how the workaholic grindset ate our future

Futurists and economists predicted that by now, we'd grind less, innovate more, and have time to enjoy more of our lives. So, what happened?

In 1930, economist John Maynard Keynes dreamed that rapid industrialization and the leaps being made in automation would mean that by 2030, we’d have a 15 hour work week to make ends meet. His prediction didn’t exactly pan out, and unless there’s an economic apocalypse on the horizon in the next four and a half years, we’ll continue working around 43 hours per week, and the slight downward trend in our hours lately is mostly thanks to mass burnout.

So, what gives? Why is it that in the age of AI, robots, and space travel we still need to spend so much time and effort doing things that we kept saying should be automated as middle management and higher are trapped in endless buzzword exchanges?

Even worse, studies show that four day work weeks are actually even more productive than traditional ones, and limiting work to just four hours a day will make workers even more productive because it gives them a tight deadline, leaves zero time for idle, time-wasting chit-chat and inefficiencies, and dangles more free time as a reward.

I’d say a universal four hour workday is definitely not going to fly in many places, but it goes to show that a lot of our assumptions about people’s workdays and incentives is wrong, especially when it comes to corporate offices which are very good at finding a lot of data that looks like it supports a decision management already made despite all the evidence to the contrary. For example, how collaborative and productive are open offices we were all told would be the peak of innovation and cultural cohesion?

On top of that, universal basic income, which often comes up when we discuss how to keep people afloat past the point of critical job automation, don’t reduce anyone’s urge to do something productive while giving the recipients mental and material relief. People participating in studies still worked, in some cases even more than before, but they felt less financially pressured to settle for any job, and could take the time to find a better professional fit, and most likely negotiate better pay.

Any way you cut it, Keynes had the right idea. We don’t need long hours of hustling or grinding as a society. If we wanted to significantly cut core work hours, the data says that we’d be just as productive while having a far better work-life balance and better physical and mental health outcomes. Yet, any discussion about UBI or four day work weeks is almost instantly flooded with furious polemicists screaming that both would end human civilization and collapse economies.

Far too many jobs value presenteeism and how many hours are spent clocked in than compensate for workers’ efficiency and expertise. Despite being told that we’re in the “knowledge economy” for the last 30 years or so, too many companies are still paying people based on an eight hour day.

It doesn’t make sense in most bosses’ minds that they shouldn’t decrease everyone’s salaries by 20% if their company ever goes to a four day week because they may care about creativity and efficiency to get the results they want, but when it comes time to pay, they’re paying for duration of time butts spent in seats. But again, why? Aren’t we supposed to be past this retrograde way of thinking about work, especially work that requires highly specialized knowledge?

We can talk around this in circles and bring up industrialization and factories, religious ideologies around work in the West, late stage capitalism, and toxic hustle culture. But it all comes down to the basic belief of far too many people that we must toil away to a certain standard to prove that we actually deserve to exist. The only exceptions given are if we’re rich and already have all the money we’ll need, or are physically unable to do the toiling. And we’re kinda iffy on the second part.

It really is that simple. The root reason so few in charge are interested in you having a shorter work week or better work-life balance, even though the data we have says it will be a good thing for you and your productivity, is because the old guard don’t think you deserve them.

The deal is that you show up on time, with an ear to ear excrement devouring grin, do as you’re told until you justify that you’re allowed to survive unless you can buy your way out of this, and it’s just the way things are. This feels doubly cruel and regressive in an age where dream jobs are no longer a thing because so many of them are dead ends now, but again, this is what we’re told the deal is and that no modification to it is going to be tolerated for the foreseeable future.

This is also why there’s such deep anger and anxiety in the discourse around the fate of generative AI and the future of automation in general. The reactions wouldn’t be as loud and visceral if people who are constantly told they’re going to be replaced by AI, rightly or wrongly, didn’t have to constantly worry about being left unable to afford to put food in the fridge, keep a roof over their heads, or get basic healthcare.

You’d think that the powers that be would embrace their own talk about innovation or knowledge work, and allow us the breathing room to adapt, experiment, and innovate, but no. In their eyes, we’re lazy bums who can only be trusted to perform under threat of starvation. The proverbial Orphan Crushing Machine needs to keep crushing those orphans and you better make sure more are crushed every quarter, or else you’ll have to scavenge your next meal and hope that weird bump or rash isn’t going to turn into something serious if you just ignore it for a while…