John Maynard Keynes predicted in 1930 that people would eventually only need to work 15 hours a week. It is almost 100 years later and people are working more than ever and in many cases that is still not enough. The cost of living continues to rise as wage growth has heavily stagnated over the 50 past years. Things are so difficult that in many nations, populations are shrinking because people can’t afford to have children. How did our automated and blissful future slip away?
Chat GPT
Keyens future vs reality
That’s a really deep and important question. Keynes’s famous 1930 essay Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren imagined that technological progress and productivity growth would eventually allow humans to meet their material needs with very little labor—freeing up time for leisure, culture, and personal fulfillment. And indeed, productivity has skyrocketed since then. A worker today produces many multiples of what a worker in 1930 could. But instead of Keynes’s “15-hour week,” we still largely live in a world of long hours, insecure jobs, and persistent financial stress.
There are a few big reasons why this future “slipped away”:
1. Unequal distribution of productivity gains
- Since the 1970s, productivity in advanced economies has continued to grow, but wages for most workers have stagnated.
- The benefits of automation, financialization, and globalization were captured disproportionately by capital owners, executives, and shareholders.
- Instead of reducing hours for everyone, rising profits were reinvested or distributed upwards.
2. Work as identity and control
- In many cultures, especially in the U.S., work became tied to social worth, identity, and morality (“the Protestant work ethic,” hustle culture, etc.).
- Governments and corporations reinforced this by normalizing full-time employment as the route to healthcare, pensions, and basic security.
- Even when technology could reduce labor, employers often demanded more productivity per worker rather than fewer hours.
3. Consumerism and rising expectations
- Keynes assumed that once basic needs were met, people would stop striving for more. Instead, new products, lifestyles, and social comparisons created endless demand.
- Marketing and cultural norms fuel desires for larger homes, new technologies, and “keeping up with the Joneses,” meaning the productivity dividend was consumed rather than translated into leisure.
4. Policy choices
- Strong unions in the mid-20th century successfully fought for higher wages and shorter workweeks. But after the 1970s, labor power weakened.
- Governments shifted towards neoliberal policies—deregulation, austerity, privatization—reducing social safety nets and leaving individuals more financially exposed.
- Without coordinated policy, reducing work hours never became a collective outcome.
5. The cost of essentials
- Housing, education, and healthcare costs have outpaced inflation and wages in many countries. Even with higher productivity, people feel they must work more to cover basics.
- This pressure directly contributes to declining fertility rates: raising children feels economically impossible for many.
6. Demographic and geopolitical dynamics
- Keynes was writing in an era when population growth and industrial expansion were taken for granted.
- Today, aging populations, climate pressures, and global inequalities complicate the idea of smooth, universal prosperity.
👉 In short: technology gave us the capacity for Keynes’s dream, but political, cultural, and economic structures diverted the benefits. Instead of using progress to buy time, we used it to generate more growth, more consumption, and more inequality.
Would you like me to sketch a sort of counterfactual timeline—what policies or choices could have steered us closer to Keynes’s 15-hour week?
Claude
Keynes’ Broken Work Week Promise
Keynes’ prediction in “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren” was based on a reasonable extrapolation of the productivity gains he was witnessing, but several key assumptions proved incorrect or incomplete.
What Keynes got right: Technological progress did dramatically increase productivity. We can produce far more goods and services per hour of labor than people could in 1930. In that sense, his core insight about technological capability was accurate.
Where the prediction went wrong:
The productivity gains didn’t translate into proportional reductions in working hours because of how economic and social systems evolved. Instead of choosing more leisure time, societies largely chose higher material living standards. What counted as “necessities” expanded enormously – from basic shelter and food to cars, electronics, healthcare, education, and countless services that didn’t exist in 1930.
Income inequality also grew significantly in many developed countries starting in the 1970s. While overall wealth increased, much of it concentrated among higher earners, meaning median workers didn’t see productivity gains reflected proportionally in their wages or purchasing power.
The modern economy shifted toward services and knowledge work, where productivity gains are often harder to achieve and measure compared to manufacturing. A teacher, therapist, or restaurant server can’t easily become 10x more productive through automation.
Housing costs in particular have outpaced wages in many areas due to zoning restrictions, land use policies, and speculation, creating affordability pressures that force people to work more just to maintain their standard of living.
The demographic challenge you mention reflects these economic pressures – raising children has become extraordinarily expensive relative to median incomes, particularly when factoring in housing, healthcare, and education costs.
Keynes essentially predicted the supply side correctly (our ability to produce abundance) but underestimated how demand, inequality, and institutional structures would evolve. The potential for his vision still exists, but realizing it would require deliberate policy choices about work-sharing, distribution, and what we collectively value as necessary for a good life.
Chat GPT
Keynes’s Lost Leisure Prediction
John Maynard Keynes’s 1930 prediction of a 15-hour workweek did not come true primarily because of a fundamental shift in priorities away from leisure and toward increased consumption. While technological advancements have indeed boosted productivity, the gains haven’t been translated into more free time for most people. Instead, they’ve fueled an insatiable desire for material goods and a higher standard of living.
In many ways, the “blissful future” was simply a miscalculation of human nature and economic incentives.
Why the Prediction Slipped Away 🕰️
The Individual vs. The System: The system is designed to reward productivity and continuous growth. Businesses that choose to prioritize leisure over production are often outcompeted by those that don’t. This creates a powerful, self-perpetuating dynamic where individuals feel immense pressure to work long hours to stay ahead, even if they would personally prefer more free time. The benefits of automation often flow to those who own the capital (the robots, the software, etc.), rather than being distributed to the workers whose jobs are made more productive or even obsolete.
The Vicious Cycle of Productivity and Consumption: Keynes assumed that once people’s basic needs were met, they would prioritize leisure. However, as productivity rose, so did our aspirations. Instead of working less for the same amount of stuff, people chose to work the same or more to acquire more. The “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality and the constant introduction of new goods created an endless treadmill of consumption.
Stagnant Wages and Rising Costs: Since the 1970s, a growing gap has emerged between productivity and wage growth.
This means that while workers are producing more value per hour, their paychecks have not kept pace. This has been driven by a number of factors, including the decline of labor unions, globalization, and policy choices that have favored corporate profits over worker compensation. Simultaneously, the cost of essential goods and services like housing, healthcare, and education has skyrocketed, forcing people to work longer hours just to maintain their standard of living.The Nature of Work Itself: The shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service and information-based one has changed the dynamic of work. Many modern jobs, particularly those that are skill-intensive and knowledge-based, are not easily measured by output per hour. This has led to a culture of “busyness” and long hours, where overwork can be seen as a sign of dedication and value.
Leave a Reply