Ann Kiernan illustration of a woman exercising with battle ropes.
© Ann Kiernan
158
Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
For some, headlines such as “How this successful CEO starts their morning” offer hope. What if it took only a few tweaks to one’s daily schedule to achieve power, riches and smugness? For others this corner of the internet offers a warning. The price of success seems to be a 4am wake time followed by a glug of a celery smoothie while pumping weights. If that is what it takes to “win the day”, I’ll accept the loss.
What might an economist’s morning routine look like? I am not suggesting that their fresh-faced glow is something to aspire to. (I have attended enough economics conferences to confirm that this is not the median look.) I am suggesting that they think carefully about data, as well as optimisation under constraints.
So imagine an economist staring at their computer, trying to map out the best possible start to the day. First, they must work out what exactly they are optimising for. “Utility” is broad enough to capture most things, including the possibility of divorce if the optimal routine mysteriously lacks any childcare responsibilities. But it can be difficult to measure, so they pick productivity instead.
Next, they must decide whose preferences will be taken into account. The economist Emily Oster offers work sheets to help families hash out their mission statement and hourly schedule. But that all sounds a bit . . . collaborative. For simplicity, models often assume that households behave like a single individual, and this economist decides to model their household’s preferences as their own. Easy.
Header logo

The majority of Americans are awake by 7am

Fraction of the population sleeping* (%)

Then comes the scheduling. A glance at survey data reveals that the average American wakes between 6am and 7am. Sounds reasonable. But on average, people with a college education sleep less than those with at most a high-school degree. Maybe higher earners are responding to stronger incentives to stay awake. Or perhaps joining their ranks means waking up early to get ahead.
Bar chart of Hours sleeping* relative to men with a bachelors degree or more showing People with more education tend to sleep less
Pinning down causality is tough, but not impossible. Several studies draw on the fact that people tend to sleep a bit less when sunset is later. By comparing people who experience sunsets at different times thanks to their location, they can identify the effects of sleep on productivity.
One study found that in America an extra hour of sleep a week raised average earnings by 5 per cent, which the authors said was about as much as half an extra year of education. Another found that in Germany half an hour more sleep each week was associated with around 2 per cent higher earnings among full-time workers, with the largest effects for mothers. The economist gratefully deletes the “3am wake up” entry in their timetable.
Admittedly, these effects are averages across location, and not guaranteed individual returns. Perhaps the economist could assume that they are the representative agent, and that everyone else will join their newfound habits. They impulsively type in “6.30am wake up”, and move on to the next row.
The next task is to decide on optimal exercise. The economist decides to skip the agonising about causality; regular exercise is correlated with higher earnings, but then again, personal trainers don’t come cheap. Simpler to embrace the signalling element of the optimal morning routine, and simply pick whatever sport is most closely associated with being rich. Tennis and golf look good on this measure, but at 6am partners are hard to come by. Running it is.
Washing and grooming come next. (Please.) According to the American Time Use Survey in 2023, in women those with more education tend to spend more time on grooming, whereas for men the relationship is less obvious. By this point the economist has completely given up on strong evidence of causality, and simply writes “7.15am wash and other grooming in line with social norms”.
Then there is breakfast. The economist ambitiously writes down some options (conference-provided granola bar with juice; conference-provided cereal with long-life milk; conference-provided muffin with black coffee) but fails to find any randomised control trials to identify the best one. There is evidence that school breakfast programmes improve children’s outcomes, leading to the plain entry “have breakfast”. Next is the commute, and the work day begins.
The day after the economist formulates this grand plan, they sleep through their alarm and are woken by an unimpressed spouse reminding them that it is their turn to get the children ready for school. There is time for a shower but not breakfast. Revealed preferences suggest this is the utility maximising approach.
Follow Soumaya Keynes with myFT and on X
The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes is a new podcast from the FT bringing listeners a deeper understanding of the most complex global economic issues in easy-to-digest weekly episodes. Listen to new episodes every Monday on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts or wherever you get your podcasts

Promoted Content

Follow the topics in this article

Comments

Commenting is only available to readers with an FT subscription

Please login or subscribe to join the conversation.

Comment guidelines

Please keep comments respectful. Use plain English for our global readership and avoid using phrasing that could be misinterpreted as offensive. By commenting, you agree to abide by our community guidelines and these terms and conditions. We encourage you to report inappropriate comments.
was this sarcasm?
I went to pick up a new producer on a fast shoot but he was still having breakfast. I half jokingly complained he wouldn't get far if he couldn't get up in the morning. He went on to run channel 4, the BBC, NYT and CNN.. Maybe another column on how an arts graduate optimizes their morning routine?
For those complaining about the "their", you are dating yourselves. If it was good for Shakespeare, it must not be that much of a problem. In case you don't know, "their" is the new gender neutral, which is actually quite convenient if you can manage to get over your old habits.
I wouldn't be so worried about not understanding a thing you wrote here, if you didn't have one Recommend. I hope it's from you too.
With a Tommy tank and an espresso
Those always bloviating about their superhuman early-morning routines rarely spend as much time boasting about how early their days end. I believe those people turn off their brains after dinner and maybe some mindless TikTok while others may stay engaged later into the quiet of the night (e.g. reading, writing, thinking, etc.).

[And see, it isn't so hard to write without embarrassingly violating that tricky singular / plural stuff we learned as little children.]
But that results in the economist's general assumption that they are only talking about the rational man, 'Homo economicus'. All cases become 'he'.
Of course, this is complete fiction, of Rowling-like dimensions, as I have yet to meet a man who is rational.
This does not mean that women are or can be wholly rational either, but academic economists rarely discuss this. But then, rationality may not be gender-linked (or chromosomal) either. Maybe it's related to not trying to stay awake for twenty hours out of the twenty four?
"How an economist optimises their morning routine"
The editor gets an F in English grammar.
True, his or her, not their.
(Edited)
Shakespeare used "their," get over yourself.
Could you please give an example? Thanks.
Can the toilet going habits be linked to earnings potential? Just an idea for the economist…
(Edited)
It's funny how you can tell that some people here are just dead inside - can't even enjoy a lighthearted article! Hope to never become one of those :)
This was funny but then it petered out a little. I will try to increase my sleep amount just a bit.
I fell asleep reading it. Bit of a rambling article.
Well I must say an economist/they is pretty confusing at 5am.
(Edited)
I wake up at 5AM, I at least try to, and by god’s grace somehow managed to. I want to keep this up for another 66 days at least, to a point where this becomes engrained and habitual to point that it’s not so soul-draining and painful.

In the grand scheme of things, considering how much time and effort we waste on so many of futile endeavours in life, waking up and winning the day, or at least the attempt to do so, is the least we can do to ourself and to the inner-being inside us.

Waking up early has many benefits, and as with anything you have to first believe and truly try to see the actual benefit, and to eventually reap them.
I have unwelcome news for you. You have the same 24 hours as everyone else.
You are likely to go to bed earlier.
(Edited)
Optimising for work productivity is all very Millennial. Gen Z era is all about optimising for a balanced and joyous life. Stay in bed a bit longer.
... I'm a boomer (executive in a large firm), I follow my early morning (5am wake + read FT, 6am workout ,7 am shower + breakfast, go to office) routine for preserving HEALTH and the great feeling of vitality it gives me throughout the day.
After so many years, I can't NOT do it.
I wholeheartedly recommend it to my team all the time. Top priority must be GOOD HEALTH.
(Edited)
When do you go to sleep? And do you feel exhausted by noon?
In bed by 8! This allows for any difficulties you have going to sleep.
That sounds fun. Gen Z mentality allows for you to pursue happiness, even if it is through rigour and discipline. But could your routine allow a stop to smell the flowers? That's the question.
That's great! For you. Others go to sleep and get up later, and are just as healthy and virtuous.
Workout: Flexible Minimum Effective Dose hypertrophy training

Breakfast: Protein smoothie with lots of antioxidants but no spinach (don't want kidney stones)

Lunch: Bean stew made in a slow cooker. Easy to make a batch for the whole week.

Childcare: Don't have kids :)

Commute: Live close enough to walk or bike

Workplace: Either show up before or leave later than most of your peers. Ignore most after-hours emails but maybe reply to one or two to look like you do a lot of work. Schedule send on Outlook for absurdly early times so you look like some morning optimizer.

Don't start interpersonal conflict; if someone annoys you they probably annoy everyone else.

S***post on FT at lunch and forward a few articles to your friends and co-workers to look smart.

Read the abstracts of the most widely cited articles on Google scholar about whatever you're going to talk about before opening your mouth. It takes like 5 minutes.
The impulse to "optimize" every aspect of our lives is odious and strip mines them joy and spontaneity.
Surely sometimes. But sometimes optimization is fun. It's like solving a problem.
Multitask! I am listening to CNBC and sorting trash to recycle while reading comments in the FT.
What a finely crafted headline !
I can totally see the plurality implicit in ''an economist''.
What a fine juncture of Culture we are at.
You must be fun at parties.
very amusing! Now I know what I should have done years ago...
A lot of humorless commenters here. There must be a graph for plotting humor and economists.
You should create that graph and report back. There may even be a prize for you.
(Edited)
Sample-of-one economics rarely produces anything worthwhile.

Branding me as humorless on a sample of this single comment would reinforce that point.
Is the fact that women sleep more (even though biologically men need more sleep) a due to a different nature of jobs / more women being house wives?
You profess to know what a woman is. You must be a biologist and not an economist. At least that is what can be inferred using the ideology that is now on FT.
Hormones? Or jobs? Which makes more of a difference?
All such queries to be forwarded to the office of Ursula Von Der Leyen. Thank you.
I get up at 5:30am if im going to the gym (3 times a week) if not then it's usually 6:15. Weekends I tend to be awake by 7am. I almost never snooze.
Why are you telling us? Nobody cares. You should know that.
Why not? No one has yet said that they wake up every day at 8 and are usually late for work.
I wake up everyday at 8 but wfh 3/5 days so am rarely late for work.
Those of us looking to really optimise our schedule simply change and manipulate time.

I spent many months agonising over those awful optimisation problems during my masters. These models are absolutely useless in the real world. Pure academic guff.
Not sure who this will help or how...Kind of a misleading headline if you ask me.
brilliant! thanks.
Sums up the reality of the dismal science.
I know the phrase is an ancient cliché, but economics is not in any way a science.
It serves only purpose: make astrologers look good
The term "dismal science" was created by Thomas Carlyle in an essay where he argued for the reintroduction of slavery as a way of improving productivity in the West Indies. Economists at the time suggested supply and demand were a better way of increasing productivity and that is what he saw as "dismal".
Learned something new today, for that I thank you.
Very humorous
Thx
Correlation vs causation at play yet once again. Despite the hustle bro movement, 4am CEO’s and the like. There’s more to living (successfully at that, not surviving) than pushing yourself for routines that don’t really make you happy. The only way to find out? Trial and error. Of course this is all possible if your work isn’t dictating your lifestyle. This is why we push our kids to get better education, because manual labour is tiring and less forgiving, a six hour sleep habit could lead to devastating errors.
Your last sentence no doubt missed the crucial words "of judgement"...
??
Can we have a case study? Perhaps Mr Harford and the Wolf of Friday Street, plus Mr Ganesh for a comparison and exploration of commute optimisation?
And "remote" optimisation to posit the counterfactual....
This is listed as #5 in the five most read stories on the FT, which, to my mind, suggests one of two things: 1) the overall content on the FT is very poor or 2) the Most Read widget is a big lie editors use to push content
or perhaps your judgement of poor, is, well, poor
Whatever blows your skirt up. But I seriously doubt, in light of ALL the other articles on the FT website (hundreds), that this "story" blew up enough skirts to make it into the top 5.
Maybe people just want to read something clever and fun at the end of a long week of day optimization, Jerge.
How do you measure success?

My grandfather was never rich. Never had a lot of money. He went to bed at 11, rose at 6.30, ate two pieces of fruit and had a mug of tea, made his lunch (half a loaf made into sandwiches) and left at half 7 for the bus. Finished at 1800 and made his way home for his tea. Was a St John's Ambulance man, went to Elland Road to the football (dangerous 70's and 80's in his spare time.
He had impressed a company so much they put him on a full pension. He worked thorough his retirement but took a month off to go somewhere warm each Christmas. Did this till he was felled by a stroke at 77.

He was highly self disciplined and a success. He never had a lot of money, never had a driving licence, but he had more get up and go than many people measure as a success by other means. He was thin as a whippet till he dropped. His personal daily regime was the same for decades.

Disciplined. And yes, very successful.
What is the point in this article?
We don't have the benefit of mojitos in the morning, so the point of the article was amusement.
Agree. And that for us wage earning plebs who do our own domestic chores and child care, there is no one size fits all normative routine so should just chill and go with the flow.
Agree. And that for us wage earning plebs who do our own domestic chores and child care, there is no one size fits all normative routine so should just chill and go with the flow.
:-)
For breakfast, the economist will eat caviar and quails eggs, because studies have shown that the consumption of these foodstuffs is linked to 150% higher incomes than for people who eat Frosties for breakfast.

The economist will then fly to work in a helicopter. Economic research has shown that heli-commuters are as much as 90% more productive than people who go to work on a bus.

When at work, the economist limits his conversation to co-workers whose knowledge and contacts are likely to yield the most economic benefit, such as senior executives and other economists. Speaking to cleaning and catering staff is shown to have little informational benefit, in terms of for example understanding the link between behaviours and incomes.

After work, the economist will return home to his wife, who has spent the day caring for their children, cleaning their house, mowing their lawn and taking care of household administration. Because this kind of labour is not remunerated, it does not count towards GDP, so the economist will reproach her for her idleness.

The economist will then sleep for 10 hours, dividing this between armchair, sofa and bed in order to maximise the utility of each investment.
Must try harder.
Let me guess...economist?
Very goood.
well written
he no doubt possesses a 3 in 1 variety: a chaise longue, which converts likewise into a sofa and bed - now that's what I call seamless transition.....
Steak and eggs for breakfast and you will be superhuman. It's the protein and Creatine than boosts your brain to the max, and your blood sugar will be stable all day
Also, no need to go to the loo all day so you save time.
true.
Breakfast - for good working memory, protein is advised ("go to work on an egg"), carbs may draw blood away from the brain.

That said, carbs within half an hour of excercise or your body starts to scavenge itself at rest. Smoked salmon and strawberries, obvs.
What is this random advice?!
Think of all those Japanese people having rice at breakfast!
they often have fish.

you need peas with rice or the protein complex isn't comprehensive.
Having spent the morning being recommended lots of 'my 5am morning routine' videos posted by perky 20 somethings, this was a the perfect antidote. ....now I'd better set my alarm....
Good stuff and thank you
Good one, thank you. Didn't know that economists can be funny too!
So even at 6am the bourgeois economist is blearily reaching for self-evidently false individualist assumptions about human behaviour and looking for numbers to justify their choice
I believe that there is some research somewhere that shows that the only people who behave in the way economists model human behaviour are....economists.
A person does not behave like an economist thinks, but people often do.
There was a TA strike at the university where I did my PhD and the only department we knew of where a majority of TAs crossed the picket lines was Economics. I think people learn rational choice theory and then take it as prescriptive. The Mining department were also very anti-union and I suspect they would have crossed the lines, but they were located in a remote part of the campus so who knows?
Ceteris Paribus......
I had no idea someone had the time and instruction to collect data on how long you sleep and how much you earn. If we are going to take delight in treating humans as machines, we should not be surprised that we breakdown often now.
The essence of being a human (which is anything creative) is lost. Animals must be laughing at us.
Agreed, imagine an animal wanting a machine to tell it what time to get up, rather than get up on when it's had enough sleep.
Quality not quantity of sleep is more important..
Enjoyed this.
The FT, much to the confusion of some readers, periodically run humorous articles of this type. They are clearly written in a tongue in cheek style and the levity is very welcome. There are, however, some miserable souls in the comments section who will inevitably criticise their inclusion in the paper, demanding x minutes of their lives back or questioning why a financial newspaper includes anything other than financial news. Gosh, their lives must be dull!
Agreed, very enjoyable stuff, especially close to the weekend.
Many don’t get the FTs remit .
Not what it says on the "tin"- just a data dragnet. If it was personal it might be interesting but since the author decided against that , one must presume it is not and that there is some sort of insecurity reflected in the usual dismissal of the benefits of early rising etc . Being a conference junkie puts one into one of the lower levels of Dante's inferno but with a lot of coffee and snacks, low grade conversations/ presentations included. If the said person is looking at their computer to start their day then they are already finished.
For simplicity, models often assume that households behave like a single individual, and this economist decides to model their household’s preferences as their own.
LOL
Some kind of home economicus... ;-)
Thank you. Always welcome to read something debunking those ridiculous morning routines of the rich and successful. My morning routine was disrupted yesterday by being kicked in the balls by my son, mid-tantrum at the school gates, poor blighter. Real life.
Great intro paragraph. I see so many smug-much posts about maximizing the potential of one’s day in my feed on LinkedIn and elsewhere, it’s a relief to know others find them as tedious and unbelievable as I do
They all just want to be one of the “four Yorkshiremen”; “you had it easy - I used to get up two hours before going to bed - etc”
But on average, people with a college education sleep less than those with at most a high-school degree.

in America an extra hour of sleep a week raised average earnings by 5 per cent, which the authors said was about as much as half an extra year of education.
Looks like conflicting/confusing evidence on sleep.
I agree it wasn’t well explained, but what it means is that while people with college degrees sleep less than those with no college education, when you compare those in the same category, more sleep correlates with more earnings.

To me, this makes sense: typically lower income correlates with longer commutes and less flexibility over commuting days.
yawn - front page FT - really?
One of the most predictable and tedious comments is the complaint about anything in the FT which is at all light or humorous. Yawn.
yawn
It is possible that if you earn more it is easier to get a spouse and then have children and those with chidlren are up very very early - the baby might be up for 2 hours in the night and every 2 hours otherwise and then the toddler will often be up finally by about 5am or 6am raring to go for the day and then both parents are getting ready for work too once the baby and toddler are up (writing as a mother of 5).....
writing as a mother of 5
We know, Rose, we know.
How do you define the median (or other quantiles) on the space of looks? ;-)
Why women sleep more than men?
Because men are so tiresome?
DING DING DING
Habit. Grab sleep when you can, if you have children.
A friend had the great skill to sleep sitting up, anywhere. I asked her how she could do this and her answer was, 'I was a flight attendant.' Long flights and varying schedules, you grab sleep however you can.
No economist worth their salt would get married and have children
It simply doesn’t make sense
That depends on their sex/gender and individual wealth. It will usually make economic sense for one partner.
I heard a UK economist once say that if children were coal mines they’d be closed down because they are uneconomical
Isn’t that why the birth rate is falling in many places?
underestimated the utility value, obvs
According to this logic, living, being alive doesn’t make any sense.
"We at Exonn have come to believe that continued human existence is uneconomic"
user name checks out
Well, I’ve thought about this quite a lot.
Is that you Janan?
From a pure numbers perspective for a singular lifetime, yes. Overall though, family life does have a positive impact on performance and legacy.
Yes but economics is based on numbers
Hence my opinion
What if you believe you could produce 3 Bill Gates's?
Isn't this the underlying fear of a superpowerful AI? At some stage they'll do the maths and we'll get cancelled..
While most people know what an economy is, many are confused about what an economist is.
It’s a bad magazine posing as a newspaper, but that’s not important right now
True. It used to be essential reading (I read it every week for 20 years). Now I find it hopelessly out of date by the time I get it and rarely that insightful.
🤣🤣🤣
Thank goodness economists are the only people who behave like economists assume…
Just read this in the three minutes between waking up and having to go get our toddler up. Hilarious. Thanks.
This particular economist doesn't seem to have realized what his/ her most important assets are and how to prioritize them and invest in them properly.
I think she’s realised that her best assets are first her surname and second her sense of humour. Seems to be working those quite well.
Imagine being a family with a mission statement. No fun in that household come year_end appraisal time.
Upside, I get to speak to my kids uniquely using AI
I like this idea.

I'm going for 'Aim low - achieve your dreams'
From the sage Homer S: ""Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is...never try."
I actually know two families that actually do (or did) have mission statements and in at least one case they really did have regular appraisals!

I spent a month in China about 5 years ago with the offspring … sorry, product, of one of those families and while he doesn’t have a great relationship with his mother, he does credit her for the fact that he has an excellent academic record, a good job, is fluent in three languages and plays piano at a very high level. :)
Tiger mom!
I would still propose this to my family, just to see their reaction.
I have a hard time imagining a family with children who have a chore schedule.
Where do I claim back 5 minutes of my life spent on this?
At the grumpy shop. They’ve got a queue and unhelpful assistants that you’ll love.
Did you include rummaging through comment section of a mid FT article into your morning routine or it was a spontaneous decision?
Why disparage the comment section? You obviously find it an effective outlet for your whining
You clearly use it for exactly the same. What’s the point of the question if not otherwise?
You’ve been owned. Just take it and stop embarrassing yourself.
Is it possible that people with less education sleep longer because on average they have jobs that are more physically tiring?
Came here to say exactly the same thing. It also explains why there is this bogus correlation between sleep and how much you earn, as if getting up earlier makes you earn more, rather than earning more lets you do less physical work and sleep less.

It’s an entertaining article, but it really is the dismal science
Article feels it belongs in men's health or GQ.
The article was one of the ft’s periodic humorous light hearted takes on things. Long may they continue.
And the final part about revealed preferences was a very good ending.
Or that they have jobs/no jobs that permit a longer lie in (or early to bed.) That’s the problem with stats - difficult to identify underlying causality.
It's actually also quite important to get enough sleep if you have a white collar job. Mental exhaustion after a day in the office is a sign that you need to sleep in order to allow your body to get rid of the chemicals in your brain that build up when doing mentally taxing tasks
I associate white collar jobs with having computers for work at home. Which means you work at home and at the office. Which means you get less sleep as you try to catch up or get ahead of the curve using your laptop.
Love it!
Awesome.
Great parable.