I recently re-read Bertrand Russell’s In Praise of Idleness. It’s a curious but bloggable short text. It’s very much at odds with the mood today.
In one sense, the idea is timeless: advocate for a reduction in work hours to create a balanced life, allowing individuals more free time for leisure, creativity, personal fulfillment, and social activities. Due to technological advancements, this is now possible.
Russell disapproves of trivial activities such as watching TV (passive leisure), favoring active leisure that engages the mind, activities that have societal value. He hopes people will use their leisure time for edifying activities. The argument is both ethical, advocating from a social justice standpoint, and utilitarian, suggesting that reduced envy and fewer wars will follow; even if only a small fraction of the population engages in significant social endeavors, society will greatly benefit.
The scenario was more straightforward back then with laborers engaged in manual work while the affluent remained mostly idle (of course not all; I suppose some rich lawyers worked hard back then too).
Today, the social class structure has evolved significantly. There’s, at minimum:
a wealthy class that doesn’t work, sustained by trust funds, a class that existed back then as well.
a significantly expanded class of wealthy individuals who work extensively, encompassing lawyers, entrepreneurs, consultants, and doctors, which to some extent existed then but has grown vastly.
the middle-class segment of white collars, including many government employees, teachers, and nurses, whose living standards vary widely today, making it difficult to draw parallels.
the middle-class segment of blue-collar workers, particularly those employed in traditionally masculine roles, experience notable conditions, especially when compared to individuals in the adjacent group.
the impoverished class that engages in extensive (often service) work, often struggling to make ends meet, often racialized, immigrants or not.
But even within these groups, there’s substantial heterogeneity, people with side hustles, private sector middle managers, technicians, the super-rich that actually work all the time …
Without collective planning, and this is not happening anytime soon (and that is for the best), it’s hard to see how we can organize all these groups to have more leisure time without reducing their pay. If people agreed, we could take pragmatic small steps towards such an objective. But people don’t agree. Prominent voices think we should work hard, which means “work more”. Idleness is not what the rich value, at all.
One curious thing Russell writes is that “broadly speaking, it is held that getting money is good and spending money is bad.” The idea is somewhat related to an old belief from the Protestant work ethic (you work but don’t spend). It’s not as common today. Today, you work and you spend; you work hard and you play hard. Though the old ethos is still there, a little bit, in people like Warren Buffet. Still, outside FIRE or accountancy social circles, this idea is mostly dead; spending is fine.
Everyone has their own set of values and interests which guide their preferences and lifestyle choices. Some people might find fulfillment in luxury, while others, like me, might find joy in quieter or more introspective pursuits like reading a book. Some people find fulfillment in wanting to go to Mars. Others find fulfillment in assisting individuals, corporations, and governments in raising financial capital by underwriting or acting as the agent for the client in issuing securities, and providing financial advisory services. That’s fine too. Today, everything is fine. The idea of working less suggests an onerous shift in societal values. The text is at odds with the general spirit today because many more people (though not all) want to work a lot. Just open LinkedIn and look at all the grifters.
In the past, the idea of increased leisure was dismissed because the affluent couldn’t imagine the notion of the working class having more free time. Today, we could imagine working less, we’re rich enough. But it won’t happen: technology has blurred the boundaries between work and personal life, for many, work has become a key part of identity, professional success defines personal worth. Working long hours is a sign of commitment. There’s a fear too. With globalization and technological change, jobs have become less stable, we fear job loss, we fear downgrading. Many feel pressured to work more to secure their positions. I’m pessimistic, I see no solution except unhappiness, melancholy, Freudian sublimation.