Productivity and Keynes’s 15-Hour Work Week Prediction for 2030: An Alternative, Macroeconomic Analysis for the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyses Keynes’s 1930 prediction that technical advances would cut people’s working week to 15 h by 2030 and investigates why actual working hours are significantly higher in the United States. Elaborating on Keynes’s forecast to provide a general productivity formula while keeping its simplicity, we ran tests on macro-data from 1929 to 2019 and on estimates for 2030, demonstrating that productivity is surprisingly still insufficient to allow for a reduction in working hours across the US economy. This finding represents a substantial contribution to the literature, which has mostly explained long working hours by means of new consumer needs. Even by using microdata, we show that consumption does not explain the stickiness of working hours to the bottom. Hence, this paper combines a macroeconomic, logical-analytical approach based on historical time series with rigorously constructed time series at the microeconomic level. Finally, we also provide policies to narrow the productivity differential to Keynes’s prediction for 2030 while fostering work-life balance and sustainable growth. To understand long working hours in the US despite technical advances—this being one of our main findings—productivity remains crucial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".