Workaholics, especially American ones, are ruining the planet

This Sounds Like a Job For ... Nobody

Now here's a theory we can get behind: workaholism is ruining the earth. "We are proudly breaking our backs to decrease the carrying capacity of the planet," says Conrad Schmidt, proponent of the 32-hour work week, who declares that overwork leads to overconsumption, pollution, and less fulfilling life experience. If there's anyone who needs to take the message to heart, it's Americans, who work more hours than anyone else in the industrialized world -- a full 500 hours more per year than Germans. Not coincidentally, the U.S. is also the world's largest polluter and produces half the world's solid waste, and a paper issued by the Center for Economic and Policy Research finds that Europeans would consume up to 30 percent more energy by 2050 if they worked like Americans. Says CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot, "Because there's no limit to what we can consume, a change of values has to take place if the planet stands a chance of survival." We're taking the rest of the day off.

straight to the source: AlterNet, Dara Colwell, 21 May 2007

straight to the report: Are Shorter Work Hours Good for the Environment?

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (5 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

so instead we...

I am just curious: if Americans work fewer hours, what do we think they will do instead? I am all for a shorter work week, but if we replace one round-trip to and from work with 4 round-trips to and from Wal-Mart (eek!), the grocery store, soccer practice, etc., then won't we simply be shifting the problem, not fixing it?

The nature of this topic is not that Americans work too much, but that we believe we "have" to work so much in order to pay for our consumer behaviors. This is a very real, relevant, and intriguing topic, but I think the consumer culture of America was downplayed just a tad. Perhaps this is a good starting point for a 10 pager in the NY Times...

by jeffrossini at 3:03 PM on 22 May 2007

International perspective

Just thought to make a comment on a matter of fact. According to information I have seen Australians now work the largest number of hours per year in the world (ahead of USA and Japan) with 1855 hours per year (see http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/NL41.pdf for more). So it wears us down and out all around the world.

by pete0762 at 4:01 AM on 23 May 2007

Productivity vs work hours

In spite of this article having made Germans sound like they work much less than Americans, I would venture the following comment: in Denmark, where I live, it is commonly conceived that Northern Europeans may work fewer hours than Americans but that they are much more productive per hour of work. I'm not sure if I agree that Northern Europeans work more than Americans, but that they work just as hard and accomplish just as much, I can safely say, having worked in both countries.

I agree that the work week should be officially and de facto shorter (many places carry the expectation of overtime), but I don't think the climate problem is really about the number of hours spent at the office...

by cassia at 7:37 AM on 29 May 2007

less work

The Machine needs our work to keep cranking. Less work, less cranking. Less cranking, less resource used. Less resource used, more planet left. It's a no brainer.

by vb at 9:08 AM on 30 May 2007

[re:] less work

Less work, less cranking - true. Less cranking, less resource used - kinda. While the raw materials and resources for production would decrease as a logical conclusion of your statements, the demand for the final product would not necessarily change.

While I personally would love to have more free time to sit on the porch with family and talk about yesterday's rain storm, I would bet that a majority of Americans would not know what to do with themselves! And what do Americans do when they are bored?: buy stuff they don't need.

Does anyone think that there is a much larger sociological issue underlying this? - and while decreasing the production of goods would help on one level - true, lasting change will require a shift in how Americans consume...

by jeffrossini at 12:27 PM on 30 May 2007
[ Parent ]

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?