Historically, immigration was more than just the pursuit of freedom, it conveniently filled the essential but often undesirable jobs that kept our society moving. Immigrants powered factories, railroads, farms, and households, effectively creating a “servant class” that enabled others to innovate and prosper. This instigated the growth of hustle culture.
Over generations, however, something interesting happened: immigrants and their descendants climbed the social ladder, building prosperous lives. This upward mobility meant America needed a fresh workforce to sustain its structure. Rather than reconsidering this reliance on immigration, America simply invited more immigrants, perpetuating the cycle of labor supply.
Then came a significant shift, women entered the workforce in large numbers. While a positive social advancement, society wasn’t prepared for the repercussions. Suddenly, households had both partners working full-time while juggling family duties. Yet, the traditional 40-hour workweek, originally designed for single-income families, stubbornly persisted.
Predictably, this led to widespread exhaustion, declining birth rates, and increased burnout. Instead of addressing these core issues, America leaned even more heavily on immigration, not just to address labor shortages, but increasingly to sustain population growth itself.
Interestingly, this intense cycle persists despite America’s skyrocketing productivity. Advancements in technology, automation, and artificial intelligence mean workers now produce more in less time than ever before. Yet, workweeks remain unchanged, raising a critical question: if productivity has risen dramatically, why haven’t our working hours decreased?
Let’s consider the modern realities of balancing work and life:
Both Partners Working Full-Time (Double Work): Currently, most families function with two exhausted adults each putting in 40+ hours weekly, barely managing family and personal care.
Both Partners Working Reduced Hours (Single Work for Both): Imagine both partners working 25–30 hours weekly. This would ensure financial stability, greatly reduce stress, and provide ample family and leisure time.
One Partner Working Extended Hours, the Other at Home (Double Work for One): A traditional arrangement where one partner works longer hours (50–60 hours weekly), financially supporting the household while the other manages home and family responsibilities. Chosen willingly, this can be fulfilling but may not fit contemporary preferences.
Among these, reduced hours for both partners emerges clearly as the healthiest and most practical solution. It acknowledges that our increased productivity no longer necessitates relentless work hours and that technology has already eliminated much of the drudgery.
Globally, experiments validate this approach. Iceland successfully implemented a four-day workweek, dramatically boosting productivity and overall happiness. Japan and Spain are following suit, proving the viability of shorter workweeks.
Yet, America remains hesitant, trapped by outdated notions of productivity and the fear of appearing “lazy.” We’re stuck in habits that prioritize long hours despite diminishing returns.
Breaking this cycle is not just desirable, it’s achievable. Leveraging our technological advancements and efficiency, we can reshape our work culture. We don’t need to maintain a stressed, perpetually replenished immigrant labor force. Instead, we can embrace shorter, healthier workweeks, placing genuine value on family, health, and personal fulfillment.
Perhaps it’s finally time America moved beyond its obsession with hustle. Our prosperity doesn’t depend on exhausting ourselves, it thrives when productivity truly serves humanity. Shorter workweeks are not idealistic dreams but practical, necessary, and long overdue.