In Slate Steve Landsburg notes a study by Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst from the Boston Fed, that finds
In 1965, the average man spent 42 hours a week working at the office or the factory; throw in coffee breaks, lunch breaks, and commuting time, and you're up to 51 hours. Today, instead of spending 42 and 51 hours, he spends 36 and 40.The income inequality increase in the West has been widely noted, but there is a compensating inequality that is little remarked. Specifically, the lower-earning workers are spending proportionately more time not working, enjoying their freedom. Perhaps there is a labor/leisure traded-off such that those making more than $100k/year wish to work more at that rate, while those making less find leisure more attractive, increasing the income inequality, but lowering the total utility inequality if we consider the value of leisure.
...
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.
HedgeFundGuy - am 2007-03-14 18:34
Kevin (guest) meinte am 14. Mar, 21:08:
Quality Leisure Time
I think that the flip side to the study (and I didn’t read the whole study) is that the rich have the money to cram more “leisure” into less time. They’ve defined leisure and work very narrowly, while I may work a 70-80 hour week when I come home or get off I don’t have to fix my own car/mow my grass/clean/cook/etc. because I theoretically have the money to pay other people to do that. I think if you were to really dig in and define “quality” leisure time you would find that the wealthy have more of that then the poor even today. Defining quality leisure time is very difficult though. One person's leisure is another's chore.
Paul N (guest) meinte am 15. Mar, 01:13:
Good point. Is anyone reminded of the Iron Law of Wages whenever these inequality discussions come up?
Teresa Lo (guest) meinte am 15. Mar, 07:13:
Here is another take on it
by Charles Wheelan at http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/19750Perhaps the lower-earning folks are spending a lot of time contemplating the "unfairness" instead of enjoying their leisure time. LOL.
Teresa Lo (guest) meinte am 16. Mar, 17:13:
All in the perception
Ungrateful, eh? Leisure time spent contemplating the wealth of the Joneses:
This illusion came to mind while reading economist Gary Shilling's latest Insight newsletter. His title promises much: "How to Make Big Money: 11 Time-Tested Strategies." And it's well documented. But it made me oddly anxious. Why? Because his 11 strategies help America's 8 million millionaires (and billionaires) to get richer, but they're not much help to the other 292 million Americans.http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/bigmoney_1.html
...Suddenly I realized why this made me anxious. There are actually two distinct kinds of risk. Risk is fundamentally different for the rich, it almost doesn't exist! They can use these strategies to their advantage, to manage risk and build equities. But the other 292 million are stuck with the leftovers, not equities but systemic liabilities, such as higher taxes, drug costs, excessive fund expenses, limited opportunities, outsourcing, etc.
