The question may sound glib, but it isn’t. Do you live to work, or do you work to live?
The underlying issues certainly precede our current debates over work-life balance, and those of us who have been in the workforce for 15 years or more will attest to that.
We remember being “asked” to take on more hours and responsibilities without additional pay, much less a change in title or job description. Weekends were routinely sacrificed, which meant less time with family or socializing.
In order to take any time off at all, extra work was required so you could then “relax” on your week of vacation. My own recollection of this change places it in the mid-1980s. But your recollections may differ, and historians may say otherwise.
Still, there’s no question that the rules of the game have changed. We live in a society that seems to have sped up, taken on more as “normal,” while realizing less fulfillment in the process. What it takes to get by is in direct conflict with our desire to do more than “get by.”
The New York Times offers two articles that touch on precisely this conflict. The first, by Thomas Friedman, “New Rules,” makes reference to Bill Clinton’s recent speech at the Democratic National Convention, and resurrection of his 1992 phrase, “work hard and play by the rules.”
Work Hard and Play by the Rules?
It’s the lesson that many of us were raised with, the fundamental principle at the heart of the so-called American dream. If you work hard, you can earn whatever you set your mind to. And we’ve passed this teaching along to our children. But Mr. Friedman says it no longer applies. He writes:
… if you just “work hard and play by the rules” you should expect that the American system will deliver you a decent life and a chance for your children to have a better one… There is just one problem: It’s out of date.
The truth is, if you want a decent job that will lead to a decent life today you have to work harder, regularly reinvent yourself, obtain at least some form of postsecondary education, make sure that you’re engaged in lifelong learning and play by the rules…
Ah. Yes. Reinvention, Once Again
Regularly reinvent yourself. Check.
Engage in lifelong learning. Check.
Play by the rules. Maybe.
But what about the fact that “regular employment” is no longer the model by which our economy operates, or at least, not for huge segments of the population?
What about those of us for whom there isn’t even a pretense of security, as we move through a succession of temporary contract, freelance, or consulting gigs – sans benefits of any sort, much less the ability to plan for contingencies?
As for those (theoretical) rules, while I’m not certain that breaking the rules hasn’t served many well – excuse my cynicism – I know my own nature to be one of following rules which is not to say that I haven’t struggled in learning to bend them, just to survive. But I believe in a level playing field to the extent that’s possible, knowing full well that we’re dealt a certain hand when we’re born, and with a nod to nature, nurture, determination, and luck – we take it from there.
I would agree that 15 years ago (or more), we felt as if playing by the rules would keep us in the game, and working hard would not mean working all the time – simply to hang on.
The Times, They Are A-Changing
Mr. Friedman continues by driving home how times have changed:
Technology and globalization are wiping out lower-skilled jobs faster, while steadily raising the skill level required for new jobs. More than ever now, lifelong learning is the key to getting into, and staying in, the middle class…
Any form of standing still is deadly.
Isn’t that exactly where most of us find ourselves? Aware that standing still is impossible, but dog tired? Aren’t our children equally stressed and fatigued, though their youth allows them to renew more quickly?
Don’t we go to work sick? Don’t we have to – if we’re to be paid? Don’t we send our children to school sick, because we can’t afford to keep them home? I might go so far as to say that slowing down – much as we desire it – is utterly out of reach for many of us.
And wasn’t it only a few months ago that another article in the Times was touting the advantages of being less productive?
What is Work For? Work vs. Leisure
In a column focused on the more philosophical side of work and leisure, Gary Gutting describes the reality of our economic system as work smarter to produce more, rather than work smarter to yield more leisure.
In “What Work Is Really For” he writes:
We applaud people for their work ethic, judge the economy by its productivity… But there’s an underlying ambivalence… in our capitalist system it means work-for-pay, not for its own sake… something valuable not in itself but for what we can use it to achieve…
He goes on to quote Aristotle, “we work to have leisure, on which happiness depends,” explaining that if we can transform work into something we feel good about, something we value, then we may lead more fulfilling lives.
I understand Professor Gutting’s observations. I like the vision he would bring to bear.
BigThink summarizes his position in “Why Our Work Should Also be Our Leisure,” and concludes:
The central problem of the current economy, in terms of leading a more fulfilling life, has to do with the single-minded nature of capitalism in its search for profit… Sadly… it seems [the consumer] is buying a lot of junk that caters more to fads and insecurities than to genuine human needs… we must encourage a population of thoughtful, self-determining individuals who seek to fulfill their own deeper needs.
Fulfilling Our Deeper Needs
While I might enjoy the sentiments expressed by Professor Gutting, unfortunately they strike me as unrealistic to say the least. I see no mechanism in place for us to hop off the hamster wheel, chase our dreams, and simultaneously earn a living. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in trying, but how does this mesh with the requirement to take on more? The reinvention, relearning, and broadening of job expectations Mr. Friedman explores?
It seems to me that “live to work” has been battering “work to live” for at least a decade, and likely longer.
I will use Mr. Friedman’s pointed example of the journalist – as it is one I am somewhat familiar with.
Here’s what a reporter does in a typical day: report, file for the Web edition, file for The International Herald Tribune, tweet, update for the Web edition, report more, track other people’s tweets, do a Web-video spot and then write the story for the print paper… That’s your day. You have to work harder and smarter and develop new skills faster.
Pursuing Your Passion
Pursuing our passions is a lovely proposition, isn’t it? Wouldn’t we all like to substitute more leisure for work, or work at what we love and better still – at something which adds meaning to our lives, and does some good while we’re at it?
Ideally, we would add to the ranks of the “helping professions” including those who teach, who give care, who care well. We would also add to the scientific community, and to the arts – which our culture continues to devalue in my opinion, which is another discussion.
Yet I don’t see that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs has lost relevance. Aren’t we still fighting at the two lower levels, physiological and safety needs – food and shelter long before self-actualization?
Isn’t pursuit of one’s passions that offer us deeper meaning the dream, not the promise?
And once again, when you are continually off balance because the end of your job or assignment may come next week or next month, and the next paying position is far from guaranteed, how does pursuing your passion – much less leisure – even make it on the list?
Lifelong Learning – A Given
Mr. Friedman suggests that only through supporting lifelong learning will we be able to keep up, which necessitates infrastructure that encourages job training, just as an example. Then again, the perpetual “more” we face will ultimately land us at a breaking point, if it hasn’t already.
Mr. Gutting suggests that we re-examine our capitalist system and since we are increasingly required to work so much, we should seek to channel more efforts into what we love (or at least, tolerate?) – thus transforming work into something closer to leisure.
- Are they both right?
- Are these positions compatible or on a collision course?
- Is this conflict a significant force in our well entrenched 21st century Happiness Industry?
Even if we can reinvent, relearn, and take on an ever-enlarging sphere of tasks and responsibilities, will the American work ethic as it exists today, equating leisure with guilt, prevent our moments of happiness – or at least, tarnish them? Are we doomed to a perpetual juggle and the resulting conflict of interest? Is “happiness” yet one more challenge of the privileged?
So where do you find yourself in this debate – and its necessary compromises?
You May Also Enjoy
Oh dear this is a tough one.
After raising kids with the suggestion “if you love what you do, you’ll never work a day in your life”
… to then suggest… “work hard so that you can live the life you hope to” … and now I’m afraid just having a job would be enough for most people.
Like everything a balance is needed between education, experience, hard work – but also the well being of employees so they aren’t burnt out and getting sicker.
People seem to be ‘on call’ 24/7 and that’s not healthy. We need to switch off … Back to a simpler life.
That balance, Vicki Lee. It’s so hard. And of course, millions of us are not technically “employees.” If we do not work, there is no pay. Period. “Sick” isn’t possible, which of course is nonsense. As is – as you point out – being on call 24/7.
Great column today.
Thanks, Madge. I’m genuinely trying to figure it out. And I’m also hoping there’s still time to exert some small measure of influence on my sons, as they must face figuring it out as well. I wonder how others are working through this, and how we as a culture find alternatives to the direction in which we seem to be heading.
there are RULES?
gosh.
nobody tells us Anything 😉
giggling and waving from inside a skyscraper in manhattan.
_tg xx
Rage against the machine and thunder in the darkness so I don’t go quietly in the night and then later collapse in bed wondering when life got so damn complicated.
And if that sounds like gibberish to you it means that I am indeed working far too hard and exhaustion is preventing me from speaking with the sort of coherence and clarity I should have.
I think people need to sit down and assess what it is they need in their lives to be happy. Once you know that it becomes easier to try to figure out what you need to obtain that life.
But there is no doubt that we are running at lightspeed with fear of what could happen if we stop to breathe.
I saw several dear younger cousins this weekend. Talk about constant reinvention! And moving. Not only do you not stay in the same job, you move cities (even countries!) with regularity. The only predictable in their lives right now is uncertain change.
Of my dearest working friends, many hold two or three jobs – cobbled together in the right balance. More or less.
And for my family – my husband’s work is (one of) his passion, but some bosses require more than others. Some give vacation time only to constantly call/email. Some break. It’s more stressful then being in the office. His current employer is good. Really good. But even so, his hours are never certain.
On 24/7. Yes.
I am completely convinced that our current situation of overwork on the part of those employed, coexisting with lack of work by virtually everyone else, is a direct result of the salaried wage system, which makes it possible for companies to force eight people to do the work of ten, leaving roughly 20% of our society unemployed.
If a per-hour or per-task wage systems were the only legal options, simple analysis would show that it would be no more costly not to force overwork onto an artifically shrunken number of employees. Slightly more thought would show that this would actually be advantageous because you would not have the decresead productivity of an overstressed workforce.
What an intriguing point you raise, Robert. I find a lot of value in what you suggest, though for some responsibilities that sort of pay scheme really wouldn’t fit. Then again, the whole concept of exempt / non-exempt as it is applied in organizations seems a bit askew as well.
You mention the possible productivity gains of a less stressed workforce. That would be something to measure, wouldn’t it? Not to mention the collective reduced health care costs.
It looks to me as though it’s all spinning out of control. I keep wondering how do people survive, the ones that didn’t get a university education, the ones that aren’t smart enough to get a high paying job, how do they live? That business about your work should also be your leisure is great if you are one of the high-flyers, the head of your own business, the professor with old fashioned tenure (do they exist anymore?)… I was lucky enough to work at a career that I thought mattered, doing things I mostly thought were interesting and fun and exciting, if sometimes a little scary. But being asked to do more and more, for less, for longer, for bigger areas, to travel more, chase more deadlines, after a while it didn’t matter any more to me and it wasn’t fun or exciting… I don’t think I ever got the hang of ‘reinventing myself’. I managed to go from being a secretary to a professional and I changed career focus mid-stream at one point, but then I couldn’t see the point any more. It all looks nuts to me now and I can’t tell you how glad I am to be out of it.
I hear you, Shelley. I wonder the same things. I imagine you have a particularly interesting perspective – with a foot in two cultures, but making your home in the U.K.
I know it sounds simple, but we simplified. It’s helped. Immensely. Once we’ve adjusted. Once we’ve changed our expectations. Once we’ve redefined what we “need.” I agree with Vicki Lee Johnston – simplify. One lifetime seems to be a very shortchanged allotment.
I know one couple who worked their butts off so they could take 18 months off and sail around the world. Other people are enjoying their retirement, and even more hope to have enough to retire and enjoy it. People like me, though, think retirement sounds awfully boring! Like you imply, I don’t think either answer is the only answer. The real “winning solution” would be one that provides everyone the choice to do what’s right for them.
If I may voice my opnion, I would say that this new world of « live to work » and “no place to hop off the hamster wheel” can effectively be related to the 80’s which is more or less the times when we can date the absolute victory of capitalism and of financial markets ruling the world under the merciless doxa of neo-liberalism. And from these times on, the consideration for workers human lives has shrunk to nothing while money making and unlimited profits became “all”.
So it’s surely not just by chance that Une étrange affaire (film by French Director Pierre Granier-Deferre) was shot in 1981. It tells the story of a young ad man whose boss will ask him so much work (including sacrificed weekends and such) that it will devour his whole life, finally making lose his wife and all what was making him a human outside of business world.
There were times in the past when it was still considered to think of keeping some sense for people in the work they were supposed to do, allowing them to embrace in some proportions the processes in which they were involved, giving them secure and clear perspectives on what would be coming next for them etc… All of that is over, and the crushing machine is now the rule.
Does France escapes this new trend? Not at all! Suicides in series at France Telecom, Renault, La Poste, and other big French companies in the recent years are here to say that this global evil definitely knows no frontiers.
Insightful article BLW. Good discussion in the comments.
For me, what I wanted drastically changed in my thirties. Experience, crisis, and stress forced me to reevaluate what “work” I value. Even before simplifying, I think all of us must have a conversation to define what we REALLY want. It’s a hard conversation, but definitely necessary.
I love coming to your space. Never know what I will find here, but always learning something to help me enhance my life. Thank you.
Rudri, That’s the highest of compliments. Thank you.
“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.” Mario Savio, Berkeley, 1964.
I often think of Mario’s speech when I consider our jeopardy. Something’s got to give.