[Futurework] Downshifting to a better work-life balance

[Keith Hudson]

May I very briefly recap (three paragraphs) on what I think evolutionary economics is saying to us today?

-----
1. It says that new consumer goods throughout the whole course of our economic history have been bought mainly for reasons of status, not need. However, as the repertoire of bought goods rises, we become entrapped in the way of life that they have moulded;

2. The present sort of industrial economy which necessitates successive chain-reactions of consumer spending and investment will be brought to an end when those who initiate the consumption process (the trend-setting middle-class with sufficient disposable income) have no more time left in which to use new goods. The only goods they will buy in the coming years are those which are fashionable replacements/embellishments of existing goods, goods or services which cannibalise on the sales of other existing goods, and goods and services which do not require any additional and regular use of time;

3. The existing industrial economy, being totally dependent on very cheap fossil fuels, will gradually be brought to an end unless some miraculous new energy technology is invented (none of the present proposals being adequate either in volume or delivery characteristics).
-----

Which of the two constraints, 2. or 3. will cut in first I cannot say, though I would put my money on 2. The constraints of energy supply is likely to become serious only very gradually -- over perhaps a century -- while 2. could have sudden effects at some critical point as sufficient numbers of intelligent people start withdrawing their inputs from the present system -- inputs on which the rest are increasingly dependant.

Another way of expressing the last sentence is to say that many people will start to search for a better work-life balance or, using the present fashionable term, they will downshift.

I downshifted about 25 years ago after my children had become independent, though for different reasons than most of those described in the article below. Also -- quite differently -- I moved from a gentle pace of working to a very hectic, though very interesting, one. Although I was earning a very good salary before downshifting I was, quite simply, bored with my working life as a manager in a multinational corporation (Massey-Ferguson) because it had no challenges. Instead, I turned to setting up an organisation (Jobs for Coventry Foundation) to train young unemployed people in my home town. Like most of those people below who downshifted, I took a large drop in earnings and it took a long time -- maybe a couple of years -- to finally make the adjustment.

If I were a right-wing think-tank, or a politician of senior rank (left-wing or right-wing) in a developed country I would be exceedingly worried by the following article and I would want to commission some deeper investigation of what seems to be some serious alienation going on here.

Keith Hudson

<<<<
DESIRE TO TRADE PRESSURE FOR PEACE GROWS

Anna Fifield


The quest for a better work-life balance might be more successful than estimated. A study published yesterday found a quarter of people had "downshifted" their jobs over the past decade.

Exemplified by the high-profile resignations of Martha Lane Fox, chief executive of lastminute.com until last week, and Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, a "downshifter" is someone who has changed to a lower-paying job, reduced their work hours or quit work to study or stay at home. Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute, a Canberra-based think-tank and a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, found 25 per cent of those surveyed had downshifted in the past decade, and a quarter of those had done so in the past year.

Even more remarkably, they had taken an average pay cut of 40 per cent. "I think it reflects the intensification of work and life pressures, and greater pressures to earn more and consume more and get into debt," Mr Hamilton said. "This is a reaction to the over-consumption that has become so dominant in British life. More and more people are saying they want to buy back more time."

In a survey of 1,071 people aged 30-59 selected at random, carried out by the British Market Research Bureau, 270 said they had made a long-term decision to change their life in a way that involved earning less. To provide a more representative picture the study excluded people who had also started their own business, refused a promotion or taken time off after having a baby. The proportion would rise to 30 per cent if they were included.

Women were slightly more likely to downshift than men -- 27 per cent compared with 23 per cent. A third said a desire to spend more time with their families was their motivation, while nearly a fifth were searching for more control and personal fulfilment.

Mr Hamilton said "The survey results immediately dispel the widespread myth that downshifting means selling up in the city and shifting to the countryside to live a life closer to nature. "While the rural idyll is the route chosen by a few downshifters, the phenomenon is predominantly a suburban one with the downshifter more likely to be found next door rather than in Cornwall."

It also apparently dispelled the myth that downshifting is the prerogative of middle-aged, wealthier people who can afford to take the risk. "It is apparent that downshifters are spread fairly evenly across the social grades," Mr Hamilton said, although there was a slightly higher proportion among top earners.

While the survey's findings seem extraordinary, Mr Hamilton said they were in line with the 23 per cent found to have downshifted in a similar study he carried out in Australia last year. However, it is much higher than a similar survey published by Datamonitor, the market analyst, last month, which found that the number of downshifters had risen from 1.7m in 1997 to 2.6m last year.

Financial Times -- 25 November 2003
>>>>


Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>