The Myth of the AI-Powered Four-Day Workweek: A Critical Perspective
The recent headlines in prominent publications like the Washington Post and Fortune magazine have painted a utopian picture of a future where AI technology grants us more leisure time and a better work-life balance. But here's where it gets controversial: is this narrative too good to be true?
These articles suggest that AI will revolutionize the way we work, with business leaders like Eric Yuan of Zoom and Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase predicting shorter workweeks and even suggesting that working could become optional. Elon Musk takes this idea to an extreme, envisioning a future where AI advancements lead to universal high income and the elimination of poverty.
However, beneath this optimistic facade lies a more complex reality. Even if AI does boost productivity, which is still uncertain (as an MIT study suggests), it's unclear whether workers will benefit significantly. Despite rising worker productivity over the years, median wages have barely kept up with inflation.
The truth is, a four-day workweek is likely to mean four days' worth of pay, and a three-day workweek, three days' worth. As AI takes over, most workers may find themselves poorer or needing to take on additional jobs to maintain their income.
This dilemma was anticipated by the renowned economist John Maynard Keynes in his 1930 essay. He predicted that technological advancements would lead to an age of abundance, where people would have more leisure time and less need to worry about money. However, as we approach the year 2030, his prediction seems increasingly off the mark.
Instead of an age of abundance, new technologies, including AI, have contributed to a society divided into the ultra-wealthy and those struggling to make ends meet. AI has the potential to further widen this inequality gap.
Imagine a magical device, an 'iEverything', that can produce anything you desire. While it sounds like a dream, it also raises a dilemma: if this device does everything, how will people earn money to afford it? This scenario highlights the real issue: the distribution of productivity gains.
The question of how these gains will be shared is crucial. When fewer people can do more, who decides who gets paid what? It's a battle for power.
Unless workers have the power to demand a share of these gains, profits will concentrate in the hands of an ever-smaller group of owners, leaving the rest of us with less purchasing power. If the five-day workweek with full pay shrinks to four, then three, and so on, AI may replace most jobs and reduce our take-home pay.
So, how can average working people ensure they benefit from AI's productivity gains? The answer lies in their collective bargaining power.
Labor unions, once a powerful force, have seen their membership decline significantly over the past four decades. Today, only a small fraction of the private sector is unionized, which limits their influence.
This leaves the political arena as a potential avenue for change. Will average working people gain the political influence needed to demand a fair share of AI's gains? This depends on whether one of the dominant political parties takes up this cause or if a new workers' party emerges to champion these issues.
In the meantime, it's important to approach these breathless narratives about AI 'freeing up' employee time with a critical eye. The real question is whether employers will voluntarily share AI's productivity gains with their workers. The answer, unfortunately, is likely to be 'no' unless workers can exert sufficient pressure through collective action or political influence.
Robert Reich, a former US Secretary of Labor and professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley, is a Guardian US columnist and author of the book 'Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America'.
