In 1930 John Maynard Keynes wrote an essay entitled ‘The economic possibilities for our grandchildren.’ In it he looks forward to the great improvements that would be brought about by accumulated decades of economic growth. In particular, he envisaged a dramatic shortening of the working week.
In a challenging article for Aeon, John Quiggin summarises Keynes’ argument:
Now, that we’re 83 years into that century of economic growth, how close are we to that fifteen hour working week? The answer to that, as you may have noticed, is not very:
Of course, there is an important distinction to be made between trends in the length of the working week for working people and the total number of non-working hours in the population as a whole. If progress on the former has stalled, there’s been a continuing increase in the latter:
In other words, instead of shortening the working week, the number of non-working hours made possible by economic growth has gone to supporting the ever-expanding retired population, the rise of the workless underclass and, one might add, the expansion of higher education.
So how might we achieve a more equal distribution of leisure time? John Quiggin’s answer is more state intervention:
Oh dear. Was it the market that created a tax and benefits system that traps people in a culture of dependency? Was it the private sector that allowed early retirement on public sector pensions? Was it big business that decided to expand higher education with so little regard to the relevance of the qualifications thus provided?
No, all of those decisions were taken by governments. Therefore, one may well doubt whether giving the state even more power is the best way forward.