Modern society faces a paradox: the more efficient we become, the fewer workers we need to sustain ourselves. Yet we still demand that people work long hours just to earn survival. If 50 people working full-time can produce enough for 100, why do we deny the other 50 access to those goods—instead of letting all 100 work half the hours and share the benefits?
Critics might argue this would collapse productivity or disincentivise work. But if we already produce enough, why must we keep labouring like we don’t? The real disincentive is forcing unemployment on some while overworking others in a system that, by its own efficiency, has made so many jobs unnecessary.
The solution isn’t to invent useless busywork or cling to outdated 40-hour weeks—it’s to distribute necessary labor fairly. A shorter work week wouldn’t mean less gets done; it would mean what must get done is made by the work of all, freeing time for life beyond work. The obstacle isn’t economics, but our insistence that survival must be earned through toil, even when toil is no longer needed.