Nearly 100 years ago, economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by today, technological advancements would allow the workweek to dwindle to just 15 hours, or 3 hours per day, and that the real problem of humanity would be filling their time with leisure. Although much has changed in the world of work since this prediction, such a drastic change has not taken place. In this article, several industrial-organizational psychology scholars discuss why this is the case. Why do we continue to work as much as we do, and how might that change? More fundamentally, what do these trends, contra Keynes’ prediction, tell us about the nature of work itself? We use this discussion to propose several research directions regarding the nature of work and how it might change in the future. We depict the phenomenon of working hours as multilevel in nature, and we consider both the positive and negative possible implications of working less than we do now.

Ornamental jewelweed (Impatiens glandulifera Royle) is an alien invasive plant in Europe. This annual plant often grows in riparian habitats where herbicides are prohibited. Several studies have reported the negative effect on ecosystem and ecosystem services by this species. However, limited research is published on control measures and the aim of our study was to explore use of hot water and cutting to control I. glandulifera. A lab experiment showed that the lethal water temperature for seed was between 45 and 50 C. In a pot experiment with seeds in soil, emergence of I. glandulifera was reduced by 78% and 93% compared with the untreated control with volumes of hot water (80 C) of 7.2 and 14.5 L m−2, respectively. When treatments were conducted on relatively tall plants (almost 60 cm) in late June, hot water gave significantly better control than cutting. Compared with an untreated control, I. glandulifera cover was reduced by 97% and 79% after hot water and cutting, respectively. Application of hot water to smaller (<40 cm) and less developed plants (BBCH 12–13) in early June and cutting of plants with visible flower buds (mid-July) led to no significant difference in cover. Compared with an untreated control, I. glandulifera cover was reduced by 99% (cut below first node) and 91% (hot water and cut above first node). When relatively tall plants (almost 60 cm) were treated, hot water use was high (31.1 L m−2) and required twice as many work hours (4.8 min m−2) as cutting (2.4 min m−2). When smaller plants (<40 cm) were targeted, work hours and hot water use were reduced to 2.1 min m−2 and 13.7 L m−2, respectively.

Why hasn’t economic progress lowered work hours more? One of Keynes’s most famous essays is his “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren.” Keynes predicts that within one hundred years — which would bring us to 2030 — most scarcity will have disappeared and most individuals will work no more than fifteen hours a week. My question is a simple one: Why wasn’t Keynes right? Why have working hours remained as long as they have? Why hasn’t progress taken a more leisurely and less material form than what we have observed? Investigating that issue will help us get at the question of just how much progress has occurred. Under one view, Western life has been caught in a kind of rat race, and a lot of the gains of progress are illusory. For instance there is the argument that higher incomes are largely consumed as part of a futile race to win relative status, and living standards aren’t nearly as high as they might appear. Under some alternative scenarios, people haven’t moved to Keynes’s scenario for some good reasons, such as enjoying work more than we might think, or other hypotheses, as I will outline. In that case the observed changes in real income are robust, and measured correctly, or progress may even be greater than income measurements would indicate. I hope that addressing Keynes’s paradox can help us better understand this longstanding debate on the nature of modern progress.

This study assesses the relationship between the number of work hours and the provision of instrumental support to parents among 779 middle-aged women and men in dual-worker couples in The Netherlands. Using data from the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study collected during 2002–04, we estimate a simultaneous two-stage probit least-squares model, which takes into account that the competing time and financial demands of a person's engagement in paid work and parental support are endogenous. We explicitly control for the effects of partners' earnings, housework and parent-support contributions, and of co-resident children's time demands and help with domestic tasks. Contrary to expectations, the results do not reveal a conflict between paid work and giving support to parents. Several possible explanations are discussed. The results emphasise the importance of the household context, in that the work hours of both women and men depend on other household members' activities and finances, as does men's provision of parent-support. The striking lack of relationships between women's provision of parental support and any individual and contextual characteristic demonstrates the persistence of gendered roles in family members giving support.