AI, Productivity, and the Ongoing Fight for More Free Time

The promise that technology will free us from the tyranny of the clock has been the siren song of modernity. From the mechanized looms of the industrial revolution to today’s AI, the implicit promise has always been the same: less input, more output. But the real story of working time is much more complex and contradictory.

In the 19th century, working days of between 12 and 14 hours were the norm in much of Europe and the United States. It was thanks to long-standing union pressure and workers’ mobilization that the eight-hour working day was finally introduced in the wake of the irst world war, becoming an international objective by the International Labor Organization in 1919, and which in Spain saw the 48-hour week introduced following the La Canadenca strike in Barcelona. Since then, reductions have been frequent but gradual: from 48 hours at the beginning of the 20th century to 40 hours in much of Europe in the second half of the 20th century.

Despite these advances, the reduction of working time has always been a social conquest, mediated by unions, laws and collective struggles, never an automatic effect derived from technological innovations. In both Europe and America, working hours stabilized at around 40 hours without productivity growing proportionally in terms of reduced hours: for decades, efficiency gains translated into higher wages and increased output rather than a shorter working day.

Now, a new factor comes into play: artificial intelligence. The media is filled with discussions of how businesses are using AI to automate routine tasks, from document management to finding clients, and as a result, have enabled their teams to enjoy four-day weeks without loss of productivity. Business leaders such as JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon suggest that, in the long term, these technologies could reduce the working week yet further, while Bill Gates has openly speculated about two- or three-day work weeks if automation reaches its potential.

However, recent history also shows that the idea of “reduction” can be manipulated. An analysis by Le Monde of the so-called four-day working week in France shows that in many cases this simply compresses the week, i.e. “doing the same hours over fewer days”, rather than a true reduction in the total hours worked, with the risk of intensifying daily effort and aggravating fatigue. This should remind us that without strong collective bargaining and regulation to ensure that productivity gains translate into more free time, reductions can become mere instruments of flexibility at the expense of working conditions.

The case of Iceland is illustrative: between 2015 and 2019, pilots were carried out in which employees reduced their working week from 40 hours to between 35 and 36, maintaining wages and without loss of productivity, which led to almost 90% of the workforce now enjoying shorter weeks. Importantly, this change was produced by trade union agreements and investment in digitalization that made the reduction viable at no cost to competitiveness.

In Spain, the debate has also taken an important turn in 2025. The government, in agreement with the main labor unions, has pushed for a reduction in the working week from 40 to 37.5 hours, although some voices have cautioned that the real goal, a four-day week, will require more ambitious policies. On the other hand, the emphasis on effective control mechanisms, when many jobs can be carried out from anywhere, clearly affects this debate. Differentiating purely manual jobs from others that are based more on inspiration or creativity is essential. In addition, Spanish regions such as Asturias are trialing a 32-hour working week in collaboration with unions and employers to evaluate the real effects before a possible generalization.

The history of the working day shows us that change is not produced by the simple advance of technology, but by the articulation of these advances with political power, collective bargaining and social will. AI is a powerful lever, but it does not in itself guarantee shorter weeks or better living conditions. Without the mediation of strong social agents and public policies that distribute the benefits of productivity, the risk is that profits will translate into higher business margins or layoffs, as critics warn, noting that the benefits of automation have usually been captured by capital rather than translating into shorter working weeks.

If history teaches us anything, it is that each technological advance brings us to another crossroads: cultivating a more humane future or reinforcing structures of inequality. In the next decade, the discussion about the four-day working week will be a decisive test of which of those futures we opt for.

—

This post was previously published on Enrique Dans’ blog.

***