Working Hours Declining

by Will Wilkinson on July 7, 2005

Russ Roberts fact checks Charles McGrath’s rumpus and points out these BLS statistics that inconveniently contradict the whole point of McGrath’s article.

Hours worked per week (for private production and non-supervisory workers):

1970 37.0
1975 36.0
1980 35.2
1985 34.9
1990 34.3
1995 34.3
2000 34.3
2003 33.7

So… whoops.

Russ also mentions that for some classes of workers, there is more leisure at work these days, which further undermines the “we’re working ourselves to death” meme.

This raises the further point that it is just not the case that labor is labor is labor and that leisure is leisure is leisure. Lots of offices, for example, are nice places to go with many amenities, a satisfying set of social relations, and a sense of productive efficacy. This sort of “labor” simply isn’t a disutility that is offset by the utility of wages. More of this kind of work can be quite good for us. Conversely, lots of “leisure” is spent accomplishing tedious tasks such as laundry or home maintenenance that one can’t afford to outsource. And the so-called “leisure” enjoyed by the unemployed can be downright psychologically toxic.

I would like more “leisure” not so much to get away from work, but to pursue creative pursuits that are not as well economically rewarded as my official work (which is incredibly satisfying in its own right, and worlds away from the salt mine, and everyone should be so lucky). That is, while I would like to travel more, say, or to sleep in more often, what I would really use more “leisure” time for is a different kind of intrinsically satisfying “labor.” I doubt I’m alone in this. So folks need to be more careful when writing articles in the Times about how terrible all this work is.

In particular, McGrath needs to think twice when he writes, “And far from complaining, we have adopted a superior, moralizing attitude that sees work not as a necessary evil, a means to an end, but as an end in itself,” as if it somehow clear that work is not an end in itself, and that it is somehow clear that we should not adopt a superior attitude toward this approach to work.

  • monkyboy
    I agree, Zap. I think the numbers Will posted include part-time workers. I'm sure the numbers for just full-time workers would show a different story.

    I'm a city boy, but I think life on farms slows down after harvest time. When America was founded, 98% of us were farmers...maybe it's more natural for humans to have a long stretch of time each year to pursue things different from their normal type of work.

    Congress certainly understands this. In addition to many scheduled weeks off, they take October, November and December off, too. Despite the fact that they pay themselves well over $100,000/year.
  • ZaPopper
    Something is amiss in this discussion. The envy expressed for the French flair for relaxation is not related to the length of the average work week. The decline to 33.7 hours a week gives me no comfort. The French, and Europeans in general, take time off in larger chunks. Six hours a week is not sufficient to offset the stultifying effects of doing pretty much the same thing day in and day out for a paycheck for 6 or 8 months (or more) without a substantial break. I cant remember the last time I was away from the office for two weeks straight, much less having pure liesure time of that duration.

    I concur with Wil that I would spend "liesure time" doing "intrinsically satisfying labor" that would look to most other people like boring work. However, I dont reach optimal productivity in my intrinsically satisfying labor until I've had several days to wind down from work and catch up with all the self imposed janitorial work inherited with owning a home. More importantly, the bigger payoff of the European practice, in my opinion, is that they give high priority to their vacation time, it's a part of the annual life cycle (regularity), and they have the chance to reinforce family bonds in a way that cant be accomplished with a long weekend here and there.

    I may not express the idea the way McGrath does, but I do feel that Americans seem to put more emphasis on career work than on personal aspirations and quality of family life. I think this is most evident in the professions, where people have greater means and greater freedom to make choices about taking time away from work, but they dont.

    The majority of Americans are in jobs where they arent given the choice and dont have earnings that permit even contemplating an annual multi-week break with the spouse and kids at the ancestral bungalow on the coast.

    The absence of any political initiative for change gives every appearance that Americans (or at least those who might have opportunity of working to bring about change) are content to maintain the status quo.

    So I cant agree with the criticism on the basis of which direction the average work week is headed. Our work habits (and the expectations projected by employers, supervisors and in many cases, co-workers) are unhealthy. Our culture places greater value in capitalism than in the quality of life of the individual. If there's any doubt about this, one need look no further than the Supreme Court's Kelo decision.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: