In Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, Keynes (Reference Keynes1930; p. 365) predicted a future characterized more by leisure than work. He wrote about the ability of society to meet human needs, diving those needs into

Keynes correctly surmised that society would someday be able to meet the absolute needs of its people with vastly diminished labor inputs. For example, at the time of Keynes’ writing, to feed the population, 21% of the US workforce was engaged in agriculture (US Census, 1975). This figure is now less than 1% (US BLS, 2024). Although waste and inefficiency in food distribution mean that many Americans still go hungry, the USA currently produces enough food for its entire population with only a small fraction of the labor required in the 1930s (Wang et al., Reference Wang, Heisey, Schimmelpfennig and Ball2015). Similar increases in productivity have occurred across sectors. Yet, instead of ushering in an age of leisure (Kaplan et al., Reference Kaplan, Aitken, Allan, Alliger, Ballard and Zacher2025), we have witnessed a continuation of full-time employment as the norm, with only small declines in weekly working hours.

Rather than the rise of leisure, we have witnessed the rise of consumer cultures whereby needs are continuously redefined, new needs are introduced, and the population labors to meet these unending and insatiable needs (Philipsen, Reference Philipsen2023). As noted in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending report (with no discernable sense of unease), “[m]ass consumption, spurred by advertising and consumer credit, has become a distinguishing characteristic of modern society” (2006; p. 1). In other words, our tendency to define and pursue relative needs has been leveraged to promote continuous consumption at the expense of a sense of sufficiency.

Keynes imagined an increase in standard of living but did not imagine the extent to which American society could or would pursue these “needs of the second class.” As a case in point, in 1950, the average new home constructed in the United States was 983 square feet, compared to 2,349 in 2004 (the latter having fewer occupants per home; Clark, Reference Clark2011). Further, in 1960, 22% of households did not have a car, and another 22% had two or more cars. Now, only 8.5% of households do not have a car, and 59% have two or more (Rodrigue, Reference Rodrigue2020). But homes and cars are expensive, infrequent purchases. Nowhere is the increase in consumerism more obvious than in the phenomenon of fast fashion. In 1930, the year of Keynes’ commentary, American women owned nine outfits on average. In 2013, the average American woman bought more than 60 pieces of new clothing over the course of the year (Cline, Reference Cline2013). This “more is better” imperative runs deep within the culture of the United States, where we pursue a vaguely defined notion of progress that, in part, manifests as ever-increasing material possessions, comforts, and conveniences. In consumer societies, there often is no such thing as enough; the population need to always be given something new to aspire to (something that requires income and therefore work). The hedonic treadmill powers the work-and-spend treadmill. In such a context, why would working hours ever decrease?

Yet, the growing prevalence of sufficiency-oriented lifestyles, perhaps best characterized by the phenomenon of voluntary simplicity, is exposing “cracks” in this paradigm. Proponents reject the normative cultural arrangement of full-time work to fuel participation in consumerism. To a voluntary simplifier, participating in the global division of labor for 40+ h per week and using the income generated to meet a growing list of wants are seen as barriers to happiness, something to escape rather than embrace (Boyle, Reference Boyle2019). This leads voluntary simplifiers to live frugally to minimize the role of work in their lives (e.g., freelance, part-time, and early retirement; Osikominu & Bocken, Reference Osikominu and Bocken2020). In other words, voluntary simplifiers are the embodiment of sufficient consumption, the living manifestation of Keynes’ vision for the future of work. The unavoidable implication is that reducing work hours for much of the population would seem to go hand in hand with a change in what an aspirational life looks like. This argument does not deny or diminish the seriousness of financial precarity and poverty that still exists in consumer societies like the United States, which was discussed in the focal article and is thus not covered here.

Research in consumer psychology, sustainability sciences, sociology, and positive psychology has learned from and considered implications of the phenomenon of voluntary simplicity (see Osikominu & Bocken, Reference Osikominu and Bocken2020 for a review), yet, to our knowledge, I-O psychologists and HR/OB scholars have not entered this terrain. Indeed, a lot can be learned from these people who embody Keynes’ predictions (e.g., their worldviews, motivations, work experiences, epiphanies, and struggles) as well as populations who wish to embrace such a lifestyle but don’t see it as a possibility. Such research could be valuable in revealing how various aspects of society keep citizens of high-income nations engaged in conventional full-time work and how people experience and seek to overcome these structural barriers from the bottom up (Philipsen, Reference Philipsen2023).

Aspects of culture, such as consumerism, the normalization of advertising, conspicuous consumption, generational values, and societal expectations, may play a role. People are born into a particular culture and are socialized to view the conventions of their societies as the standard for how they should live. Research into voluntary simplifiers suggests that drastically reducing consumption is often spurred by an epiphany due to major life events (either personally experienced or seen in others; Devenin & Bianchi, Reference Devenin and Bianchi2023). For people who successfully transition to a simpler lifestyle, this epiphany is followed by exploring alternatives and constructing a path toward them. If high working hours are driven in part by the cultural normativity of consumerism as we are suggesting, then a route to shorter working hours should follow a similar trajectory.

As another example, voluntary simplifier research helps to shed light on how peer expectations concerning full-time work—and the lifestyles that they afford—can contribute to long working hours in high-income nations. People find social pressures to be a challenge when attempting to exit consumerism (Ezell et al., Reference Ezell, Bush, Shaner, Vitell and Huang2023). When one’s family and friends pursue “more” (in terms of aspirations, consumption, and thus working hours), aspiring for “less” puts one out of step with conventions and can come with social ramifications. Voluntary simplifier research helps to understand how people navigate these tensions, which can inform I-O psychology and HR/OB theory concerning the influence of social norms on long working hours.

Institutional factors, including employer-imposed work schedules and employment-tied health insurance, may also contribute to long working hours in high-income nations. To this end, research suggests that voluntary simplifiers find that they need to change jobs—or even countries—to pursue a simpler lifestyle (Osikominu & Bocken, Reference Osikominu and Bocken2020). In fact, in a survey of 2,268 voluntary simplifiers, Alexander and Ussher (Reference Alexander and Ussher2012) found that the number one reported barrier to simple living was “suitable employment.” This provides an interesting area for I-O psychology and HR/OB scholarship to pursue: What is it about conventional employment relationships that make simple living so difficult? And how do people looking to exit consumerism go about fitting work into their lives (instead of the other way around)?

Together, these issues underscore how Keynes‘ vision of reduced work hours is undermined by structural factors that may promote “lock in” to the conventional full-time work-and-spend treadmill (Hirth et al., Reference Hirth, Kreinin, Fuchs, Blossey, Mamut, Philipp and Radovan2023). We think that I-O psychology and HR/OB scholarship is well positioned to understand how people are tackling this issue in their own lives. Researching individuals who have successfully simplified their life will help scholars not only to better understand this population but also to identify management and policy interventions that can help to make a shorter workweek with more meaningful leisure an economic possibility for our grandchildren.