Work and consumption in an era of unbalanced technological advance


Keynes’s “Grandchildren” essay famously predicted both a rapid increase in productivity and a sharp shrinkage of the workweek – to 15 h – over the century from 1930. Keynes was right (so far) about output per capita, but wrong about the workweek. The key reason is that he failed to allow for changing distribution. With widening inequality, median income (and therefore the income of most families) has risen, and is now rising, much more slowly than he anticipated. The failure of the workweek to shrink as he predicted follows. Other factors, including habit formation, socially induced consumption preferences, and network effects are part of the story too. Combining the analysis of Keynes, Meade and Galbraith suggests a way forward for economic policy under the prevailing circumstances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    Keynes (1930). Keynes apparently wrote the paper two years earlier, before the onset of what became the Great Depression.

  2. 2.

    The first systematic recognition and treatment in the United States appears to have been Wayland’s (1837) political economy text.

  3. 3.

    Page references for Keynes’s essay are from Keynes (1972)

  4. 4.

    Data on per capita gross domestic product are from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

  5. 5.

    Data on the average workweek are from Vandenbroucke (2009) for 1830–1890, from the Historical Statistics of the United States for 1900–1970, and from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1980–2012.

  6. 6.

    See Gordon (forthcoming), Ch. 8, for a detailed discussion of the changes over time in the United States.

  7. 7.

    Data on occupations are from the Historical Statistics of the United States.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Putnam (2000), Ch. 5.

  9. 9.

    Data on median family income are from the Bureau of the Census.

  10. 10.

    Some part of the difference between the growth of output per capita and of median family income reflects the fact that family size has shrunk over this period, and therefore does not properly bear on the argument here. But the difference is not great in this context. Between 1947 and 2012 the average number of persons per family in the United States fell from 3.67 to 3.13 (data are from the Current Population Survey). With adjustment for family size, the growth of real median family income over this period would produce a multiple of 4.6 over a hundred years – more than for the raw data, but still well below the trajectory of real output per capita.

  11. 11.

    In 1973 the average number of persons per family was 3.48. With adjustment for the smaller size of families, the realized growth between 1973 and 2012 would produce a multiple of 1.5 over one hundred years – somewhat larger than without the family size adjustment, but still far from even doubling.

  12. 12.

    In 1973 female participation in the labor force was 44.7%; by 2012 it was 57.7%. (The peak, in 1999, was 60.0%.) Much of this increase, however, was offset by declining male labor force participation: from 78.8% in 1973 to 70.2% in 2012. As Fig. 2 shows, there was also some modest further decline in average hours worked per week. But the main reason for the slower rise of real family incomes was the decline in real hourly wages. Data on real hourly wages are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, adjusted (slightly) to correct for a series break at 1966.

  13. 13.

    See especially Goldin and Katz (2008).

  14. 14.

    See Elsby et al. (2013) on the United States and Karabarbounis and Neiman (2014) on the decline of the labor share as a global phenomenon. A large literature has developed suggesting explanations for this development.

  15. 15.

    See Munnell et al. (2014) for a review of the most recent evidence.

  16. 16.

    In the United States the number of people participating in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (“food stamps”) was roughly stable at 20–25 million until the 2007–9 financial crisis, but since then it has nearly doubled. By contrast, publicly provided housing has shrunk relative to the growing population. Medicaid (the main medical care program for the indigent) has increased enormously in cost, but it is not obvious that recipients feel better off because their medical care costs more.

  17. 17.

    See, for example, Krueger and Perri (2006) and Meyer and Sullivan (2013).

  18. 18.

    Aguiar and Bils (2013), p. 1.

  19. 19.

    Lebergott (1993), for example, has made this argument.

  20. 20.

    The 1902 Edition of the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue (New York: Gramercy Books, 1993).

  21. 21.

    The modern literature on the role of habit formation in consumption preferences is large. For two early contributions, see Constantinides (1990) and Campbell and Cochrane (1999).

  22. 22.

    Data on telephone penetration are from the Historical Statistics of the United States.

  23. 23.

    Frey and Osborne (2013), for example, emphasize this aspect of the shift to service-sector employment.

  24. 24.

    See especially Brynjolfsson and Andrew (2014).

  25. 25.

    Tax payments also come from citizens’ incomes, of course, and so apart from distributional consequences there would be little point, in the context of this discussion, of taxing the median earner’s income in order to fund public-sector demand that creates employment for the median worker. But the tax revenues would largely come from those citizens who already have high-income jobs, while the jobs created – in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, for example – would presumably be taken by those who don’t.


  1. Aguiar M, Bils M (2013) “Has Consumption Inequality Mirrored Income Inequality?” (National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 16807, revised)

  2. Attanasio O, Hurst E, Pistaferri L (2012) “The Evolution of Income, Consumption, and Leisure Inequality in the US, 1980-2010” (National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 17982)

  3. Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2014) The second machine Age: work, progress, and prospecrity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton, New York

  4. Brynjolfsson E, McAfee A (2011) Race against the machine: How the digital revolution is accelerating innovation, driving productivity, and irreversibly transforming employment and the economy. Digital frontier Press, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell JY, Cochrane JH (1999) By force of habit: a consumption-based explanation of aggregate stock market behavior. J Polit Econ 107:205–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Constantinides GM (1990) Habit formation: a resolution of the equity premium puzzle. J Polit Econ 98(June):519–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elsby MWL, Hobijn B, Sahin A (2013) “The Decline of the U.S. Labor Share,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Fall), 1–52

  8. Frey CB, Osborne MA (2013) “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” (Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford)

  9. Friedman BM (2008) “Economic well-being in a historical context”. In: Pecchi L, Piga G (eds) Economic possibilities for Our grandchildren. MIT Press, Cambridge

  10. Galbraith JK (1958) The affluent society. Houghton Mifflin, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goldin C, Katz LF (2008) The race between education and technology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gordon RJ (2012) “Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds” (National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 18315)

  13. Gordon RJ (forthcoming) The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

  14. Hirsch F (1976) Social limits to growth. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karabarbounis L, Neiman B (2014) “The Global Decline of the Labor Share, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 (February), 61–103

  16. Keynes JM (1972) Essays in persuasion. The collected writings of john Maynard Keynes, vol. IX. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Keynes JM (1930) “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” Nation and Athenaeum (October 11 and 18)

  18. Krueger D, Perri F (2006) Does income inequality lead to consumption inequality? evidence and theory. Rev Econ Stud 73(January):163–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lebergott S (1993) Pursuing happiness: american consumers in the twentieth century. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  20. Meade JE (1965) Efficiency, equality and the ownership of private property. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Meyer BD, Sullivan JX (2013) Consumption and income inequality and the great recession. Am Econ Rev 103(May):178–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Munnell AH, Rutledge MS, Webb A (2014) “Are retirees falling short? reconciling the conflicting evidence”. Center for Retirement Research, Boston College

    Google Scholar 

  23. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of american community. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vandenbroucke G (2009) Trends in hours: the U.S. From 1900 to 1950. J Econ Dyn Control 33(January):237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wayland F (1837). The Elements of Political Economy (New York: Leavitt, Lord).

Download references


I am grateful to Ben Sprung-Keyser for research assistance and to two referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft. The conclusions I offer here differ from those I reached in a paper I wrote on this subject some years ago (Friedman 2008)

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin M. Friedman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Friedman, B.M. Work and consumption in an era of unbalanced technological advance. J Evol Econ 27, 221–237 (2017).

Download citation


  • Productivity
  • Income
  • Consumption
  • Leisure
  • Technological unemployment