Work/Life balance in the future

The recent downturn in the economy has gotten me thinking about work life balance. I believe that 40 hours a week (and certainly more than 40) is too much of one type of work for most people. I do not believe it is a sustainable model. I think we will see a continuation of the trend away from factory-type repetitive labor (much white collar work is still repetitive labor) towards more diverse work.

Diverse work that is intrinsically more satisfying. People are not machines and were not meant to do the same thing over and over all day. I believe we are biologically more suited to a diverse mix of activities to be undertaken each day.

This is especially true for the many, many people who have "attention deficit disorder." But I think this disorder is not so much a disorder as a simple reflection that people were not meant to sit in one place and do repetitive tasks for 8+ hours a day! It is not that these people are disordered, it is that society is disordered and has gotten so out of wack that many people are having difficulty functioning productively.

What is the alternative? How does this relate to the economic downturn? Basically, I think that in the post peak-oil future in which energy is more scarce, there will be a natural reduction in the intensity of economic activity. There will also be more focus on regional economies. There will be less work. But that may not be a bad thing...

I think we will see people starting to grow more of their own food. I think we will move away from the world of the mega pop star to a world where people make more of their own art because it is a satisfying thing to do. In general I think we will see people gradually shift from being itensive consumers and corporate cogs to being well rounded producers of many things they need and want. And this will be radically more satisfying.

People will stil have "jobs" but they will be what we consider part time now. This will allow time for the relationships and community activities that provide meaning. We will gradually shift from being extreme individualists (which is what we have become under this economic regime) to be more community oriented. Parents will have time to be involved with their child's education, citizens will be able to be involved in the governance of their communities, people will have time to discover collective solutions to many problems. And this will be good.

Even without the macro changes which I think will bring this about, I suspect there are many, many people who would choose this mode of life if they had the choice, even if it meant living on less.

The biggest problem is the work culture here in the US. There is a bias towards people who will profess to be willing to devote their entire lives to their jobs, being willing to work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. This is dysfunctional for everyone involved and is not sustainable. This is especially true for "elite" jobs with the "best" companies. And in this way, those "best" jobs are turned into nightmares of their own by swallowing people whole, keeping them from their familes, depriving them of the diverse experiences that make life worth living and substituting a world of obsessive work and intensive consumerism because they MUST buy everything because they have no time to do anything for themselves. This is a mdoel of work that college graduates must reject and fight against. What is needed is to say no to participating in the myth that people that overwork are better employees. They are not.

Why not split a 60 hour a week job into two 30 hour a week jobs? I think many people would jump at that. But for some reason it is not (yet) done very often. Anyone who would choose such a position is looked down as a slacker and less valuable.

I would even like to see an entire company decide to have no job that was more than 30 hours a week to see what would happen. I think people would be much happier, there would be more loyalty, less burnout, and a more sustainable model. The problem comes when people who work 60 hours a week work with people working 30 hours a week. If we said no to those 60 hour a week jobs, we'd have a better situation.

It is interesting on the lower end of the economic spectrum that it is part time employees that are preferred, because they need not be provided benefits, can be dismisssed more easily, etc. That too is obviously a bad idea.

Let's have a movement to move away from this bi-polar model to a more balance middle way. I think we will all be better off with no loss of economic competitiveness. In fact I think we may be better off.