+6hr of leisure than in 1965, though inequality strikes again
I mentioned a few threads back that there was an article about there being more leisure than 40 years ago (Americans, presumably Westerners in general, but perhaps lots of people). It's not +10 hours like I said, but +6 on average (+5 for women, +7 for men).
Oddly, the effect is not evenly distributed among the classes. The rich have gained less leisure than the poor have.
>>> By and large, the biggest leisure gains have gone precisely to those with the most stagnant incomes—that is, the least skilled and the least educated. And conversely, the smallest leisure gains have been concentrated among the most educated, the same group that's had the biggest gains in income.
I guess the lower middle class don't want to work a little more to upgrade their DVDs to Blu-Ray.
March 11th, 2007 2:01pm
> I guess the lower middle class don't want to work a little more
Because there's no reason to work more. Do the numbers. Get a job for no dollars and hour and you can work 25 hours a day and it doesn't add up to hardly any money at all. What's the point. When you are making a couple million a year working extra makes perfect sense because there is a reward.
son of parnas
March 11th, 2007 2:10pm
And yet, ironically, the executives are entitled to more vacation time, which they're apparently not using.
Everyone at a company should be entitled to the same number of vacation days. If anything, the people at the bottom need extra time off from their underpaid, mindnumbing jobs.
March 11th, 2007 2:17pm
Yes that's true. But 10 hours a week at $10 an hour is still $5000 a year. If it's more important to play PS2, or to write your novel, so be it. Fine by me.
When I was in HS I worked at a local convenience store (Honey Farms) for some extra cash. Just the cash register and cleaning up at the end of the night and a little stock work.
Another worker whose shift overlapped sometimes with mine was a guy who worked days at a biotech laboratory. He had a doctorate. He was a scientist. He told me what he was working on ... male contraceptives. He impregnated a lot of sheep though not on purpose (yeah that sounded funny even then). He was, of course, an immigrant (Bangladesh if I remember) not a hillbilly pampered native-born American who can't be bothered to work a few extra hours, but can be bothered to whine about it.
He also did Amway, as he tried to get me to buy Amway stuff and join up. The point is ... here he is working three jobs, though he could have worked only one. I didn't keep in touch but I bet he's in the upper middle class now.
March 11th, 2007 2:29pm
And hopefully he's stopped impregnating sheep! :)
March 11th, 2007 2:36pm
"working on ... male contraceptives."
Not much progress in male contraception. I hope he had better luck with the Amway.
+1 to people being willing to get out there and work for a few bucks. He probably had health insurance through the lab. I imagine things are tougher on people who have 3 jobs none of which are 'middle class' enough to provide health insurance.
March 11th, 2007 3:07pm
> But 10 hours a week at $10 an hour is still $5000 a year.
The take home is more like $4K. I would say most people would think that's not worth an extra 2 hours of work per day. But since your comparison is with playing with your PS2 instead of being with your family, it's clear what you value.
son of parnas
March 11th, 2007 3:08pm
> PS2 instead of being with your family, it's clear what you value.
Hey, that's not me, haven't owned a game console since Atari 100, or 1000 or whatever those first thigns were called. I read Whitehead on the Internet instead of hanging out on the family.
But 1.5 million Americans bought a PS2 (three times more than a PS3) this past Xmas.