From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:28:00
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Oct15.114352.1197@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Oct15.181945.28948@vexcel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dean@vexcel.com's message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 18:19:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.181945.28948@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (Dean Alaska) writes:


   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:
   >>>
   >>>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.

   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.

Hmm, as I noted before the trend has persisted in Europe, while in
the US I do believe the working week increased slightly in the 80's,
retirement age was coming down although I suspect age discrimination
laws may slow or reverse that trend, old people are surprisingly
healthy and active nowadays.
	The 80s trend to longer working week per worker is probably
in part due to the breaking if US unions by Reagan, focus on health
and pension benefits as major issues by surviving unions (with longer
workweeks a bargainable concession) and tax codes that discourage
employers from adding more people. This is a trend that I'd bet will
be reversed in the next two decades and US will head towards the 
European norm.

   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.

Not quite that simple, for one thing society invents more pseudo-jobs
to keep people occupied, "service" jobs, academia, sports and
entertainment, lawyers all are luxury jobs supported by a small
highly productive agriculture and indsutrial sector. The trick is
to keep convincing the people actually doing things that the
rest of us should be supplied with our necessities in exchange
for our "services" ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	*