Why We Still Work So Much: The Case for a Four-Day Workweek

Introduction

Almost a century ago, the famed economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030, technological advancements would reduce our workweek to just 15 hours. While his optimism was grounded in the rapid growth of productivity due to automation, computers, and communications, this vision has not materialized. Despite unprecedented gains in productivity, most people today work nearly as many hours as workers did a hundred years ago, with more women joining the workforce as well. So why are we still working so hard, and could a four-day workweek be the solution to this paradox?

This blog post delves deep into the complex reasons behind the persistence of long working hours, the phenomenon of meaningless or “bullshit” jobs, and how recent trials of reduced workweeks hint at a promising future for work-life balance.

---

1. The Keynesian Prediction and Its Reality

1.1 Keynes’ Vision of the Future of Work

John Maynard Keynes, writing during the Great Depression, imagined a future where technological advancements would dramatically reduce the hours people needed to work. He believed that productivity gains would allow a standard of living four to eight times higher than his own time, with people working only three hours a day and spending the rest of their time in leisure.

1.2 What Keynes Got Right

Keynes was remarkably accurate in predicting the growth of productivity and living standards. By 2011, real GDP per person in countries like the UK had increased over fivefold compared to 1931. Technology such as automation, computers, and energy production enabled us to do more with less human labor.

1.3 What Keynes Got Wrong

However, the reduction in working hours has been far less dramatic than Keynes anticipated. After significant reductions in working hours during the mid-20th century, the average worker in developed countries like the US and UK has seen little change in annual hours worked since the 1980s. Moreover, total labor force participation has increased, especially among women, meaning more people are working, even if some work fewer hours individually.

---

2. Why Don’t We Work Less Despite Higher Productivity?

2.1 The Income Effect vs. The Substitution Effect

When wages increase, two opposing forces influence how much people work:

• Income Effect: Higher wages allow individuals to earn the income they need in fewer hours, encouraging more leisure time.
• Substitution Effect: Higher wages also increase the opportunity cost of leisure, incentivizing people to work more hours to maximize earnings.

The substitution effect has proved stronger in recent decades, meaning people choose to work more to sustain rising living standards and consumption habits.

2.2 Rising Consumer Expectations

Technological advancement has not only increased wages but also raised our standards for a “decent life.” Things like dining out, cars, international travel, and home appliances were luxuries in the 1930s but are now seen as necessities by many. This expansion of consumer expectations keeps people working full-time to afford these goods and services.

2.3 The Evolutionary and Cultural Drivers of Work

Humans are biologically and culturally wired to work. Historically, work was essential for survival, and even today, long hours are often seen as a sign of virtue and commitment. Part-time work can be stigmatized, and many people derive their identity from their jobs, reinforcing long work hours despite technological advances.

---

3. The Rise of Meaningless and “Bullshit” Jobs

3.1 What Are Bullshit Jobs?

David Graeber, an anthropologist and author, coined the term “bullshit jobs” to describe roles so pointless that even the people performing them feel their work lacks meaning. These jobs often exist in sectors like consulting, corporate bureaucracy, finance, marketing, and middle management, where outputs are vague, performative, or unnecessary.

3.2 The Prevalence of Job Meaninglessness

Surveys reveal a striking number of workers feel their jobs are meaningless. For instance, over half of UK workers in financial services and retail believe their roles do not contribute meaningfully. Similar sentiments exist in media, advertising, and sales sectors.

3.3 Criticisms of the Bullshit Jobs Theory

Not everyone agrees with Graeber’s concept. Some argue that value is subjective and that if people are paid for their work, it must have demand and meaning. Alternative explanations for feelings of pointlessness include poor workplace culture, lack of recognition, and alienation as described by Marx, rather than the inherent uselessness of the job itself.

3.4 Productivity Theatre and Ghost Working

Many employees engage in “productivity theatre,” pretending to work to fill time and maintain appearances. Studies show a high percentage of workers admit to ghost-working—pretending to be busy while actually doing little productive work—highlighting inefficiencies hidden within office cultures.

---

4. Why Do Inefficiencies and Pointless Work Persist?

4.1 The Challenge of Measuring Individual Productivity

In many office roles, it’s difficult to quantify an employee’s direct contribution to company revenue. Unlike a mechanic fixing a known number of cars, office workers’ outputs are indirect and collaborative, making marginal productivity calculations challenging.

4.2 Perverse Incentives and Time Management

Companies often rely on timesheets and client billing to estimate productivity, incentivizing employees to inflate hours worked. Parkinson’s Law states that work expands to fill the time available, encouraging elongation of tasks to fill work hours rather than optimize efficiency.

4.3 Presence Over Performance Culture

Because it’s hard to measure true output, many workplaces value presence and visible busyness over actual results. This dynamic sustains pointless work and productivity theatre, creating a lose-lose situation where employers pay for unproductive labor and employees feel disengaged.

---

5. The Four-Day Workweek: A Potential Solution

5.1 The Four-Day Workweek Model

Between 2022 and 2024, numerous four-day workweek pilots were conducted worldwide. Most followed the “180-100 rule,” where employees work 80% of the previous hours, receive 100% of their pay, and maintain 100% productivity.

5.2 Results of Four-Day Workweek Pilots

The largest trial in the UK, involving 61 companies and nearly 3,000 workers, showed:

• Productivity stayed the same or increased.
• Revenue remained stable or increased.
• Employee well-being and morale improved.
• Staff turnover and absenteeism decreased.
• Most companies continued the four-day week after the trial.

Similar positive outcomes were observed in other countries.

5.3 How Does the Four-Day Week Work?

Reducing available work time forces employees to eliminate time-wasting and focus on essential tasks. The inability to “fake busyness” means unnecessary meetings, reports, and redundant tasks disappear, leading to more efficient and meaningful work.

---

6. Challenges and Limitations of the Four-Day Workweek

6.1 Sector-Specific Suitability

Not all industries can easily adopt a four-day workweek. Manufacturing and frontline services like healthcare, education, retail, and hospitality require continuous presence and may not sustain output with reduced hours.

6.2 Potential Wage and Inequality Issues

A shift to four-day weeks in some sectors may depress wages due to increased labor supply. It could also deepen inequalities between workers who can reduce hours and those in essential roles who cannot, potentially fueling resentment.

6.3 Practical Concerns and Costs

Squeezing five days’ worth of work into four may require hiring additional staff or paying overtime, increasing costs that businesses may offset by raising prices or lowering wages, potentially causing inflation.

6.4 Selection Bias in Pilot Studies

Companies volunteering for four-day week trials were likely those most suited to succeed, limiting how generalizable results are across all sectors and businesses.

---

7. The Future of Work: Balancing Productivity, Meaning, and Leisure

7.1 Technological Advancements and Automation

Artificial intelligence and ongoing automation promise continued productivity gains, which could eventually free more time for leisure and reduce labor hours, fulfilling Keynes’ original vision.

7.2 The Role of Inertia in Work Patterns

Despite technological progress, work hours have stagnated due to cultural, economic, and institutional inertia. Systematic change requires deliberate policies and organizational willingness to embrace new models like the four-day workweek.

7.3 Lessons from Denmark and Other Countries

Countries like Denmark exemplify how lower working hours coexist with high productivity and wealth, demonstrating that reduced work time can align with economic success and quality of life.

---

Conclusion

Technology has given us the tools to work less and live more fulfilling lives, yet cultural norms, economic incentives, and rising consumption standards keep many chained to long workweeks. Meanwhile, many endure jobs they find meaningless, caught in cycles of productivity theatre and pointless tasks.

The growing evidence from four-day workweek pilots offers hope that a better balance is possible—one where work is more efficient, meaningful, and compatible with well-being. While challenges remain, the path to reduced working hours is no longer a distant dream but a tangible opportunity.

As Keynes foresaw, the future of work should be about freeing time to pursue what truly matters—our passions, relationships, and leisure. It’s time we start seriously rethinking how we work and live in the 21st century.

---

FAQ

Q1: Why did Keynes predict a 15-hour workweek?
A: He believed technological progress would boost productivity so much that people could maintain high living standards with drastically fewer work hours.

Q2: What are “bullshit jobs”?
A: Jobs that workers themselves perceive as pointless or meaningless, often in bureaucratic or administrative roles with little tangible output.

Q3: How does the four-day workweek improve productivity?
A: By limiting available work time, it forces employees to focus on essential tasks and eliminates time-wasting activities.

Q4: Are four-day workweeks feasible for all industries?
A: Not currently. Sectors like healthcare, manufacturing, and retail often require continuous operation, making four-day schedules more challenging.

---

Thank you for reading! If you want to explore how Denmark manages work-life balance with short working hours, check out our related video on that topic. Here’s to working smarter, not harder!