Is Working Less the Solution to Being "Workless"?

Louise Tarrant argues less work is not weakness, but a sign of prosperity and a necessity to the coming automation.


Louise Tarrant, a union representative of United Voice members, wants us to work less so we can create work for those who don't have it. However, she believes we need to create a new social contract to help us see the value of less work.

Her paper outlines several pivotal points in history where citizens demanded better, like an 8-hour work day and a 5-day work week. But in our modern society, people still toil for 40 hours or more a week with no guaranteed boost in their quality of life. As Godfrey Moase, the Assistant General Branch Secretary at the National Union of Workers in Melbourne, Australia, said in his own essay for the Green Institute series, “We live within a broken system where there is no necessary connection between hard work and wealth.”

Many believe Universal Basic Income could be a great tool for talking about how we solve many of those inequality issues. However, Tarrant is somewhat ambivalent in how Universal Basic Income will play a role in the future of our society. She’s sees it more as a means by which to create less work for more people. Her main argument for less work has been the point of many: the rise of automation.

Jobs automation has so far moved in two waves since the 19th century: replacing the unpleasant and dangerous, replacing the dull, and soon we'll have AI capable of replacing employees who make decisions. Jobs are set to slide as our technology advances. 

"Compare 1990 when the top three carmakers in Detroit had a market capitalisation of $36 billion and 1.2 million employees to 2014 when the top three firms in Silicon Valley, with a market capitalisation of over $1 trillion, had only 137,000 employees," writes Tarrant. "That’s thirty times the value and one tenth the workforce!"

In America, the loss of jobs has hit the heartland the most. Many believe it is a significant factor in Trump’s electoral victory. Would those people be content with working fewer hours, sustained by a base UBI?

Here are a few of Tarrant's proposals to curtail hours:

  • Cap maximum hours—although this would disproportionally impact male workers as they currently work longer hours;

  • Have a more flexible approach to shorter hours—but this is more likely to increase wage inequality as it likely favours highly skilled and senior positions;

  • Cut the number of working days in a week. Utah recently trialled a four-day week for government workers and, although the trial has since ended, it was liked by the workers and had appreciable and varied impacts from lowering the carbon footprint and reducing commute times to improving health outcomes for the workers involved; or

  • Cut the hours worked per day. Sweden is trialling six-hour shifts in a few places. Early indications are that, like the Canadian Mincome trial of the 1970s, improved health and reduced use of medical services is a noted feature of the trial to date. 

    Find a balancing act between those in society who feel chronically overworked and those who are under- or unemployed seems noble and essential. Tarrant's preference for dividing the remaining labor opportunities rather than phasing out the human work force altogether is rooted in the idea that people want to work. Receiving a cash stipend may not result in mass idleness, as many fear, but may only have an "incredibly modest effect".

    Influential British economist John Maynard Keynes viewed reductions in paid working hours optimistically, interpreting such a trend as a sign of great societal advancement. "He projected that the standard of living of the western world would multiply at least four times between 1930 and 2030, by which time people would be working just 15 hours a week," writes Tarrant.

       

     

    Stand up against religious discrimination – even if it’s not your religion

    As religious diversity increases in the United States, we must learn to channel religious identity into interfaith cooperation.

    Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
    • Religious diversity is the norm in American life, and that diversity is only increasing, says Eboo Patel.
    • Using the most painful moment of his life as a lesson, Eboo Patel explains why it's crucial to be positive and proactive about engaging religious identity towards interfaith cooperation.
    • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
    Keep reading Show less

    The biggest threat to America? Americans.

    Pulitzer Prize-winner Jared Diamond explains why some nations make it through epic crises and why others fail.

    Videos
    • "A country is not going to resolve a national crisis unless it acknowledges that it's in a crisis," says Jared Diamond. "If you don't, you're going to get nowhere. Many Americans still don't recognize today that the United States is descending into a crisis."
    • The U.S. tends to focus on "bad countries" like China, Canada and Mexico as the root of its problems, however Diamond points out the missing piece: Americans are generating their own problems.
    • The crisis the U.S. is experiencing is not cause for despair. The U.S. has survived many tragedies, such as the War of Independence and the Great Depression – history is proof that the U.S. can get through this current crisis too.
    Keep reading Show less

    10 new things we’ve learned about death

    If you don't want to know anything about your death, consider this your spoiler warning.

    Culture & Religion
    • For centuries cultures have personified death to give this terrifying mystery a familiar face.
    • Modern science has demystified death by divulging its biological processes, yet many questions remain.
    • Studying death is not meant to be a morbid reminder of a cruel fate, but a way to improve the lives of the living.
    Keep reading Show less

    Where the evidence of fake news is really hiding

    When it comes to sniffing out whether a source is credible or not, even journalists can sometimes take the wrong approach.

    Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
    • We all think that we're competent consumers of news media, but the research shows that even journalists struggle with identifying fact from fiction.
    • When judging whether a piece of media is true or not, most of us focus too much on the source itself. Knowledge has a context, and it's important to look at that context when trying to validate a source.
    • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
    Keep reading Show less