"Why hasn't economic progress lowered work hours more?" Tyler Cowen, Hayek Lecture Series

On March 21, Tyler Cowen visited Duke to give a Hayek Lecture on why economic growth hasn't reduced the average number of hours Americans work. Professor Cowen's talk was prompted by an essay by John Maynard Keynes, who predicted in 1930 that in about a century steady economic growth would lead people to work less and spend more time on personal projects.
According to Keynes, "the economic problem may be solved, or be at least within sight of solution, within a hundred years. This means that...for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem--how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well."
Cowen argues that although work hours have remained fairly constant, there has been real progress, especially for women and the elderly, and that working more is not necessarily a sign that we are running on a treadmill without going anywhere. Sometimes work, he argues, can give our lives meaning, and can help us enjoy more of the activities and technologies that economic growth makes available.
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel for more!
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Like us at / dukepolisci
Follow us at / dukepolisci
Produced by Shaun King, Duke University Department of Political Science Multimedia Specialist

[@cyc7lops]

Your science fiction story at the end is a horror story. Some people actually enjoy spending time with their spouses and children and want time to pursue interests and hobbies outside of work and not die in their cubicles.

[@wweeks]

Good talk. I like Cowen's talks. Very insightful.

[@kevinwilkins7851]

He's a neoliberal buffoon and mercenary lobbyist for billionaires masquerading as a man of intellect.

[@wweeks]

@@kevinwilkins7851 Lobbyists that make 3k are required to register. Cowen is not a registered lobbyist. Agreeing with rich people is not a disqualifier as an economist. I have a feeling those facts do not matter due to your straussian writing style.

[@philosophe5319]

Very enjoyable lecture thank you Tyler Cowan.

[@ariemariedalleis464]

Well edited lecture. T is the man.

[@GreatMan_from_East]

Absolutely Loved it!

[@elguapo3811]

This guy is making it sound like many people enjoy working. That is not what I see at work, and I am a vendor who drives to many different businesses here in Dallas, TX. I overhear people complaining all of the time. Whether it's the boss, rent, child-support, etc. Many can't wait for the weekend. I would say the ideal is 20-30hrs per week, this will give parents plenty of time to pick up their children from school and actually spend time with them and cook a proper dinner instead of Taco Bell drive through.

[@raymund6704]

why stay if you don't like your job. and if you don't want to leave, stop complaining.

[@travistanksley7671]

😙😚

[@scotthofland8858]

My theories on why people stay in jobs they don't like: 1] Without even doing so much as making the effort, they are afraid that they won't find another job; 2] Some people like to complain, whch can lead to a culture of chronic complaining at work -- it's how you "belong" to the group.

[@Qstandsforred]

Ray Mund *_"why stay if you don't like your job. and if you don't want to leave, stop complaining."_* - Why have a sprained ankle if you don't like it. and if you don't want to walk on it, stop complaining. Why drink dirty water if you don't want to. and if you don't want to stop drinking, stop complaining. This makes no sense as a criticism. Either he can complain about the dirty water (his job), or nobody can complain about anything. Technically, everything is a choice because we can always commit suicide. So, it's no problem that sex slaves exist because it's their personal choice, right? Right?

[@josephs.3372]

Lysander Dusseljee a haha! I love this guy! 😁

[@dumky]

It would be great if the video description could include references. In particular, I'm trying to reconcile this with what Ryan McMaken was recently writing on the increase of leisure. He pointed out that even leisure not only for men, but also for women (if you add up market work, which has been increasing, and home work, which has been decreasing).

[@c.c.s.1102]

Cowen is brilliant and piercing.

[@stephenyang2844]

I applaud DukeU for these posts exploring American economics without an agenda. I like to see analyses into trending inequality that had started with Reagan til today. This inequality result in a larger portion of out population striving to subsist.

[@bensupit8991]

It didn’t start with Reagan, it only seems that way because the method for measuring inequality changed.

[@__jeroboam__7087]

My takeaway is how much of the "norm" of working hours is due to the network/coordination effect. Compare the 2 weeks/yr vacation among salaried workers in the US to the 6 weeks in parts of Europe. And the 40 hour work week in the US was legislated after much coordinated effort by organized labor. Perhaps the way forward then to realize Keynes' dream is to coordinate pushing for a 32-hour work week. How many of us would complain about a 3 day weekend if that is the norm! Also not mentioned in the video as a cause of the increased work hours among the high income earners is the escalating cost of employer-provided healthcare. Which surely incentivizes employers to encourage longer work hours for those on the upper end of the income spectrum, ie. those who actually get health benefits.

[@jacobbond3475]

@Elias Håkansson I know this is 3 years old, but if you still have links to the sources as you stated, I would be both grateful and joyful if you could provide them.

[@kyleoliva2411]

Only 129 million out of the 328 work full time. I'd be interested to see what the adjusted mean "hours worked" would be if you factored in the retired, unemployed, etc etc. I bet it would be somewhere around 15 hours a week. Throughout history everyone worked, most people worked until they died. I think what has happened is a smaller percentage of the population is working more and the leisure hours are spent on the non working and thus the mean hours across the population is way down.

[@TheLivirus]

Tyler's extrapolation of motivations for working more from the top 1% onto the general work force seem quite problematic. Surely motivations for work are quite different when you have a high degree of autonomy and influence compared to performing prescribed tasks under surveillance of suspicious managers.

[@kimobrien.]

Sure you run around like this fool talking about economics and how capitalism made you into a rich investor.

[@samchop7494]

There's an exponential relationship between technological advancement and workload and not in the way you want. As a function of sales pitches that recommend technology will increase efficiency, charismatic fools in HR and management assign greater workloads.

[@smellypunks]

He is saying that the nature of work is changing and there is will larger numbers with more for filling jobs going forward.

[@SantaBJ]

There is an insight that I think is being overlooked here: It's not that we love work, it's that our measured definition of work is out of sync with the perceived reality of it. And in that observation, the job vs work dichotomy is just a part. We are fitting a lot more effort, a lot more interactions, a lot more *stuff* into our lives outside of our jobs. And all of this stuff adds up to work as well, even if it isn't measured as such.

[@thomashammons1488]

There are a few things that I think haven't been considered. First, why does he not cite any statistics on job satisfaction, or happiness in general among workers. These have been going down. Secondly, the status effect is not purely financial, less so than ever. Our cultural narrative greatly values hard workers who will do anything for any amount of money without complaining. "Wanting" to work is not the same as being happy to work. Furthermore, status among younger generations is more tied to the competition and comodification of experiences. Experiences and moods are now commodities. Look at your Facebook if you don't believe me. People selectively post things to try to create an image of an active fast pace life where they work hard and play harder.

[@Seanosphere]

Two thoughts: 1. The high-earners who love to work are doing more challenging and fulfilling work - I don't want to disparage how anyone makes a living but I'd assume that the person cleaning bathrooms can't wait to punch out while the economic professor has no problem putting in a few extra hours to tweak his model. 2. Wages do not equal wealth - I think the mid-upper income may work more because the middle class lifestyle is super expensive - home ownership, college (for yourself and children), healthcare, and retirement (401K's aren't employer provided pensions and I don't think SS is going to do it) - I don't think this is achievable with most 40-hr/week jobs. Rent, tuition, and healthcare are technically part of the CPI but that's another issue altogether.

[@kimobrien.]

Sure they are running around yelling buy sell at the stock market. setting up computers to mine for completely useless special numbers to make bit coin.

[@nthperson]

The best analysis (for my money) of why this has occurred came from Henry George. His 1883 book "Social Problems" stands the test of time quite well.

[@criticalcog6363]

Edward Dodson His book “Progress and Poverty” is a masterpiece.

[@sangwaraumo]

Compare purchasing across different percentiles, like pew did. Most people didn't see a relevant increase in purchasing power. So of course they will work more.

[@Floccini]

People like to work, or more precisely they like to spend time at work but spend more time at work not working. Right now I am supposed to be working. Some women like to work so much that they are working for little considering the costs of daycare and restaurants etc. This is why I think the overtime laws are not good. Some people work 2 jobs with unpaid travel time in between to get around the OT laws. BTW we should talk about taxed work verses work for in home production/charity work/illegal work. One of the things with skilled work is you need to do it in big chunks. IMHO You cannot be a good programmer working 15 hours a week and taking long vacation. So we start later and work a lot save and then retire early. It is not the way I would like things to be.

[@impudentdomain]

+J Oliver Overtime is likely to be adjusted in the future for an even smaller work week. The problem being that as technology increases fewer and fewer people are needed to do the same or even increasing amounts of work. That is why I think that something like a Basic Income Guarantee is going to be necessary in the future.

[@Floccini]

+impudentdomain I am a big proponent of a Basic Income Guarantee but people vary in their willingness to work. There are situations were an employer would be happy to give employee X 60 hours a week at his normal rate but not at the OT rate and employee X would like to work 60 hours a week at his normal rate but because the employer is unwilling to give him the 20 extra hours a 1.5x his normal rate the employee works another job at a rate lower than his normal rate at the first job and with other expenses.

[@ShamefulSociety]

+J Oliver Also, I'd like to add on to this. I wouldn't mind working 60 hrs at my regular rate some weeks (not all) but I'm unwilling to because I'd be taxed so hard that I'd be working for free and I don't think this is fair at all. A saner solution needs to be found for the working/middle class, we're being stripped of our livelihood. I'm a huge supporter of BIG. I'd love to be able to take time off work or work less hours to learn a new skill but with the cost of education/living that's not possible. It makes me so envious of my parents generation that they could pay for their education and living expenses for school having a part-time minimum wage job in the summer. Education is the great equalizer. I see BIG as a way to save the capitalist system and to give power back to the working/middle class. I also see it as a way of getting the homeless off the streets and someplace safe, drug addicts a chance to get clean, the ability for an elderly person to live a dignified life and much more. Will this system be taken advantage of? Of course it will. It'll take a lot of time to work out the kinks in our society but it's a start and a chance at a better world.

[@crbe2159]

its really quite simple, as we become more productive their becomes a surplus of labor so wages decrease and it gets harder to survive. Old people got cheap houses, now it takes 2 wages to afford a house

[@kimobrien.]

That's the way that the capitalist system works. Old people are lucky to stay in homes despite no real lack of housing just a lack of money to pay. The old are lucky to move into postage stamp housing for the elderly.

[@JSBlogStop]

I have to think this man didn't actually talk to anyone and just looked at huge number sets, then tried to make conclusions about their motives that fit the data bias. The vast bulk of people working have little other choice than to work to sustain their standard of living. Data on outliers with enough, sometimes temporary in the case of lottery winners, money to work less isn't terribly useful. A lot of people become bored because everyone else is at work or they became workaholics due to the culture. One cannot understands a populations desires, when they have little to no ability to realize their desires because they're alienated employees in a system that keeps them constantly in a perilous financial position with social networks tied up in work.

[@blktarhero3337]

thats right wingers for ya.

[@curiouskitkat]

I’m surprised we’ve got universities inviting this moron who looks at these trends and shape it to fit the story he’s trying to tell, rather than doing the work to understand the real reason for said trends. Or he knows, but has an agenda

[@edhalferty]

The top 1% hasn't changed over time in an interesting way. The top 0.1% or 0.01% has though....

[@alexsem490]

Tyler would benefit greatly from coming down from his ivory tower once in a while and talking to people who actually work for a living. He can show studies and charts, he can't add any of them up to form a meaningful picture, which is what actually matters.

[@obviousaron]

People in the 1% working more... is that because their "work" is vastly different that the rest. It's a god-like experience where you call the shots and the only pressure is from within. If they were a UPS driver having to piss in bottles as they drive, would they work more still? Hmmmmmmm.

[@tiendoan1333]

I disagree, CEOs and high level executives deal with a lot of mental stresses leading to suicide more so than low wage workers.

[@realericanderson]

You couldn't prove that "more" statement due to the sample sizes at play. There are different types of mental stress (next paycheck vs paying them), and both are constant, but one won't be ameliorated by quite literally all the money you could possibly throw at it.

[@kirillkhvenkin6001]

People work more because they like work. Ha-ha-ha.

[@eLurkr]

I wish he considered the experiments where rats with access only to cocaine water would overdose, but in larger, more enriched cages, with other rats, this addictive behavior stopped. Maybe work addiction is related to the degradation of the public sphere.

[@mikhailfranco]

It seems obvious that people will postpone leisure until retirement because you have to make hay while the sun shines and the future is uncertain. Nobody could relax and enjoy youthful unemployment if they were risking an impoverished old age. There is also a certain momentum and intensity necessary to acquire and maintain skills then compete with the best people in that field (e.g. consider modern technology). A part-timer just cannot scale down hours and linearly scale down income. They would become non-competitive and lose their job completely. For example, consider what happens to mothers who take time off to have children. The rat race is a classic arms race and the winner takes all. There is also globalization and immigration as factors to keep Western workers at the coal face. The developing world has many smart, educated, industrious and motivated people. In many cases, they will work, or self-educate, all the hours of the day, without short-term regard to families or work-life balance. Western workers have to compete in hours and energy in order to maintain their jobs, even as their pay is static or falling.

[@thomasvandijk87]

I'm surprised he did not mention anything about the type of work that the top 1% are doing, and the type of people that manage to work their way up to these jobs. To me it seems quite obvious that the top 1% of workers are in complex jobs that require a lot of skill, dedication and time. These jobs are hard to do part (or even full-) time and are hard to reach by individuals that tend to place more value on leisure time, as opposed to social status. With the increasing pace of technological progress, high level jobs are likely to have become more complex. This juxtaposes the people that are competent, lucky and 'like to work' against the masses that do not reach the top of the pyramid. I don't like the fact that our culture sees these high performers as what all of us should be striving for, since their lives are often not very balanced and come with huge trade offs that do not fit most people.

[@kimobrien.]

Yep it gets harder to keep up profit rates from smaller groups of unskilled workers as investment rise for new machines that replace skilled workers.

[@poopoos733]

Dr Cowen draws conclusions through the prism of locke's or Bentham's seek pleasure avoid pain assumptions. I would really prefer he looked through the prism of evolutionary biology rather than libertarianism. We are socialised to love work and achieving dominance is part of our evolution. People conform to not be an outcast and people compete to try to dominate each other. Their are a lot of other traits for cooperation as well.

[@2Cerealbox]

+Poo poos He's not a biologist, he probably shouldn't actually.

[@poopoos733]

I understand he is an expert in neoclassical economics and philosophy. My opinion is if present and future economic behaviour is to be assessed properly it must be along the grain of human nature. My justified true belief is evolutionary psychology informs humanity of this. He could have learnt biology as his iq is through the roof or collaborated.

[@fergal746]

As the conditions of workers rise the incentive for innovation to reduce human work increases. "Treat workers badly to keep jobs!!"

[@carsongeorge8199]

Most famous philosophers would have been probably looked so much smarter had they had the psychic ability to realize how future technologies can enhance imbalance.

[@carsongeorge8199]

Imbalance? You mean corruption?

[@carsongeorge8199]

While you have good points… because you have two first names I can’t take you seriously.

[@carsongeorge8199]

Child

[@carsongeorge8199]

Lol, yeah not so appropriate to get bickering on this crap when we should join forces and go fight the real enemies in the east.

[@dimitristsagdis7340]

It is not 'higher wages' in the US during the period in question (1970-2010); real wages in the US have been falling. It is not just that education and healthcare cost went up; housing costs went through the roof. Generally speaking in the 60s families in developed economies, could maintain a descent standard of living with only one of the adults working; since the 70s this has become increasingly impossible.

[@smellypunks]

While this is true it is in part because people all want the same consumer goods and services: car’s, cable tv, cellphones, internet, gym membership. Many of these did not exist or were only for the rich in the past. Going without and people could work fewer hours. But yes some cost are higher as a percentage of income and they are big ticket items like housing and education.

[@theblankscreen1861]

We do have a major war, we just keep forgetting that we are still in it.

[@john1425]

Why is his wedding ring on his right hand? Because hes a contrarian?

[@ronondechek14]

Read Ludwig Von Mises.

[@steptb]

Very mediocre presentation by the otherwise interesting Cowen. The elephant in the room: why do these people prefer work to human relationships outside work? "Because working is in fact more enjoyable" is just a simplistic answer, you're an academic not a blogger. There could be a lot of other explanations. For example, it looks like an obvious sunk-cost fallacy to me. People socialized (brainwashed?) to put more and more of their identities and meaning into their jobs, and less and less into their private relationships.

[@netabaughman3079]

I like your talks but we need to build up the Green Party and I would love to see you lead the way. Why not make it the party that CAN work to fix these problems.

[@cyc7lops]

This is SO WRONG. Check with any staff in accounting or legal firms, or with medical doctors, and they all want to work less. Just try asking for fewer hours and you'll be shown the door. As an HR rep at Pricewaterhousecooopers said, "We only want 12 hours a day; you can have the other 12." You have only two choices: exploitative overtime or unemployment. Next time, check with some actual workers instead of just your spreadsheets.

[@climacus7228]

Nonsense. He did check with actual workers by crediting their revealed preferences as reflected in the data.

[@XFT8]

A few points. One, he said the top 1%. Many accountants, lawyers, and doctors aren't in the top 1%. They must work cause they have a lot of debt relative to income. Two, even those in the top 1% who say they want to work less are assuming they get to keep their same salary.

[@lowelovibes8035]

bs

[@cyc7lops]

The elderly get "way better healthcare" and "they don't have to pay for it"??? You need to talk to some actual elderly people to learn how much per month they pay for Medicare premiums -- both to the government AND to their supplement health insurance carriers, AND their deductibles, copays, etc. They pay A LOT for their healthcare, and they can't afford it on their reduced incomes. In addition, unlike many workers, they don't get dental, vision, or hearing care: it's all out of pocket. Hearing aids, glasses, podiatry, etc. are NOT COVERED. All out of pocket. Stop picking on the elderly and suggesting they're all living the high life. Your ivory tower analysis needs a real world reality check.