The misleading concept of a four-day workweek “made possible” by AI

A recent front-page article in the Washington Post sparked significant buzz with the headline: “These companies say AI is key to their four-day workweeks.” The optimistic subheadline claimed, “Some companies are giving workers back more time as artificial intelligence takes over more tasks.”

According to the Post, there’s a growing belief among executives and researchers that many companies will transition to a shorter workweek. This shift is largely driven by workers from younger generations advocating for enhanced work-life balance.

This sounds like a dream come true! A chance for improved work-life integration awaits us, courtesy of AI!

You may have encountered similar narratives in outlets like Fortune magazine and the New York Times. It appears the AI promotional team is working overtime.

Leaders in the corporate sector are passionately discussing how AI could empower their employees to enjoy extended time away from work. Eric Yuan of Zoom expressed to the Times: “AI can enhance our lives—why should we stick to a five-day workweek? Companies will soon embrace three or four-day schedules. Ultimately, this will give everyone more free time.”

Jamie Dimon, the head of JPMorgan Chase, proposes that advancing technologies might even allow us to condense the workweek to approximately three and a half days. Similarly, Bill Gates has publicly wondered whether a two-day workweek is on the horizon.

Elon Musk takes this optimistic vision even further, predicting that in less than two decades, advancements in AI and robotics could render work entirely optional. He believes that “there will be no poverty in the future, and consequently no need to save money,” as per Musk, we will enjoy “universal high income.”

However, this perspective is overly naïve. Even assuming that AI leads to significant productivity improvements—which remains uncertain (a recent MIT study found that a staggering 95% of organizations saw no return from the billions invested in GenAI)—the reality may not benefit workers as much as anticipated.

Should productivity enhance as predicted due to AI adoption, each employee would ostensibly produce more value. Hence, one would think this increase in value would translate to a better quality of life for all.

Despite ongoing rises in productivity, median wages remain stagnant when adjusted for inflation.

In actuality, workers embracing the four-day workweek may find their pay mirrors the number of days they work—meaning a four-day workweek could come with four days’ worth of pay, and similarly for three and two days.

Consequently, as AI undertakes a larger portion of tasks, many workers stand to face financial hardship or may need to seek additional employment to sustain their current income levels.

The renowned economist John Maynard Keynes, in his 1930 essay Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, predicted that technological advances would eventually outstrip our ability to create new jobs. He argued that by the year 2030, advancements in labor efficiency would transform life, relieving individuals from economic worry.

Keynes envisioned a future where the biggest concern would be finding meaningful ways to fill our leisure time, as technology and interest compounding would have significantly improved our quality of life.

While we inch closer to Keynes’s envisioned year of 2030, his forecasts seem increasingly off the mark.

Rather than the abundance he predicted, we find ourselves in an increasingly divided society: a small elite enjoying vast wealth versus a large portion of the population struggling to get by.

The rise of AI may only exacerbate this inequality.

Imagine a hypothetical device—a so-called iEverything—capable of fulfilling every desire at your command. This technology could be revolutionary, producing goods and services instantaneously.

However, the upside diminishes when you realize that many will lack the financial means to purchase this iEverything when conventional jobs are replaced by automation.

The dilemma is fantastic in concept yet profoundly real. While productivity enhancements are valuable, how those benefits are shared poses essential questions.

It’s crucial to confront the distribution of productivity. As fewer individuals accomplish more work, compensation becomes a pivotal issue influenced by power dynamics.

Without sufficient worker power to negotiate for a share of productivity gains, profits may increasingly concentrate within a small circle of owners, depriving the majority of resources to buy produced goods.

Should we transition from a five-day to a four-day workweek while retaining similar pay structures, the trend could extend to a three- or two-day week. This shift risks rendering most people’s labor obsolete, pushing down wages rather than lifting living standards. Even with groundbreaking AI-generated products and services, the majority may find them financially out of reach.

However, this does not have to be our inevitable future. If AI fosters significant productivity advancements, what means can regular workers utilize to secure a portion of those benefits? Achieving this advantage hinges on workers’ bargaining power.

Unfortunately, labor unions—which once represented over a third of the private workforce—now cover a mere 6%. This diminished influence raises concerns about collective strength.

Ultimately, political action becomes pivotal. Will workers harness political strength to demand equitable shares of the productivity gains from AI?

This hinges on whether one of the two major political parties decides to advocate for and implement legislation that ensures fairer distribution of wealth, such as wealth taxes aiding essential services like childcare, elder care, and healthcare.

If not, perhaps the emergence of a third-party—specifically a workers’ party—could address these pressing concerns.

In the meantime, approach extravagant claims about AI enabling employers to liberate employees with caution.

The pressing issue remains whether the productivity gains attributed to AI will be equitably shared among workers. The hard truth is that companies are unlikely to share these profits unless compelled to do so.

• Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, serves as a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He contributes as a Guardian US columnist, and his newsletter can be found at robertreich.substack.com. His latest book, *Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America,* is now available.