In 1930, British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030, technological advancements would reduce the average workweek to just 15 hours.
His logic seemed solid. Between 1900 and 1930, United States’ GDP quadrupled, while the average workweek shrank from 53 to 47 hours. Clearly, advancements in agriculture, steam power, manufacturing, electricity, transportation, and communication had made work more productive. It was only natural for Keynes to assume this trend would continue—perhaps even accelerate—as new inventions allowed us to produce more with less.
But here we are, nearly a century later, and I don’t know about you, but I’m still waiting. And judging by the data, millions of others are too. For example, in Europe, the average workweek is 37 hours. In India, it’s 47 hours. And if you live in the United Arab Emirates, it’s reportedly over 50 hours.
So, what did Keynes get wrong?
Well for one thing, Keynes likely assumed that once people had enough, they would work less. But history has proven otherwise: we always want more.
Loading...
More wealth. More travel. More education. More entertainment. More convenience. More homes. More computing power. More screens. More luxury. More speed. More food. More clothes. More time. More everything.
It doesn’t matter if we earn $2, $20,000, or even $200,000 a day—we always find ways to want more. And while newer innovations in energy, communication, and the internet have helped feed this demand, Keynes underestimated just how much labor would still be required to service it—especially with a global population which is now over 8 billion people.
Keynes also failed to account for the ripple effects of new technology. Take the automobile. It didn’t just make transportation faster—it spawned entirely new industries. Mass manufacturing created millions of jobs in car production. Gas stations, repair shops, and parking garages emerged. City planning changed to accommodate roads and highways. Financial services jumped in, offering vehicle loans and insurance. Taxis evolved into ride-sharing platforms, launching the gig economy.
Cars then became trucks, allowing commerce to expand globally.
Even the environmental damage caused by cars has created an industry of its own, from carbon offset programs to electric vehicle production.
You could therefore argue that the invention of the combustion engine has easily led to the creation of hundreds of millions of new jobs over the last century.
New jobs, which all require workers to spend more than 15 hours a week serving their employers.
And this pattern is not new. The invention of the printing press in 1440 created new jobs in publishing, journalism, education, advertising, and marketing. And today, social media platforms have allowed tens of millions of people to generate income by creating niche content that appeals to every walk of life on the planet.
But my question is this: will the combination of AI and robotics catalyze the same job creation cycle?
If history is any guide, we may not be able predict future jobs, but we should be confident that we will create them none the less.
Just as people in the 1930s couldn’t have imagined data scientists, app developers, or AI ethicists, we can’t yet predict the jobs that AI will create in the next 30 years.
But there is another possibility. What if Keynes was right all along—just a century too early?
Because AI and robotics aren’t like past technologies.
They’re not tools that only make humans more productive.
They’re tools that, if current development trends continue, soon won’t need humans at all.
Just yesterday, I read about a venture capital firm run entirely by AI. It analyzed startups, conducted interviews, and independently decided to invest $100,000—all with minimal human oversight.
Then, I watched a video of two humanoid robots collaborating in a kitchen, self-learning how to prepare and cook a meal.
This is different.
Every past technology—from the steam engine to the internet—still required people to operate, manage, and expand it. But AI isn’t just enhancing human productivity, it’s replacing humans altogether.
Which raises the possibility not that Keynes was right and we’ll eventually get our promised 15-hour workweek. Rather that we’ll be lucky to work at all.
Loading...