OP-ED: Less work, more leisure
When it comes to “doing nothing,” my wife and I are complete opposites. I am never happier than when my calendar reveals that the entire day is my own with no appointments or planned activities. Spending the day finishing a novel, watching a Netflix documentary, and taking a nap are leisure activities not to be taken lightly.
Though rarer for my wife, when her calendar is empty, she seeks to fill it with activities requiring work. To her, the thought of finishing an entire day without a labor-intensive accomplishment to look back on is wasteful and difficult to justify. Better to start a new quilt project, bake a peach pie, or wash the bedding and turn the mattresses. It is not lost on me that most of her decisions to undertake tasks that require actual labor are to my benefit.
Neither one of us misses our former employment. We both relish being able to sleep in, the opportunity to complete Wordle late at night, and the ability to plan our activities at our convenience.
However, the timelier topic when it comes to “taking it easy” is not how older retirees spend their idle time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, there has been a vigorous debate on the need for humans to work versus the benefits of time away from their jobs. With the pandemic and onset of artificial intelligence (AI), the debate has been revived with renewed vigor.
Is it possible to work fewer hours and continue to earn similar salaries that increase with inflation? Will more leisure time during our work years help us to gain happiness and unleash our creativity?
For some answers, I decided to turn to an essay written by Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness. Russell (1872-1970) was a well-respected British philosopher, mathematician, and public intellectual who often commented on the changes that occurred as the world transformed from an agrarian society into an industrial one. The essay first appeared in Harper’s Magazine in 1932 and gained greater circulation in a book of his essays published in 1935.
Russell believed that industrial society had the capacity to liberate itself from excess labor. “I think that there is far too much work done in the world, that immense harm is caused by the belief that work is virtuous.”
He begins his essay by unknowingly making an argument that debunks a MAGA talking point, that immigrants take income away from American workers. “What a man earns he usually spends and in spending he gives employment. As long as a man spends his income, he puts as much bread into peoples’ mouths in spending as he takes out of other peoples’ mouths in earning.”
Russell gives some history illuminating the myths used to demand hard work from the masses. “The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich. In England, in the early nineteenth century fifteen hours was the ordinary days’ work for a man; children sometimes did as much, and very commonly did twelve hours a day. When meddlesome busy-bodies suggested that these hours were rather long, they were told that work kept adults from drink and children from mischief.”
The heart of the essay makes a case that leisure time is important for the intellectual and cultural development of a society. Before the industrial revolution, “Leisure for the few was only rendered possible by the labors of the many.” Russell believed that the wealthy and nobility had the time and resources to develop the advances of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment only because the rest of the population were working themselves to death.
Russell realized that the technology of the industrial age was about to bring about profound change. He concluded by arguing that the benefits of technological progress should be shared by everyone so that there was a more equitable distribution of leisure time. This would allow all citizens to pursue knowledge, arts, and personal enrichment.
Since Russell’s essay, World War II, strong unions, child labor laws, and increases in the minimum wage have improved working conditions and income. However, American workers continue to struggle with work-life balance. According to a recent time management survey, “66% of Americans claim not to have balance, 48% say they are workaholics, and 77% have experienced burnout.”
Artificial Intelligence is about to be as disruptive to work as the industrial revolution. The pandemic began the process by showing younger workers they could accomplish more in less time by working from home. In these early stages of AI, a study by software maker SAP found that on average, workers save an hour a day. As AI productivity keeps improving, employers will need to permit their staff to reallocate the saved time to personal development and leisure activities.
Bestselling author, leading sociologist, and economist Juliet Schor makes the case for a four-day work week in her new book, “Four Days a Week.” She believes that AI has opened the door to a world in which a four-day work week with a five-day salary is possible. She points out that the added benefits of reduced carbon admissions and improved quality of life make the transition a no-brainer for employers and employees alike.
With AI, workers will do more in less time. Who knows how many poets, painters, and future Bertrand Russells will bloom during the increased leisure hours?
Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.