Imagine the function of one role became shared across three individuals, each occupying a specific ‘eight-hour working window’ during the day. In such a world, we’d all be operating within different timeframes.

Hypothetically, such a shift would need to be all-encompassing. It would need to (1) cut across industries (including, but not limited to, blue- and white-collar), (2) be applied to various sectors (primary, secondary, and so on), and especially (3) receive opt-in by key players in the global economy.

On one hand, employment levels would significantly rise: individuals cannot work round the clock—nor should they. So, more people would [need to] work to account for such a shift. More people would have disposable income, and as such, we can expect broader multiplier effects to occur. However, it is unclear if these would happen, and to what extent.

On the other hand, such a significant change may create coordination problems that could disrupt labour markets, social security, and public finance. It’s also possible that this creates negative effects on society’s aggregated mental wellbeing. Ultimately, whether such a transition becomes largely beneficial also means confronting the structural issues with our current economic system(s).

Overall, it’s unclear whether we would collectively be better off, or this is yet another bleak picture of ‘labour for survival’. Yet, it’s still fascinating to think about. After all, the eight-hour workday as we know it was once also just a crazy idea.

Subscribe now

Throughout the test of time, people have continually utilised their craft, intelligence, and hard work; the things we engage with are merely artefacts of these efforts. More so, these things reflect the plenitude of steps involved and considerations made—or at times not made—in bringing things to life. Why approach things one way over the other, why assign something a certain name over another, and so on.

Whether albums, or faucets, or shoelaces, or bridges, all things reflect untold stories of all that falls between curiosity at inception to clarity at fruition. These in-between processes, however, aren’t always linear—nor should they be. It is the fact that creativity is inherently nonlinear that ensures it is nearly impossible to imitate. Creativity and innovation are fundamentally human, and as such, irreplaceable.

As the world increasingly embraces automation and acceleration at scale, we must more than ever do three things. We must continue to revere the things that existed before us, we must cultivate those that already exist around us, and most of all: we must accordingly assign value to human input in all we create hereafter.

Subscribe now