In his 1936 film “Modern Times,” Charlie Chaplin appears as a klutzy factory worker who just can’t keep up with the ever-increasing speed of his assembly line job. The conveyor belt keeps moving faster. Charlie finally cracks. In one famous scene, he is ‘eaten’ by the factory’s massive system of cogs. He travels through the machinery, wrenches in hand, adjusting bolts as he proceeds, until the apparatus finally spits him out – unscathed, of course.
The film is a wry social commentary about the nature of modern work. It deftly shows that while increased production may be great for turning out more widgets, it can just as easily turn people into machines, or servants of machines.
There is no doubt that the nature of work has changed dramatically over the past century. While our conventional measures of progress chronicle the widely accepted benefits of these changes – such as higher levels of income and greater consumption – they have been less successful at documenting the costs of modern work.
Growth doesn’t always mean prosperity or wellbeing
The more hours we work for pay, and the less free time we have, the more the economy grows and the ‘better off’ we are supposed to be, according to conventional measures of progress. By that standard, stress is good for the economy.
Better indicators and measures of progress would not treat work-related stress and the cost of treating stress-induced illness as contributions to prosperity. Instead, they would be counted as costs to the economy.
Better measures of progress would similarly recognize that higher levels of income, growth, and output in the industrialized world have not necessarily increased levels of satisfaction, wellbeing, and economic security.
GDP per capita was much lower 35 years ago than it is today. But are we better off today than we were in 1970? In the ’60s and ’70s, fewer people were out of work, fewer people needed food banks, and personal debt was much lower. The GDP can grow even as poverty, insecurity, and inequality increase, as the gap between rich and poor widens, as the earth’s resources are depleted, and as quality of life declines.
No progress in work hours, job quality, job security
The economy can grow while work – which supposedly ‘drives’ the economy – deteriorates. The following key indicators can present a more accurate picture of whether work is improving in Canada:
• A decline in unemployment;
• A decline in underemployment, signified by a decline in numbers of people who work part time because they can’t find full-time work;
• An increase in job security, characterized by jobs with benefits, security, and decent pay;
• A decline in over-work, or the proportion of people who work long hours;
• An increase in types of work that are not socially or environmentally harmful, and a decrease in work that is damaging to communities or the environment;
• A reduction in work stress and an increase in work that improves work/family balance, and contributes to quality of life.
The trends outlined in this issue of Reality Check show a decline in progress among these indicators over a 25-year period. The good news is that Canada can reverse these trends by learning from successful experiments in Europe, and from the Canadian government’s own landmark Donner Commission report, profiled in this issue.
These examples demonstrate it is possible to reduce overwork, improve work/family balance, increase free time and vacation time, and reduce unemployment and underemployment.
Instead of counting things ‘wrong,’ by falsely equating long hours with progress, we can use indicators of genuine progress to count things right.
This article was originally published in Reality Check: The Canadian Review of Wellbeing, a joint project of The Atkinson Charitable Foundation and GPI Atlantic.