3 ms·

> Nearly a century ago, economist John Maynard Keynes famously predicted that we would work fifteen-hour weeks by the year 2030 In 1930, when Keynes predicted

> Nearly a century ago, economist John Maynard Keynes famously predicted that we would work fifteen-hour weeks by the year 2030 In 1930, when Keynes predicted the 15 hour work week, the average American earned $1,368/year which is roughly $19,500/year in todays dollars. 19500/52 = $375/week. In 1930, in manufacturing, the average person worked 50.6 hours per week. (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/). so about $7.50/hour In 2015 the average family income was $53657. 53657/52 = $1031/week But in 2015 the average person worked on average only 34.4 hours per week (http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/chart-work-week-oecd/ http://fortune.com/2015/11/11/chart-work-week-oecd/) so just shy of $30/hour. If modern Americans were content living at the same level of consumption as their 1930's counterparts they would only have to work 12.5 hours per week to earn that same $375 in purchasing power. Outdoing Keynes' prediction 15 years ahead of schedule.

meric 10y ago
60% of families are dual income. [1] (53657/1.6) / 52 = $644. That makes the hourly rate $18.72. So around 20 hours to make 1930's purchasing power. Keynes prediction still ahead. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-about-todays-fathers/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012-2/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-abou...
- armenarmen 10y ago
  Very true, I just did a quick Google search. Thanks for the link!
- veronicatorez 10y ago
  Interesting read.
- SimpleXYZ 10y ago
  In that case I would predict we'll hit it at around, say, 2030.
tmnvix 10y ago
> If modern Americans were content living at the same level of consumption as their 1930's counterparts... There are more expenses involved in just getting by now. Mortgages (and I suspect rents) are well above historical price to income ratios. Dual incomes are a necessity for most families. That often means two cars are a necessity. And childcare costs... I don't have the time to look it up now, but I believe Elizabeth Warren has a well known talk floating around the internet that deals with the issue of debt and how close many American families are to financial disaster. In that talk there's a great breakdown of the shifting nature of expenses.
yuzi 10y ago
In 1930 my grandfather bought his house for $20K. So one years salary. But in 1930 people spent 80 percent of their monthly income on food. So house costs have gone up dramatically and food costs have gone down dramatically (as a proportion of income). So even if consumption were to have remained the same, the costs of things would still adjust forcing people to work closer to 40+ hours a week.
- trymas 10y ago
  $20K of todays money or 1930s? because: > In 1930 <...> the average American earned $1,368/year which is roughly $19,500/year in todays dollars. True about the expense shift. Today food is probably as cheap as it have ever been, and rent/real-estate is as expensive as it have ever been. :)
  - yuzi 10y ago
    My family situation aside, it looks as though the average cost of a house in the 30's was $7145 in historical money [src]. I'd imagine 1930 itself was probably lower than that average over the period, but I'm not sure. [src - not sure about the credibility, but it's good enough for me and this discussion] https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/bentleytran/living-cost-of-the-1930s https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/bentleytran/living-cost-of... There's a general problem with using averages anyway. As I see it an average wage/cost does not actually equal a normal cost which I believe is more important. That is the most common occurrence of something is often distorted by the averaging out process. So I don't put a lot of stock in using them. Overall I'm pretty sure a few things happened: 1. Product costs went down due to cost reductions (found via economies of scale within manufacturing) and things like sugar manufacturing. 2. Money saved from General goods went into fuelling house price surges. i.e. People don't have bidding wars over food they just buy them at market price, but houses are different, they immediately are driven up with no regulation and lower supplies.
    - zpharer 10y ago
      Is a 1930's house really equivalent in value to a 2016 house though? I would expect that the price increase is at least partially due to us know having nicer/bigger houses (bay area excepted).

meric 10y ago

60% of families are dual income. [1] (53657/1.6) / 52 = $644. That makes the hourly rate $18.72. So around 20 hours to make 1930's purchasing power. Keynes prediction still ahead. [1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-about-todays-fathers/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012-2/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/5-facts-abou...

armenarmen 10y ago
Very true, I just did a quick Google search. Thanks for the link!
veronicatorez 10y ago
Interesting read.
SimpleXYZ 10y ago
In that case I would predict we'll hit it at around, say, 2030.

tmnvix 10y ago

> If modern Americans were content living at the same level of consumption as their 1930's counterparts... There are more expenses involved in just getting by now. Mortgages (and I suspect rents) are well above historical price to income ratios. Dual incomes are a necessity for most families. That often means two cars are a necessity. And childcare costs... I don't have the time to look it up now, but I believe Elizabeth Warren has a well known talk floating around the internet that deals with the issue of debt and how close many American families are to financial disaster. In that talk there's a great breakdown of the shifting nature of expenses.

yuzi 10y ago

In 1930 my grandfather bought his house for $20K. So one years salary. But in 1930 people spent 80 percent of their monthly income on food. So house costs have gone up dramatically and food costs have gone down dramatically (as a proportion of income). So even if consumption were to have remained the same, the costs of things would still adjust forcing people to work closer to 40+ hours a week.

trymas 10y ago
$20K of todays money or 1930s? because: > In 1930 <...> the average American earned $1,368/year which is roughly $19,500/year in todays dollars. True about the expense shift. Today food is probably as cheap as it have ever been, and rent/real-estate is as expensive as it have ever been. :)
- yuzi 10y ago
  My family situation aside, it looks as though the average cost of a house in the 30's was $7145 in historical money [src]. I'd imagine 1930 itself was probably lower than that average over the period, but I'm not sure. [src - not sure about the credibility, but it's good enough for me and this discussion] https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/bentleytran/living-cost-of-the-1930s https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/bentleytran/living-cost-of... There's a general problem with using averages anyway. As I see it an average wage/cost does not actually equal a normal cost which I believe is more important. That is the most common occurrence of something is often distorted by the averaging out process. So I don't put a lot of stock in using them. Overall I'm pretty sure a few things happened: 1. Product costs went down due to cost reductions (found via economies of scale within manufacturing) and things like sugar manufacturing. 2. Money saved from General goods went into fuelling house price surges. i.e. People don't have bidding wars over food they just buy them at market price, but houses are different, they immediately are driven up with no regulation and lower supplies.
  - zpharer 10y ago
    Is a 1930's house really equivalent in value to a 2016 house though? I would expect that the price increase is at least partially due to us know having nicer/bigger houses (bay area excepted).