Jack Ma: In 30 Years People Will Work Four Hours a Day and Maybe Four Days a Week (cnbc.com)

There could be benefits from artificial intelligence, self-made billionaire, Alibaba chairman Jack Ma said, as people are freed to work less and travel more. From a report: "I think in the next 30 years, people only work four hours a day and maybe four days a week," Ma said. "My grandfather worked 16 hours a day in the farmland and [thought he was] very busy. We work eight hours, five days a week and think we are very busy." He added that if people today are able to visit 30 places, in three decades it will be 300 places. Still, Ma said the rich and poor -- the workers and the bosses -- will be increasingly defined by data and automation unless governments show more willingness to make "hard choices." "The first technology revolution caused World War I," he said, "The second technology revolution caused World War II. This is the third technology revolution."

Comments

This has been predicted forever

[ErichTheRed]

Ever since the middle of the 20th Century, the reduced work week has been a touted benefit of all the automation and technology advances. It hasn't happened yet, but I think it might with this next shift.

UBI is a good idea, but it won't get implemented in the US until the alternative is the majority of the population living in poverty. Reducing the work week and maybe the societal dependency on a 5-day, 40-hour job that you physically commute to might offer a safety valve. The problem is how you keep business owners from turning this into a gig-economy nightmare where no one has stable income and can't afford to buy anything -- or doesn't feel safe buying things. Consumerism in the US worked previously because people were reasonably sure they would have a steady paycheck to cover expenses, and if they lost their job one would be available at another company. This is a fundamental shift that I don't think we're ready for yet.

Re:Not true (for the US)

[Bozzio]

Hear hear.

I've been alternating between working for 1-2 years and then taking a sabbatical for 1-2 years for a while now and it's great. I can afford this because I don't have any debt. I don't have any debt because I don't own a house, a car, or any other luxuries. I live very frugally. I've chosen this lifestyle because typically after about 18 months in the workplace my mental health suffers.

I'm not suggesting the entire world adopts this approach, I'm just saying this it what works for me.

Now, I'm a software engineer so when I work it pays well. This allows me to have a 50/50 work/sabbatical balance. But, I often wonder if other careers could swing this as well but with a different ratio. I believe the key is not living beyond your means.

I'm fortunate in that, where I live, I can get by without a car or a house. However, where I grew up (North America) this just isn't possible. In order to be part of the workforce you often need a very expensive minimum set of equipment. You can't get to work without a car. There is no affordable lodging near work.

So, in addition to changing the length of the typical workweek, I think we should also be changing how people access work.

This isn't the 50s anymore. Houses and cars aren't cheap anymore.

Re:sure, just like fusion power

[zifn4b]

I so wish I had mod points for you. However, I am sad to say you time frame is off a bit. It was John Maynard Keynes that first made this prediction in the 1930's actually. In the 1950's science and science fiction were both forecasting that technology advances would eliminate our need to work. Jack Ma is a tad bit late to the party. A better question he could answer is: why is it taking longer than predicted?

Re: Not true (for the US)

[ShanghaiBill]

How's healthcare working out for you?

There are strong and weak points in the American system. Overall, our healthcare system sucks big time.

But if you look at overall economic performance, the American model works better. We are better at creating prosperity, and better at putting people to work. The few EU countries that even come close are small, and demographically homogeneous. Blacks in America have twice the average unemployment rate, while blacks in Sweden have four times the average unemployment rate. This indicates their model relies more demography than economic principles. We tried using the "Swedish Model" of high taxes and generous services in America, and the result was Detroit.

Re: Not true (for the US)

[dinfinity]

similar to Japan, Ireland, and Italy

Actually, people in Italy and Japan work 60 to 70 hours less a year according to your own source. If you accept that as 'similar', then the US is also similar to:
- Lithuania and Estonia (these were Sovjet states less than 30 years ago)
- Turkey
- Hungary
All these places have a minimum wage of below 500 EUR/month.

Furthermore:
- Italy isn't doing too well economically. Southern Italy in particular isn't really a shining example.
- Japan has a cultural problem of overworking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Ireland is probably the only real odd one out here.

I'm pretty sure there is a lot more nuance to this than just the simple aggregate numbers. I'm going to go ahead and guess that there is also a huge difference in 'working hour inequality': In some countries working 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet is a fairly common thing ( https://toughnickel.com/findin... ). In Northwestern Europe that is a completely foreign and backwards concept.

Finally, your source explicitly states that comparisons such as yours and mine cannot be made reliably:
"The data are intended for comparisons of trends over time; they are unsuitable for comparisons of the level of average annual hours of work for a given year, because of differences in their sources and method of calculation." ( https://data.oecd.org/emp/hour... )