Across the ever-shifting landscape of the global economy, technological innovation has repeatedly redrawn the boundaries between human labour, productivity and prosperity. From mechanised factories to artificial intelligence, each technological revolution has enabled societies to accomplish more with fewer resources, thereby prompting a fundamental question about whether greater efficiency should ultimately translate into greater leisure. Although I agree that advances in automation provide a compelling justification for reducing working hours, I do not believe that a blanket reduction is appropriate for every occupation or economic sector.
To commence with, there exist certain rationales behind the support for working duration reduction in the advent of advanced technology. Firstly, automation can make shorter working weeks both economically viable and socially desirable by eliminating substantial amounts of repetitive labour. When routine tasks are performed by machines, employees can devote more time to problem-solving, supervision and creative activities while maintaining comparable levels of output. Iceland’s large-scale trials of a shorter working week between 2015 and 2019 provide a particularly instructive example. Thousands of public-sector employees moved from conventional 40-hour schedules to approximately 35-36 hours without a corresponding reduction in pay; subsequent assessments found that productivity and the quality of many public services were broadly maintained or improved. Crucially, however, the success of these trials did not stem from simply deleting several hours from the timetable. Workplaces also streamlined meetings, redesigned procedures and eliminated unnecessary tasks. This demonstrates that when technological and organisational efficiency absorbs work that previously consumed employees’ time, part of the resulting productivity dividend can reasonably be returned to workers in the form of additional leisure. Such an arrangement could also alleviate burnout and improve work-life balance without necessarily diminishing economic output.
Nevertheless, shorter hours should not be treated as an automatic consequence of technological progress, since some industries still depend upon continuous human availability. The semiconductor industry illustrates this limitation particularly clearly. At advanced fabrication facilities operated by companies such as TSMC, automated systems can monitor manufacturing conditions, identify microscopic defects and regulate highly sophisticated production processes with extraordinary precision. Yet engineers and technicians remain indispensable when equipment malfunctions, production parameters deviate from specifications or unexpected technical problems emerge. Moreover, semiconductor fabrication operates continuously because shutting down highly specialised facilities can be extremely costly. Therefore, while automation may reduce the amount of routine work performed by each employee, it does not necessarily reduce the total number of hours during which human expertise must be available. A more sensible response would consequently be flexible scheduling, shorter shifts or four-day weeks where feasible, rather than an indiscriminate reduction imposed across all professions. Were governments and employers to overlook these sectoral differences, the policy could inadvertently increase labour shortages, disrupt essential services and undermine competitiveness.
In conclusion, automation has undoubtedly created an opportunity to reconsider the traditional relationship between productivity and working time, and shorter hours can improve well-being where efficiency gains genuinely permit them. However, the most sustainable approach is not to impose a universal reduction, but to redistribute technological gains selectively through shorter weeks, flexible shifts and more efficient working practices where the nature of each occupation allows it.