One of the promises of AI that techno-optimists promote is the likelihood that humans won’t need to work much (if any) once these systems get up and running. That sounds great. If I could work 2 hours a day and spend the rest of my time as I wish, I’d probably sell my soul to the overlords.
But obviously it won’t play out this way. Somehow technology never reduces time spent at work, and in fact it generally makes work overflow into the rest of our life. Cell phones have dramatically changed our employer’s ability to reach us at all times. Whereas even 20 years ago, the boss wouldn’t have had a non-awkward way of interrupting what little family time you had in the evenings.
A co-worker and I were speculating on this irony the other day as we finished a workshop with a new software provider we’re using. This software will legitimately save countless hours we currently spend retrieving the same data again and again. And it will put a lot more of the data collection from customers online, so we basically will never have to manually record anything. And yet I’ll be expected to continue working 40 hours a week, and I doubt there will be a noticeable change in our company’s operations. We won’t grow 10% because of this efficiency. It’s just efficiency for the sake of efficiency.
But why can’t I leave early if 25% of my job has now been automated?
I think the main reason is the government has rules around how many hours someone has to work to be considered full time. I don’t know what those rules are, but the bureaucratic regulations that determine who is an employee, how an employee must be treated (if you have X number of employees), what benefits they must be offered, etc. really make it so company’s are disincentivized to experiment with working hours. Instead we get all these obviously dumb policies like unlimited PTO, hybrid or remote work, comp time, etc., that try to achieve the same purpose without doing so. It’s doubtful the employer even knows the regulations, they’re just so worried about getting in trouble that they stick with what hasn’t gotten them in trouble.
Another reason is cultural. At my employer we get off at 1 on Fridays because we work a half hour more each day (another stupid policy since obviously no one is really accomplishing a half hour’s worth of additional work). Literally every time I tell someone this they scoff and say something like “I wish I had a fake job” or “some of us have to actually work at our jobs.” Even though I guarantee if I went to their workplace their time would be split: 50% social media, 20% small talk with other employees, 10% pointless meetings, 20% email. And so it’s schadenfreude. I want you to suffer because I suffer.
And I guess the final reason is because we, as good communists, still associate labor with value. Even though our labor often isn’t even that valuable. We aren’t driving a truck or building a structure. I forgive the roofer sweating in the hot sun for making that mistake. But simply existing in an office environment for 40 hours and pretending like that’s how we earn a fixed salary is antiquated. Everyone still measures their time. I’ve heard people with my same job say they work 70 hours a week. That’s because they’re bad at the job, but they tell me that because they still think hours are the measure of value.
I would love to see AI bring about a serious conversation about whether the work week developed in a post WWII economy is still the one we have to live by. But I know even if AI figures out how to do everyone’s job, there will still be someone bragging about 80 hour work weeks even when their iPhone screen time is 78 of those.
Yes, it's interesting how perceived labour remains irreducibly valuable. Since the pandemic we've accepted a massive shift in HOW we work, with remote and hybrid working so much the norm. Before that, the idea that many people might spend a large chunk of time working from home just wasn't accepted in the culture. But whilst the 'how' we work has changed dramatically for many of us, the 'how long' is still really important to us, and to challenge that (as I agree we should) remains a taboo.
I don't know what kind of cultural event we'd need to make us confront the working hours issue, but maybe the rise of AI will force that conversation anyhow. For now, perhaps our we don't want to let go of the work ethic that got us where we are (or at least the perception we want to create of how hard we're working). Or maybe we (or at least I) worry that cutting down our hours may reveal that we're no longer useful, and unworthy of receiving a livelihood, and we'll be out on the street. Again, let's hope the conversation that your piece wants us to have is taken more seriously along with AI.