Anna Coote is Head of Social Policy at nef.
Imagine a new ‘standard’ working week of 21 hours. Not 35 hours, or a four-day week, but 21 hours or its equivalent spread across the calendar year.
How would it feel to wake up on a chilly February morning? More time in bed, more time with the kids, more time to read, see your mum, hang out with friends, repair the guttering, make music, fix lunch, walk in the park. Whatever you need or want to do.
Economist John Maynard Keynes hoped that by 2000, we'd be working 15 hour weeks.
Outlandish? Well, it’s less radical than the vision of John Maynard Keynes. He imagined a 15-hour week by the beginning of the 21st century, because he thought we’d no longer have to work long hours to satisfy our material needs.
His forecast was wrong, not least because our definition of material needs has grossly expanded. In fact, the ‘normal’ working week lengthened in the last decades of the 20th century, with two-adult households adding six hours a week to their combined paid workload. Many of us work longer and harder to earn enough to buy what we need (or think we need), to keep or improve our place in the world, or simply to make ends meet. Meanwhile, others have too little employment, or none at all.
But Keynes was right to envisage a need to think differently about how we use and value time. In the 21st century, moving towards much shorter hours of paid employment could be a critical factor in heading off environmental, social and economic catastrophe. In the developed world, most of us are consuming well beyond our economic means, well beyond the limits of the natural world and in ways that ultimately fail to satisfy us.
Economic growth has depended on a volatile mix of depressed wages and escalating material consumption. So workers have borrowed to consume what they cannot afford and now the credit bubble has burst. Politicians are urging us all to shop harder to help the economy recover and grow. Yet natural resources are critically depleted by high-rolling consumerism and the climate clock is ticking. While some of us accumulate more and more material goods, others have less and less of life’s essentials.
We have even managed in our increasingly unequal society to divvy up time as an unequal commodity. Under-employment as well as unemployment is prevalent in low-income groups. Nearly 2.5 million are currently unemployed. Nearly one million worked part-time in the third quarter of 2009, because they could not find a full-time job, a rise of 30,000 over the previous quarter and up 30 per cent since the 2008.
A more equal distribution of working time would have clear environmental benefits. Leading economists are turning their attention to how we can manage with little or no economic growth, on the ground that continuing growth in the developed world cannot be ‘decoupled’ from carbon emissions sufficiently or in time to avoid disastrous climate change. Tim Jackson, Peter Victor and others have identified shorter working hours as one way to reduce labour and output overall without intensifying hardship or widening inequalities: share out the total of paid work more evenly across the population.
A 21-hour working week is a long way from today’s standard of 40 hours or more, but not so far-fetched when you consider the infinitely varied ways in which we actually spend our time. On average, people of working age spend 19.6 hours a week in paid employment and 20.4 hours in unpaid housework and childcare. Of course these averages mask huge inequalities, both between women and men and between income groups – not only in how they use their time, but also in how far they can control it. Bringing the standard nearer to the average could help to iron out these differences.
Moving towards a standard of 21 hours could help to redistribute unpaid as well as paid time – for example by making more jobs available for the unemployed and giving men more time to look after their children.
There’s nothing natural or inevitable about our nine-to-five, five-day week. It’s just a relic of the industrial revolution. It can be changed. When the state of Utah in the US introduced a four-day week for state employees (without reduced hours, but giving everyone a three-day weekend), more than half said they were more productive and three-quarters said they preferred the new arrangements. The State saved $4.1 million through reduced absenteeism and overtime and $1.4 million through reduced travel in state-owned vehicles; it reduced carbon emissions by 4,546 metric tons, other greenhouse gases by 8,000 tons and petrol consumption by 744,000 gallons. 82 per cent of employees said they wanted the one-year experiment to continue.
We could get off the consumer treadmill and leave a smaller footprint on the earth. We could spend less on energy-intensive ‘convenience’ items designed to save us time – from processed foods and household gadgets to cars and airline tickets. We’d have more time to care for friends and family, and to look after our own health. We could leave employment and claim our pensions later, with a much gentler transition to retirement. We’d have more time to keep learning and take part in local activities. We might begin to reassess how we value different kinds of work, regardless of whether or how it is paid. We might give a higher rating to relationships, pastimes and places that absorb less of our money and more of our time.
There could be benefits for business too, with more women in paid employment, more men leading rounded, balanced lives, less workplace stress and greater productivity hour for hour. The driving force towards a prosperous economy would no longer be credit-fuelled consumerism, which has proved so destructive, but financial stability and good work distributed fairly across the population.
None of this will be easy to achieve. A lot of people will have to adjust to earning a lot less, but this has to be seen as part of a bigger transition, over a decade or more, that will involve a radical shift in values and expectations. . Everything depends on having the right measures in place to ensure that work is fairly distributed, that everyone has enough to live on, that employers are encouraged to take on more staff, and that public attitudes change to support less materialist lifestyles and a revaluation of paid and unpaid time. These are explored in more detail in our report, 21 Hours.
Social norms that seem to be firmly fixed can sometimes change quite suddenly. Take, for example, attitudes towards slavery and votes for women, wearing seatbelts and crash helmets, not smoking in bars and restaurants. The weight of public opinion can swing from antipathy to routine acceptance, usually when there’s a combination of new evidence, changing conditions, a sense of crisis and a strong campaign. This proposal for a 21-hour working week is intended as a provocation, to stimulate debate and ideas. It also reflects an urgent need to build a sustainable future. We already have strong supporting evidence, changing conditions that demand a fresh approach and a profound sense of crisis. The campaign starts here.
21 hours: Why a shorter working week can help us all to flourish in the 21st century by Anna Coote, Andrew Simms and Jane Franklin was published on Saturday 13 February 2010.
Vimeo
Twitter
Flickr
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
15 February, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Ali Cavalla
This idea received a very unfavourable response on the BBC’s discussion board. Neglecting the different political standpoints of people there and people here, and the fact that many of the commenters seemed to equate this think tank with the labour party (why?), there were some good points which fuelled the hostility. How would people pay existing mortgages with the cut in wages? Would a large bout of deflation be expected? And what problems might that, in turn, cause?
Also, if people are allowed to work longer hours if they wanted them, would this not just leave many jobs under the same pressure to escalate hours – I don’t see the city culture changing, so we would be left with the same inequality in pay and hours.
15 February, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Joshua Nelson
In colonial time there was a phenomenon of “civilized” men leaving behind their families, jobs, and responsibilities to join the “savages” (native american tribes). The reason cited for this was the better lifestyle led by the natives.
They shared the load of “work” evenly in the tribe, meaning each person helped with the community’s needs for only short amounts of time each day. This allowed everyone to spend more time with family, friends, and living.
A concept similar to this applied to our national work load would likely reap multiple benefits, like you mention in your post.
Good stuff! I look forward to reading the report.
Cheers,
Joshua
16 February, 2010 at 3:36 am
Sandwichman
I don’t agree that the hostility on the BBC site was fueled by “some good points”, as Ali Cavalla above suggests. The issues raised there were about things that the report’s authors acknowledged as problems that needed to be addressed and they suggested ways to address those problems.
No, the hostility was not about rational arguments for and against. I’ve tracked this issue closely for 15 years and I’ve researched 240 years of debate about working time. The opposition to shorter working time comes from a attitude toward “reality” that can tolerate no alternative approach. I believe the expression of the hostility is, paradoxically, a good sign. It means that the objectors are feeling vulnerable about their seemingly “unshakable” beliefs and that the issue touches a real sore spot.
16 February, 2010 at 11:19 am
21 hours working week. Can it help us all to flourish in the 21st century? « Athena
[…] beginning of the 21st century, says Anna Coote, head of social policy at NEF, in her article at the nef triple crunch blog. Keynes thought we’d no longer have to work long hours to satisfy our material needs. “His […]
16 February, 2010 at 4:41 pm
Marjolein
Revolutionary, or just common sense? I agree with the authors perception that the world in general and people in particular would benefit from a shorter work week. I live in one of the wealthiest, healthiest countries in the world, yet most collegues and friends work their ass off. We are one of the lucky people who have to work only a little to survive, and maybe a little bit more to live happy and fulfilled lives, so why work 50, 60 or even 40 hours a week? I am a happy part-timer since the start of my career and can recommend part-timing to anyone.
However, making a 21-hour work week standard, would be better, as part-timers are more expensive to employ and are not seen as ‘ambitious’ as full time employees (which isn’t true, it’s just that I am most ambitious about being happy, and that includes spending time with friends and family and time for hobbies, not just work). A 21-hour week would help reduce greenhouse gases, work stress and improve equality among men and women.
16 February, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Stephen
This is a very interesting idea, but it raises a number of questions:
1) would less hours mean less income for those whose labour is measured on an hourly basis?
2) would less hours to carry out a given amount of work encourage ‘more productivity’ and higher pay rates per hour?
3) would less working hours mean a financial saving for a business or will they still have to pay others to work the saved hours?
4) it is not unknown for 4 day weeks to be used to contractually justify pay cuts, whilst expecting some employees to work the same hours as before?
5) If pay per hour is increased we would be financially better off and wouldn’t need to work as many hours – but this is not what is being argued?
Steve
16 February, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Mike Gottschalk
I too am interested in the idea and look forward to more discussion here with an eye to bring the conversation to the states.
17 February, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Anna Coote
Almost all the people who have objected to the idea of moving to a much shorter working week have done so on the ground that it would make it too hard to manage financially – to pay the mortgage and feed the family. Fair enough. Our report, ’21 Hours’, does acknowledge the problem and explore ways of ensuring that everyone has a fair living income. We are not calling for sudden or imposed change, but for a slow shift across a decade or more. Wage increments can gradually be exchanged for shorter hours. There should be time to adjust incentives for employers, to discourage overtime, reduce costs per employee, to improve flexibility in ways that suit employees, and to extend training to offset skills shortages. There must also be time to phase in a higher minimum wage and more progressive taxation, to change people’s expectations, and to adjust to low-carbon lifestyles that absorb more time and less money.
.
17 February, 2010 at 7:11 pm
David Usher
Many years ago I worked a 21 hour week. Actually it was 21 hours class contact, 30 hours on site and 38 weeks a year. It was the Burnham contract for Technical College Lecturers. It was the most efficient way of working I have ever been involved in. Of course it could not last and it went. So did I fortunately, but it seems that all the expected gains from working a ‘proper’ week never materialised.
I was amazed for find that NEF arrived at 21 hours a week. I though my idea for 26 hours a week, based on the what actually people did was revolutionary thinking.
I really first learnt this truth 40 years ago when I went to work in a large factory. Women who only worked mornings did not have a productivity rate half of those who worked a full day. Rather than 50% of a full days output they generally produced nearer 60%/70%. This was not a simple production line. They were pushing coils into medium sized industrial electric motors – and were better than the men. Something else I learnt; if you want real productivity gains only employ women.
Of course the present time based approach is ridiculous in a changing world. Also we cannot go on producing and consuming forever. Knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing is the present scenario.
Pleased you put out this report and it got onto Today as I found out about the NEF. Sorry I cannot afford to buy a bond at the moment.
23 February, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Nelson Muntz would have liked the Robin Hood Campaign « Freethinking Economist
[…] I think nef would like the anti-consumerist logic given […]
25 February, 2010 at 11:29 am
raidenslair
In a global economy we work to stay competitive not for our basic needs.
12 March, 2010 at 12:16 am
JB
I think this is a brilliant idea; first found out about this in the Guardian Weekly and then found it on the web via google. I live and work in Alaska’s Native and rural communities where we are under a constant barrage of encouragement to “join the main stream”… what this translates into for most of our people is low paid wage work with frequent unemployment and little chance of advancement. In our mixed economy subsistence-based communities people can actually live better with a combination of part time work and hunting trapping and fishing than they can by trying to get fulltime wage work which is often non-existent. This leaves more time for all of the things the authors mentioned and leaves a much lighter foot-print on the earth. If the 21 hour work week is the wave of the future I hope we can bypass all the workforce development efforts to turn our people into fodder for a system that is failing, by pass all that and concentrate on making 21 hours be just right.