#21-hours

It’s January 1974 and the United Kingdom is in chaos.

Inflation is soaring... buoyed by rising energy prices... due to limited coal supply… because the miners are striking.

So what does the Prime Minister do?

He announces a three-day working week.

Uh-oh.  

Within two-months a new government is brought in and a deal is struck with the coal miners.

Sigh of relief. We can now get back to our wonderful five-day working lives.

The wrong decision.

Later, analysts found that output had only fallen 6% for a 40% reduction in working time. The increase in production came from improved productivity (fewer fag breaks) and reduced absenteeism (fewer ‘sickies’ pulled).

So if a three-day working week resulted in superior productivity in 1974 why shouldn’t we adopt one in 2016?

The New Economics Foundation (NEF) published a paper encouraging each of us to work a flexible 21-hour week. If you have time I urge you each to read the paper in full and I’m going to cover some of the key points here.

The benefits of working a 21-hours week, they argue, would radiate from workers into society. Leading to greater equality, a healthier planet and stronger economies. Not bad for working less.

The present is not sustainable

Over the last 100 years, the carbon price for one economic output has decreased. That is to say it is now less demanding on the environment to produce stuff. Great! But as the carbon price of production as fallen, the human population has grown… and grown... and grown. Which means we’re consuming more than ever. And even though the carbon price is falling, if we’re to meet emissions targets by 2050 we can’t keep growing the economy through greater consumption and if that doesn’t work, how can we raise tax revenue to pay for core services such as education and health care.

NEF argue that reducing our paid working hours, therefore increasing our unpaid hours, would allow us to refocus tax revenues whilst unpaid work would become more prominent. And unpaid work isn’t directly tied to where ‘the markets’ need resources. Our rediscovery of time gives us each huge potential.

A healthier planet

First, imagine for a second instead of working a 5-day work week with 8-hour days, you work a 3-day work week with 7-hour days (21-hours/week). You’ll only be making 40% fewer trips to work. That’s 40% less time stuck in traffic. That’s 40% less in fuel costs. That’s a 40% extension on the lifetime of your car.

Secondly, let’s get realistic. We will be making less money. Shock! The NEF isn’t proposing we keep the same income for less hours. This is actually a good thing. Here’s why:

As any minimalist will tell you, life gets better with less. With smaller incomes we’ll have to stretch what we do have further. We’ll reassess what is important and our focus will change. With smaller incomes we won’t be able to consume at the same levels we’re used to. We won’t buy as many clothes and we’ll repair our TV sets instead of buying new ones. Reducing our rate of stripping mother nature of her finite resources.

Thirdly, with more time out of work we’ll be able to spend it on activities to live more sustainably. As the NEF writes, we’ll be able to detach ourselves from the economic systems that keep us tied in the consumer/convenience loop.

Many of the ‘consumer choices’ we make are in the name of convenience. We buy processed food, ready-meals, pre-prepared and packaged vegetables, motorised vehicles, airline tickets, and a range of electric appliances because they are supposed to save us time. Most of these purchases involve a lot of energy, carbon, and waste. If we spent much less time earning money, we would have more time to live differently, and less need to purchase for the sake of convenience. We could grow, prepare, and cook more of our own food; repair things more often rather than replace them; travel more slowly on foot, bicycles, buses, or trains. We could learn more practical skills, make more things ourselves and generally become less dependent on energy-intensive technologies.

Fairer society

Arguably the biggest benefit of fewer working hours (outside of the immediate benefits to the individual) is the benefit to others.

Shorter working weeks have the greatest impact on two types of worker: the overworked and the unemployed. Overworked employees will of course work less under these proposals. It’s also no secret that overworked employees are at a greater risk of stress related illnesses than those who do not work such intensive hours. Conversely, the benefits of being in some kind of work are great (work provides an income, purpose and generates feeling of self-worth) – all of which unemployed people may not find elsewhere. Shorter working weeks would require businesses to hire more staff if, for example, they wanted to maintain the same opening hours or output. Introducing policies to support a shorter working week would create many more jobs for the unemployed and simultaneously free up overworked employees overnight.

For our average worker, their newly discovered free time would give them more opportunity to care for other people: to look after elderly relatives or spend more time with their children. The elderly are particularly susceptible to loneliness. People would be able to spend time with their lonely relatives and neighbours. Similarly, if we were given more time to look after our children we wouldn’t need pay people to look after them (protecting our smaller incomes).

Additionally, some services are undersupplied in our society for the very poor – law advice, medical advice or financial services are some examples. Freeing up professionals from their handcuffs to the very rich would allow them to offer their services across the income spectrum through voluntary programmes or charities. Also the opportunities for skill-swaps become more viable.

An economy for society (not a society for an economy)

NEF’s proposals would switch the relationship between society/environment and the economy. Currently we’re here to service the economy. We’re squished into unfulfilling jobs for a wage that supports and drives our consumption. Lowering our working hours would adapt market economies to the needs of the society and the environment – the way they should be – developing resilient economies that are focused on products and services that deliver greater value for society with less environmental cost.

How can this be achieved...

A combination of higher employment, lower working hours and higher hourly wages would establish a great economic equality. “More equal societies tend to be more successful and to have stronger economies”.

Suppressed wages, unemployment and easy access to credit has spiralled individual (and governmental) borrowing out of our control. We’ve seen how destructive irresponsible borrowing can be (sub-prime lending anyone?). Resilient future economies cannot be built on continued consumerism (finite resources are going to be a huge limitation). So how can we ensure resilience? Greater equality.

Finally, as we saw with the UK’s three-day working week in the 70s. Shorter working hours leads to greater productivity (hour for hour).

Where do I sign up? The benefits outlined by NEF for a 21-hour working week capture the imagination. What would society look like if we were all minimalists? Pretty damn good from their proposals. Of course, there would be transitional problems moving to a 21-hour week (and they discuss them in the paper).