Track the companies that matter to you. It's FREE! Click one of these fan favorites to get started: Apple; Google; Ford.



Everyone Could Work Less

Some of the most successful people in the world have advice for the rest of us: chill out a little bit.

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim -- the second-richest man in the world -- told the Financial Times last week that the typical work life of five-day, 40-hour weeks with a goal of retiring in your 60s doesn't work. Instead, he said, people should work 11-hour shifts, three days a week, and plan to work well into their 70s.

Two weeks ago, Google CEO Larry Page told a conference that "the idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people's needs is just not true." Most people, he said, could support themselves with less money and be happier with more time off. He said we need a coordinated way to adjust the workweek, perhaps with two part-time workers replacing one full-time worker. "Most people like working, but they'd also like to have more time with their family or to pursue their own interests," he said.

What are these guys thinking?

There are two issues here.

One is that the concept of retirement is a recent experiment, and it hasn't gone very well.

Before 1940, more than half of men over age 65 were still active in the workforce. In 1900, more than three-quarters of elderly men were still working. Most people just worked until they died.

It's just the last 50 years that we've thought most people have a right to stop working in their 60s and relax. And we haven't prepared well for it. Social Security can cover the basics, but according to Nielsen Claritas, Americans age 55 to 64 have a median net worth of $180,000 -- less than they'll likely need for health-care spending alone during retirement.

A lot of retirees aren't even that happy with their freedom. According to a study by the Skipton Building Society, any added happiness that comes from retiring wears off after just 10 months. Retirees had a laundry list of complaints, from "I miss the camaraderie I had at work," to "I didn't have many hobbies or interests to fill my time," to "I put on weight as I wasn't as active."

Working part time into your 70s, as Slim suggested, would take care of both problems. It would add more income to help avert the retirement shortfall you hear so much about. And since, in Slim's world, workers would have enjoyed four-day weekends for their entire careers, working in retirement wouldn't cut into the amount of free time you get over your lifetime. You would actually have more free time when you're young, able-bodied, have kids, and can travel. Some jobs wouldn't allow working into your 70s, of course. But most could. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, two-thirds of 58-year-olds are in nonphysically demanding jobs.

The second issue is maximizing productivity while you're working.

Monday through Friday nine-to-five is probably the most invasive work schedule you can create. It leaves no personal time in the morning, very little in the evening, and barely enough to run errands on the weekend.

When your work schedule leaves no time for your personal life, you have to mix the two, constantly switching your mind from work life to personal life throughout the day. And that's the worst possible way to get stuff done.

In her book Overwhelmed, Brigid Schulte writes that, compared with past generations, workers today feel stretched for time. But it's not because we're doing more. It's because we're trying to do too many things at the same time, rather than in separate, focused chunks. "It's role overload," she writes. "It's the constant switching from one role to the next that creates that feeling of time pressure."

Letting people work hours that fit their personal lives can massively improve productivity when they're on the job. Ricardo Semler, CEO of Brazilian conglomerate Semco, writes in his book The Seven-Day Weekend:

If I demand that a worker show up at 8:00 A.M., even if she is someone who regularly sleeps until 9:00, all I will get is a couple of hours of her least productive time. And if I'm closed down at 6:00 P.M., I'm sending her home just as she's hitting her stride. Her biorhythms may dictate that her best hours are from six to eight. Someone else may be alert and prolific after a twenty-minute catnap in the afternoon. If I insist on standard work hours, I may be sacrificing a certain amount of employee potential every day. By encouraging uniformity, I lose productivity. By changing the rules, we remove the obstacles that throw people's lives out of whack. When we tell people they're free to work closer to their homes, to come to the office only when they need to, to work odd hours, or to take a weekday off in exchange for work on a Sunday, we're really telling them that there are no rules when it comes to finding a balance in their lives.

Working into your 70s is possible, and will probably have to occur. Working flexible hours is possible, and more companies are moving in that direction.

But there's something we shouldn't expect to happen: people working fewer hours overall and spending more time in leisure.

Economists have been predicting for decades that people would work fewer hours as the country got richer. John Maynard Keynes predicted that by 2030 we'd all be working only a few hours a week. In 1960, Richard Nixon predicted that by 1990 the average workweek would be just 22 hours.

Nothing like this happened. Adjusted for inflation, the median household earns more than three times as much today as it did 80 years ago. But we still work about as many hours.

People's expectations of what a good life entails grow just as fast as their earnings. That will always be the case, and no matter how rich the country gets, most people will work as much as they can while staying sane. That's probably about 40 hours a week. So while everyone could work less, I doubt many of us ever will.

Check back every Tuesday and Friday for Morgan Housel's columns on finance and economics. 

Free 30-day trial: The Motley Fool's flagship service
Tom and David Gardner founded The Motley Fool over 20 years ago with the goal of helping the world invest...better. Their flagship service, Stock Advisor, has helped thousands of investors take control of their financial lives and beat the market. Click here to sign up today.

Read/Post Comments (11) | Recommend This Article (53)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Mathman6577 wrote:

    I think having a work/life balance and working longer (if that is what people want to do) are all positive things. And the advances and innovation in technology allows us to have that opportunity.

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 5:41 PM, phexac wrote:

    "I didn't have many hobbies or interests to fill my time,"

    haha, that just means that those people are so boring and uninteresting they even bore themselves. Get some interests outside of your job and stop being a boring tu rd. Problem solved.

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 9:56 PM, wvowell wrote:

    It is sad that Morgan publishes such socialist/communist crap as this!!

    So working these 33 hrs a week, is suppose to make us happier!! Is mr Google CEO going to pay his people the same for 33hrs that you get for 40? No he says that most people can live on less. Of course except him he will still get his 500,000+ paycheck.

    Morgan you need to be punched in the mouth for writing this socialist dribble.

  • Report this Comment On July 24, 2014, at 10:40 PM, soldtoosoon wrote:

    These CEOs (Slim and Page) know they prefer to hire the workers that are pulling all nighters to achieve their goals. So it's kinda BS. They say this after their companies are already giants.

    I think the message of the article overall makes sense. But there is always someone else that will work longer hours for less requiring you to compete and work longer as well. That's why France legislates hours worked to try and maintain their sense of culture and work life balance. But you see they are losing when it comes to many industries.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 3:42 AM, blesto wrote:

    That is so easy for the 2nd most richest man to say, " Most people, he said, could support themselves with less money and be happier with more time off...". Sure. Less hours sounds nice but less income?!? I doubt it. For most, less hours at one job would let them do more hours at the other job or jobs.

    Of course most people would like to spend more time with friends and family, but it's not realistic for those who need those 2 to 3 minimal paying jobs.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 6:59 AM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Life advice: Read all the way to the bottom of the article before threatening bodily harm.


  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 8:05 AM, TMFHousel wrote:

    Some of you may also be shocked to learn that working 10 to 6 instead of 9 to 5 isn't what socialism is.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 8:46 AM, JBG189 wrote:

    @TMFHousel RE last two comments: LOL. Both hilarious.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 12:41 PM, SwampBull wrote:

    I second JBG189's comment - awesome retort Mr. Housel.

    I forget where Ayn Rand wrote "Thou Shalt Work 40 to 80 Hours Per Week, Or Else Thou Art A Commie Looter".

    Warren Buffett probably only works 20 hours per week these days. Should Berkshire's board send him to Cuba?

    Silly trolls, go back to the Huffington Post & Fox News comments sections.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 12:58 PM, damilkman wrote:

    In the specific issue with Page, Google has a culture of expecting people to work a billion hours. If they practiced what they preached the statement would be more believable.

  • Report this Comment On July 25, 2014, at 1:42 PM, djtetsu wrote:

    We need money because we are all competing with our neighbors on nice things that we have.

    I have an eleven year old car and work part time, and I have a buddy who is an accountant with a new Porsche..

    but guess who is really enjoying life.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 3039173, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/4/2015 8:29:17 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Morgan Housel

Economics and finance columnist for Analyst, Motley Fool One.
More Articles

Today's Market

updated 11 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,374.76 23.38 0.14%
S&P 500 1,951.13 2.27 0.12%
NASD 4,733.50 0.00 0.00%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes