History has a way of recycling itself, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the promises made to the working class—the promise that if you work 40 hours per week you can achieve the American Dream. On the surface, it may seem like a step toward empowerment but, in reality, reinforces a system of control. During Kendrick Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime performance, he made a powerful reference to “40 acres and a mule,” declaring, “This is bigger than the music. They tried to rig the game, but you can’t fake influence.” His words serve as a reminder that economic promises, whether made in the aftermath of the Civil War or in modern labor policies, often fail to deliver true autonomy. The phrase “40 acres and a mule” refers to a post-Civil War promise made to formerly enslaved people that was quickly rescinded. Today, the 40-hour workweek carries echoes of this historical bait-and-switch: which was initially framed as progress but ultimately furthers the divide between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’.
The Promise of Independence
In 1865, Union General William T. Sherman issued Special Field Order No. 15, which allocated 40 acres of land (and in some cases, a mule) to freed Black families in the South. The intention was to provide a foundation for economic independence after centuries of forced labor. However, this land redistribution was short-lived. Within months, President Andrew Johnson reversed the order, returning the land to former Confederate landowners, leaving Black families without resources or support.
Fast forward to the 20th century, when the 40-hour workweek became the standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It was seen as a major victory for workers, ensuring a livable schedule and protecting employees from exploitation. Yet, just like “40 acres and a mule,” the promise of economic security through steady employment has, over time, revealed itself to be a mirage.
Economist John Maynard Keynes famously predicted in 1930 that technological advancements would lead to a 15-hour workweek by the 21st century. However, this forecast never came to be, and the 40-hour workweek remains entrenched, much like the economic disenfranchisement that followed the broken land promises of the Reconstruction era.
From Ownership to Overwork
The failure to uphold the promise of “40 acres and a mule” forced Black Americans into cycles of sharecropping, tenant farming, and later, low-wage labor, keeping wealth and power concentrated among white landowners and industrialists. Similarly, the 40-hour workweek has kept workers tethered to an outdated model of labor, one that no longer serves their best interests but ensures the continued enrichment of corporations.
Today, the idea that a full-time job is enough to achieve financial stability is increasingly false. Wages have stagnated while productivity has skyrocketed—workers today are producing more than ever, yet their earnings have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. Since 1979, net productivity has grown by 64%, while the hourly pay of typical workers has only increased by 17.3%, according to the Economic Policy Institute. This gap mirrors the economic disenfranchisement seen after the failure to provide land ownership to freed slaves.
Still Under the Thumb of the Wealthy
After the failure of land redistribution, systemic policies such as Jim Crow laws, and banking discrimination ensured that Black Americans remained economically under the thumb of wealthy whites. In a parallel fashion, modern corporate structures and labor policies have cemented wealth inequality, making it nearly impossible for many workers to get ahead; especially mothers, women of color, LGBTQ+ and other marginalized groups. Homeownership, once the gold standard of the American Dream, is now out of reach for many, much like land ownership was for freed slaves in the 19th century.
Consider this: in the 1970s, a single full-time income could support a family, provide homeownership, and allow for retirement savings. Today, that same structure is laughably inadequate. The Economic Policy Institute reports that from 1979 to 2013, wages for the top 1% increased by 138%, whereas wages for the bottom 90% grew by just 15%. The 40-hour workweek no longer guarantees stability, let alone prosperity—it merely sustains a workforce too exhausted to challenge the system.
Breaking the Cycle
If “40 acres and a mule” was a promise never fully delivered, and the 40-hour workweek has become a modern economic trap, then the question remains: what’s next? Just as land ownership was a means to wealth-building and autonomy, a new model of work must center on actual economic mobility and personal freedom.
Some potential solutions? Four-day workweeks without pay cuts, universal basic income, or employee ownership models that allow workers to share in the profits they help generate. The shift toward a four-day workweek in various industries has already shown promising results, with increased productivity and a better work-life balance.
Senator Bernie Sanders has been a vocal advocate for reevaluating the workweek, stating, “Eight-six years after Roosevelt signed a 40-hour work week into law, it’s time for us to move to a 32-hour work week at no loss of pay.” His call for change underscores the growing recognition that the current model is outdated and insufficient for modern economic realities.
Ultimately, we must question whether the systems we operate under truly serve us—or if they were designed to keep us just comfortable enough to stop asking for more. Because if history has taught us anything, it’s that real empowerment doesn’t come from promises; it comes from dismantling the structures that keep people from building true wealth and autonomy.