Joachim Voth studied the factors that contribute most to a fulfilled life and his research shows that there is nothing better for a contented life than work. He believes that society's demonization of work and glorification of leisure is absurd.

This interview by Albert Steck was originally published in NZZ in German on 29.3.2025. Translated and edited for layout purposes by the UBS Center.

Mr. Voth, we all want a fulfilled and satisfying life. You have scientifically researched what it takes to achieve this. So why don't you just tell us the secret?

First, I should explain how we arrived at our findings. In the 1930s, the US government compiled a collection of 1,500 biographies of ordinary people. Since then, the documents have been largely unused and stored in an archive. Together with two colleagues, we have now evaluated these fascinating life stories. The central question for us was: What was important to people in their lives?

What is your response?

Three factors are crucial: People cite work as the most important source of a fulfilled life. It is not primarily about financial security. Rather, it is the feeling of doing something meaningful, of having mastered one's tasks well and of receiving appreciation for it. Pride in what has been achieved, in the contribution to the greater good, and camaraderie at work are at the center of this.

Which two other factors are important?

Close family relationships are also highly valued. And the third element is the role people play in their community: here, it is about the contribution they have made in their neighborhood, in the city or in an association, for example, and which has earned them social recognition.

In today's society, work has a rather poor image. It is often portrayed as a burden. Now your study shows the opposite: that no factor is more important for a happy life than work.

That's right. Today, we primarily follow the concept of work-life balance. According to this, a happy life and work are in competition with each other. As soon as I spend one minute more on my work, I lack this time for my actual life. However, the biographies we analyzed make it clear that this contradiction does not exist as such: only when we can achieve something meaningful in life do we find fulfillment.

That may be true for a doctor. But does it also apply to a saleswoman or a factory worker?

That is an important aspect of these life stories – we see an almost identical result across all social classes. No matter whether man or woman, what skin color or what age: the factors for life satisfaction always remain the same. I was impressed by the example of a simple librarian: her biography describes in detail the pride she took in being able to help others by giving them access to certain books.

How you define satisfaction is very subjective. Doesn't that detract from the validity of your study?

That is an important point. The feeling of happiness is very dependent on the moment. I feel good when I have just eaten or taken a nap. But we can't draw any instructions for life from this – no one should eat and sleep all day. That's why these biographies, which allow us to look back on our own lives from a certain distance, are so valuable. From them, we learn which decisions and priorities have paid off and which have turned out to be detrimental.

How did you go about analyzing these 1500 CVs?

The analysis was carried out with the help of AI programs. We had to make sure that the AI did not interpret the biographies differently than a human would. When different researchers read the texts, they also come to slightly different conclusions. AI is therefore useful when its deviations are no greater than those between two humans. We took more than 15,000 samples to ensure that the AI makes reliable statements here.

What conclusions do you draw from your research: Does our society need more desire for work again?

Today, we demonize work and glorify leisure – I think that's absurd. A job is much more than a means of earning money to buy the greatest possible fun in your free time. We see this, for example, when someone loses their job: thanks to unemployment insurance, their income only decreases to a limited extent. Nevertheless, their life satisfaction plummets. Why? Because work contributes greatly to personal satisfaction.

Even if it becomes a drudgery?

Of course, I rarely experience the same pleasure at work as I do in an amusement park. There are people in our collection who have not been able to get much out of their work – for example, a butcher in an industrial slaughterhouse. But humans in general are not designed to be entertained all the time. In this regard, I agree with the French writer and philosopher Albert Camus, who said that we should think of Sisyphus as a happy person. In Greek mythology, Sisyphus had to roll a boulder up a hill. And every time he got close to the top, the stone rolled back down into the valley. Work, however arduous it may sometimes be, allows us to use and improve our abilities. It creates relationships and a sense of pride in what we have achieved. Unfortunately, this is increasingly being overlooked in today's world.

The Social Democratic Party of Switzerland wants to limit the maximum working week to 38 hours, spread over a maximum of four and a half days. You see no social progress in this?

This demand also conveys the idea that work is something alien and hostile. However, such a regulation would be toxic for the economy. If we reduce the amount of work more and more, people will not be able to develop their skills sufficiently. To become an expert in a field, you have to invest time in it – the rule of thumb is the famous 10,000 hours.

It is often said that stress has increased as an argument in favor of a shorter working week.

I think that's a valid point. Not everyone can handle pressure equally well. Nevertheless, I think our society is developing in the wrong direction, because we constantly complain about stress. Stress is natural and can be a good thing: If I have to overcome a challenge at work, being alert, with my heart beating fast and my head working to the max, this is a good thing – I am giving my best. It teaches me how to achieve ambitious goals. An athlete at the starting line of a 100-meter sprint also experiences a rush of adrenaline.

The trend towards a leisure society has come at an unfortunate time. Due to demographic change, there is a shortage of labor. This shortage will be further exacerbated by the decline in working hours.

On top of that, there is the disastrous age guillotine when it comes to retirement. There is absolutely no sense in automatically sorting out competent, experienced people from the labor process. Behind this is the mistaken idea that the departure of a 65-year-old frees up a position for a young person. In fact, however, this is not a zero-sum game with a fixed amount of work. This is because everyone who is part of the work process continues to earn and spend money, thereby creating demand for the work of other people. Furthermore, tax revenues increase.

Nevertheless, many people are opposed to a higher retirement age. In France, for example, people took to the streets to protest.

Politics has created a false sense of entitlement here. It suggests to people: I have paid into the social security system. This buys me the right to retire at 62 – even if that doesn't work out in actuarial terms. If politicians now raise the retirement age, people feel that something is being taken away from them. Accordingly, working becomes a punishment. Yet it is a privilege to be needed and to be able to do something useful for the community.

Thanks to increasing life expectancy, retirement is lasting longer. And because people are better educated, they are also entering the workforce later. Doesn't this ever-shorter working life mean a waste of valuable human capital?

That is the case. The fact that we humans should use our resources carefully and sustainably is a central issue of our time. Yet, ironically, we engage in enormous waste at work, by throwing away the potential labor of millions of people, often exquisitely trained. The tax system, which does not reward work enough, further contributes to this. People with a great education therefore choose not to work full-time to save taxes, because there is no income tax on DIY etc.

What do you suggest we do to make work more attractive in our society again?

I would like to mention two things that I consider particularly positive in Switzerland. Through the system of vocational apprenticeships, many young people come into contact with the world of work at an early stage. This facilitates socialization. For people, on the other hand, who study until they are thirty, this transition becomes increasingly difficult. If they have never seen a company from the inside in their lives, they tend to perceive the professional world as intimidating.

Which second point do you consider positive?

Social esteem should apply to all types of work, including relatively simple tasks. If, on the other hand, a gulf opens up between the educated “elites” and the less well-educated workers, social cohesion will suffer. In Switzerland, the labor market is structured in such a way that even unskilled workers can earn a decent income and do not have to rely on state benefits. In the long term, a high degree of dependence on the state, as is the case in many European welfare states, undermines the motivation to take responsibility for one's own life.