Re: Workers Are on the Job More Hours over the Course of the Year
On May 14, 2007, at 2:28 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
Juliet Schor’s The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure (Basic Books) was published in 1992, so when the book came out, it was definitely in keeping with the trend, whether you look at the BLS or the OECD. The trends since then, it seems to me, are results of recession and weak recovery
Weak recovery? The late 1990s? That was the strongest labor market in =
30 years. The employment/pop ratio still hasn’t returned to its 2000 =
high.
And Schor’s data hasn’t gone unchallenged. Barry Bluestone & Steven =
Rose write http://www.theprospect.com/print/V8/31/bluestone-b.html:
A more accurate measure of hours worked comes from special studies =
that target the work time issue by asking respondents to keep a 24- =
hour time diary of everything they do over a one- to two-day =
period. Such time diary surveys were first carried out by the =
University of Michigan Survey Research Center in 1965 and 1975, and =
then again by the University of Maryland in 1985. The accuracy of =
work time estimates derived from this survey approach is presumably =
superior to CPS measures for two reasons. First, the exercise’s =
sole purpose is studying the use of time; second, respondents do =
not have to plum their memories for what they did a week ago or try =
to calculate instantly how many weeks they worked all of last year.
Sure enough, a comparison of CPS-estimated hours of work and diary =
entries suggests that people overestimate how much they work=97and =
that the overestimates get bigger the more hours they put in. =
According to John Robinson of the University of Maryland and Ann =
Bostrom of Georgia Tech University, who studied the two sets of =
surveys, among those estimating 20 to 44 weekly hours, the CPS-type =
estimates were only slightly higher than the diary entries. But =
among workers claiming to “usually” work more than 55 hours per =
week, the gap was 10 hours or more per week. Robinson and Bostrom =
concluded that “the diary data suggest that only rare individuals =
put in more than a 55- to 60-hour workweek, with those estimating =
60 or more hours on the job averaging closer to 53-hour weeks.” =
Moreover, using the diary studies for 1965, 1975, and 1985, =
Robinson and Bostrom found a systematic increase in the size of the =
estimate gap over time. The gap rose from just one hour in 1965 to =
four hours in 1975 to six hours in 1985, which is more than enough =
to account for the alleged “overwork” that Schor and Mishel and =
Bernstein claim to have found.
When Robinson and Bostrom analyzed diaries for 1965, 1975, and 1985 =
more carefully, they found only small changes in hours worked among =
those who normally work 20 hours or more per week. Between 1965 and =
1985, men’s average hours declined by 0.7 hours per week from 47.1 =
to 46.4 hours, while working women’s hours increased by the same =
amount (0.7) from 39.9 to 40.6 hours. If these numbers are =
believed, then the source of increased hours worked that Schor =
observed must be new entrants to the labor force=97again, many of =
them women=97and part-timers who have increased their part-time =
hours. Of course, whether this should be counted as “overwork” or =
not is a matter of deeply divided opinion.
They also review PSID data and find a modest uptrend in hours worked =
- all because of increased (paid) work effort by women, because male =
hours declined slightly. Their data run only through the late 1980s, =
however. From looking at employment/pop ratios since then, the growth =
of female labor force participation slowed dramatically in the 1990s, =
and is down slightly in the 2000s.
As I recall, this thread’s prehistory was that James H and I =
disagreed on the increased work effort measured at the household =
level (i.e., more women working for pay). I still think that’s true. =
But the more recent threadlet was about absolute levels of leisure, =
and at 4-5 hours a day, that’s a long way from the sweatshop. I =
wonder if the time crunch is a more socially acceptable way of saying =
alienation, depression, and anxiety?
Doug