs. Every society, regardless of its historical institutions, must deal with this issue. The current debate is, therefore, a historical concretion of a permanent discussion throughout human history.
There are two common ways to approach this issue. The first involves accepting the institutions inherent in capitalism, such as the coercion of competition and the continuous drive for capital self-expansion. From this perspective, we are told that if the working class of one country works fewer hours than that of another country, it will lose in the competitive struggle, and the economy will enter a crisis. This discourse has resonated over the past decade in Mediterranean countries, continuously blamed for having lower labor productivity levels than their northern European counterparts. This is the core of the neoliberal discourse and undoubtedly behind the new labor regulations in Greece.
This way of thinking overlooks that productivity does not occur in a vacuum but within specific institutions and that producing summer wines is not the same as producing high-tech aircraft. The problem of low productivity in southern European economies, for example, is mainly related to economic structure and not working hours. Hence, the progressive discourse within this paradigm emphasizes the responsibility of capital, not the workers.
The second way to approach this issue is to abstract from these historical institutions and think about the phenomenon broadly. If one is not too infected by mainstream economic logic, one can and should wonder how it is possible that, with the technological advances made in the last fifty years, working conditions remain basically the same or even worse. Productivity gains have gone to corporate profits, while much of those profits have been diverted to create bubbles in markets, such as housing, making daily life even harder for the working class. It is evident that something is wrong in a system that leads to such outcomes. Especially because it would technically be viable for most people to live much better while working significantly fewer hours. But why have we taken this path as a society?
Some pre-modern societies celebrated technical progress as a blessing that allowed them to work less. The economic reason behind this is quite simple to understand: a technological innovation led to an increase in production per hour of work (productivity), so the same production could be generated in less time. Technical progress opened up possibilities for the liberation of humans from the hard work necessary to meet their societies' needs.
It was with the advent of capitalism that it became common to interpret technical progress differently, as a way to generate more production with the same amount of work time. Now that human society increasingly delegated to an abstract institution like the market the decision on how to use the economic surplus, the hamster wheel of economic growth imposed itself everywhere. Every technological innovation would be subjected to the capital valorization process, which basically meant that more goods were produced to produce even more goods. That was the ultimate goal of every capitalist society.
Economic growth, with its continuous reinvestment of profits, also brought an increase in material well-being and new and more surprising technological advances. Although not all of society benefited equally, it is undeniable that average living conditions in the 21st century are much better than they were in the 16th century. Consequently, this optimism led many authors to predict the reduction of working hours.
In fact, both Marx and Keynes, although from very different angles, predicted that future societies would require less working time. Marx, who envisioned a socialist society, spoke of the growing sphere of the realm of freedom concerning the realm of necessity as a consequence of replacing capitalism with a system focused on meeting needs rather than pursuing profits. Keynes, reflecting within the coordinates of capitalism, predicted that technological advances would allow his grandchildren's society to work only up to 12 hours a week. Both, in any case, knew that the determining factor of working hours was political in nature: the correlation of forces between capital and labor. A greater presence of trade unions meant greater pressure to reduce working hours. There was no automatic mechanism involved, but both envisioned a future where society worked (much) less.
As we well know, these optimistic predictions have not come true. Although working hours have been reduced in the most developed countries over the past century, the working day remains very high compared to what Marx and Keynes imagined. Additionally, there are countless additional nuances. For example, for women, the legal reduction of working hours has not translated into a reduction in their working time as caregiving tasks (child-rearing, housework, etc.) often fall on their shoulders.
The contemporary debate on work automation and the risks of artificial intelligence can be framed within this scheme. For example, it is very difficult to find optimistic proposals, in the style of Marx and Keynes, regarding the impact of future technological innovations. Most analyses are somber, inviting us to evaluate the impact of these technologies on unemployment. At best, there are analyses that remind us that, although some jobs will be destroyed, many others will be created, as has happened over the past two hundred years. But it is rare to hear voices that rethink the system from its foundations and propose ideas that reconcile technological innovation with the reduction of working hours.
In conclusion, the paradox of technological progress forces us to profoundly reexamine our priorities as a society. It is not simply about being more productive or adapting to new technologies but about redefining the very purpose of our economies. In a world facing an unprecedented ecosocial crisis, reducing working hours is not only a matter of personal well-being but an imperative need for global sustainability. We must transition from a society obsessed with unlimited growth to one that values the balance between work, leisure, and caring for the planet. This paradigm shift would not only allow us to live better while working less but could be the key to ensuring a viable future for future generations. True progress, ultimately, will be measured by our ability to maintain social reproduction. The path to this is to create a fairer, more sustainable society with time to live.