Wealth and Work: How Increased Prosperity Fuels Longer Hours

The relationship between wealth and work has become a contentious issue, with recent analyses suggesting that increased prosperity does not lead to reduced working hours as once predicted. A report from Ireland’s Department of Finance indicates that workers are now averaging two fewer hours per week compared to pre-pandemic levels, but this trend raises questions about the evolving nature of work and its implications for employee well-being.

In his 1930 essay, “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” economist John Maynard Keynes forecasted that by 2030, living standards in affluent countries would rise significantly, leading to a drastic reduction in working hours. He envisioned that people would work only 15 hours per week, a return to the leisurely hours of preschool. Ironically, the only segment of the global workforce that has achieved such a work-life balance are those in oil-rich nations like the Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, where typical working days are reportedly just three to four hours.

Despite Keynes’s optimistic predictions, the reality for most workers has not aligned with his vision. Average working hours have remained largely unchanged since his time, with many individuals working longer hours than ever before. Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University, highlights that American workers, for instance, typically work 30 percent more hours than their European counterparts, despite having a GDP per capita that is 30-40 percent higher than countries like France and Germany.

Freeman notes a significant shift in the labour landscape, stating, “The workaholic rich replaced the idle rich. Those earning higher pay worked more hours than those earning lower pay.” This transformation contradicts Keynes’s assumption that as people become wealthier, they would naturally choose to work less. Instead, the modern workforce exhibits a complex attachment to work, driven by factors such as status, social connections, and personal achievement.

The economic pressures faced by many further complicate this narrative. In numerous households, two incomes have become a necessity to manage living expenses, including rent, utilities, and groceries. The report from Ireland suggests that the reduction in working hours may be linked to an increase in remote work, yet flexible working arrangements alone do not account for the overall decline in hours across various sectors.

While some argue that the current work environment has led to slacking off, others assert that these changes represent a significant shift in work patterns that could enhance job satisfaction and encourage greater participation, particularly among women. The report’s findings reveal that the decrease in hours worked is widespread, affecting nearly all sectors of the economy, even those requiring on-site presence.

There is the possibility that the data, based on self-reported employee hours, may not accurately reflect reality. Some surveys indicate that average working hours have remained constant, leaving many to question why so many individuals feel overwhelmed and burnt out. Possible contributing factors include household workload, longer commute times, and an “always-on” work culture that blurs the lines between professional and personal time.

As society continues to grapple with the implications of wealth on work-life balance, it is evident that the equation is more complex than Keynes envisioned. The future of work will likely require a reevaluation of traditional metrics and a deeper understanding of the human factors that drive our relationship with employment.