From: dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder CO
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:19:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.114352.1197@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.191258.4416@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:
>>In article <-1366846190snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>>
>>>Even now, computers and automation are taking over most of the jobs
>>>people were doing before, which phenomenon in large part stimulates
>>>this debate to begin with. All those people now freed from boredom and
>>>repetition might be helping the farmers a little more, or perhaps
>>>helping farming communities to pool their machinery inventory to
>>>avoid being ripped off so badly by the factory, and so free up the
>>>availability of money to the farming community where it originated.
>>>
>>Furthermore, this is not happening to the degree expected.  The old
>>belief used to be that increasing productivity would provide people
>>with more leisure time.  As it turns out, fewer people are now working
>>more hours, have less leisure time, and more people ahve no work!  This
>>is not the type of leisure time that was intended. 
>
>The US average industrial work week in 1900 was 62.3 hours. In 1992 it
>is 42.1. In 1992 there are 126 million full time US workers. In 1900 there
>weren't 126 million *people* in the US. More people are working fewer
>hours today than at any time in US history. US agriculture has shown
>the most astonishing reduction in hours of labor. Total agricultural labor 
>in the US has declined 18.75 times from the amount of labor required in 
>1900 while food production has increased dramatically. US worker productivity
>is 12% higher than German workers and 23% higher than Japanese workers,
>even with the decreases in US worker hours per week. The leisure industry
>in the US is a $100 billion dollar industry. People watch an average of
>4.2 hours a day of television. Leisure time *has* increased, work weeks
>*have* shrunk, and the number of workers *has* increased.
>
>Ye have never had it so good.
>
>Gary

Gee.  Have 2 dots at the extremes, connect the dots with a line and we
have a trend!  Just maybe there is a minima between those points?  I
don't argue that US productivity is low and it isn't part of the point 
I raised.  My point was that increasing productivity has not led to
increased leisure time for those who have work.  I am sure that that
did happen in the early part of the century, but not anymore.  Many
studies have shown that trends over the last decade in the US are for
longer work weeks  as companies try to have fewer employees.  Once
again, I am only commenting on the situation in the US.

John McCarthy points out that many workers don't want a shorter week.
This may very well be true for many people.  However, the degree to
which it is true confirms my point.  I never said the original
speculation about more leisure time matched peoples desires.  I also
never said it should be forced on anyone.  However, if people work
more hours, whether they want to or not, and if productivity
continues to increase, then we _will_ have more people without
work to do, and this unemployment will be structural, not the
result of business cycles.  This assumes no major decreases
in population.  Such permanent employment bodes ill
for the stability of a society.  Furthermore, desires to work
more hours may be the result of a general decrease in income
levels in the US.
-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)