6 ms·

Back in reality, working hours have no significant upward trend. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHNONAG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHNONAG https:

Back in reality, working hours have no significant upward trend. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHNONAG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHNONAG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0829BUSM065NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M0829BUSM065NNBR https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP More people simply don't work. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART Consumption (note: figure adjusted for inflation) has only increased. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A794RX0Q048SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A794RX0Q048SBEA Looks like that protestant work ethic/capitalism/etc is working pretty well for us.

coldtea 10y ago
Or, you know, this whole interpretation is misleading statistical BS, and as the caption says "Factors such as unpaid absenteeism, labor turnover, part-time work, and stoppages cause average weekly hours to be lower than scheduled hours of work for an establishment" -- and lowly paid part time work has replaced steady full time employment in many sectors. (As for the per capital consumption, does it add mr. Gates with Joe Average? Even so I'm sure they will be an increase in Joe Average's consumption, but is that because Joe Average has more buying power than a worker in the 60s, or because they have to spend more to stay afloat, as everything's more expensive, and they don't have much cushion left in the bank?)
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  All the factors you cite mean the number I provided is an overestimate. If you have any evidence we work harder than before, cite it. Even so I'm sure they will be an increase in Joe Average's consumption, but is that because Joe Average has more buying power than a worker in the 60s, or because they have to spend more to stay afloat, as everything's more expensive, That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. To determine whether average Joe has more buying power, simply compare the goods and services available to him to those of his parents. That's a clear win - when I was a kid, avocados were an expensive luxury to be consumed only once in a while, and I was often bored with nothing to read.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. Nor how much one not puts into their retirement account / savings to spend on daily needs. If it was just supposed to be relative to the past, we would all be content for living better off than the pilgrims. Who needs a fridge, for example, when they didn't have any either? So, if we have fridges now and stuff, and even the garbage man has a cellphone, it's all dandy. Empirically, people older than you that have lived throughout those decades know the numbers a bogus as an indicator of purchasing power, whether they were inflation adjusted or not. One could buy a house with a regular blue collar job as a household's single earner back in the 50-60s. Today, and for a few decades, not so much. Same for things such as college education. You could pay for it back in the day by working laughable gigs by today's standards. So whether you can have "avocados" or not, if you can't as easily have a house, an education, or a steady job, is a moot point. Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today". http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. As for the other things you bring up, basically none of the facts fit your story. Homeownership has ranged from 64% to 69% since the 60's, but houses are twice as big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historic_U.S._Homeownership_Rate,_as_of_2014.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... Apparently there's no difficulty owning a home. College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB Why not google these facts before making nonsensical arguments?
ikurei 10y ago
> working hours have no significant upward trend. [...] More people simply don't work. Just curious: Do those graphics take into account the people that don't work as 0h? or has the working hours not gone up among those who do work? > Looks like that protestant work ethic/capitalism/etc is working pretty well for us. Judging by economic growth and consumption, may be. And those might be good metrics. But are you happier for it? Are you enjoying the rewards of your hard work? Not trying to imply you aren't, by the way. And I say "you" because I'm a westerner, but not from the anglosaxon sphere and I don't see quite the same work ethic around me, although not too different either.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Weekly working hours is per worker, and is overestimated, as you can find by reading the fine print on that page: "Average weekly hours relate to the average hours per worker for which pay was received and is different from standard or scheduled hours. Factors such as unpaid absenteeism, labor turnover, part-time work, and stoppages cause average weekly hours to be lower than scheduled hours of work for an establishment. Group averages further reflect changes in the workweek of component industries. Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours." I don't know how to measure how much happier I am as a result. Happiness measurement - particularly across cultural boundaries - is more or less meaningless.
Asooka 10y ago
Well yeah at least you're not working more than physically sane. But you still don't get any vacations and the like. You don't even have sick days! I mean proper sick days where you're paid and they aren't counted against some imaginary limit of how sick a person can be.
- Asooka 10y ago
  Downvoting won't fix your broken employer-employee relations.

coldtea 10y ago

Or, you know, this whole interpretation is misleading statistical BS, and as the caption says "Factors such as unpaid absenteeism, labor turnover, part-time work, and stoppages cause average weekly hours to be lower than scheduled hours of work for an establishment" -- and lowly paid part time work has replaced steady full time employment in many sectors. (As for the per capital consumption, does it add mr. Gates with Joe Average? Even so I'm sure they will be an increase in Joe Average's consumption, but is that because Joe Average has more buying power than a worker in the 60s, or because they have to spend more to stay afloat, as everything's more expensive, and they don't have much cushion left in the bank?)

yummyfajitas 10y ago
All the factors you cite mean the number I provided is an overestimate. If you have any evidence we work harder than before, cite it. Even so I'm sure they will be an increase in Joe Average's consumption, but is that because Joe Average has more buying power than a worker in the 60s, or because they have to spend more to stay afloat, as everything's more expensive, That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. To determine whether average Joe has more buying power, simply compare the goods and services available to him to those of his parents. That's a clear win - when I was a kid, avocados were an expensive luxury to be consumed only once in a while, and I was often bored with nothing to read.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >That's definitely not the case, since the numbers I cited are adjusted for inflation. Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. Nor how much one not puts into their retirement account / savings to spend on daily needs. If it was just supposed to be relative to the past, we would all be content for living better off than the pilgrims. Who needs a fridge, for example, when they didn't have any either? So, if we have fridges now and stuff, and even the garbage man has a cellphone, it's all dandy. Empirically, people older than you that have lived throughout those decades know the numbers a bogus as an indicator of purchasing power, whether they were inflation adjusted or not. One could buy a house with a regular blue collar job as a household's single earner back in the 50-60s. Today, and for a few decades, not so much. Same for things such as college education. You could pay for it back in the day by working laughable gigs by today's standards. So whether you can have "avocados" or not, if you can't as easily have a house, an education, or a steady job, is a moot point. Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power as it did in 1979, following a long slide in the 1980s and early 1990s and bumpy, inconsistent growth since then. In fact, in real terms the average wage peaked more than 40 years ago: The $4.03-an-hour rate recorded in January 1973 has the same purchasing power as $22.41 would today". http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-wor...
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Inflation adjustment doesn't take into account costs that are prevalent in an era but totally absent in another: like internet access, cellphone bills, and such. I'm glad you've agreed with me that life has done nothing but get better. We're all winners, whereas by modern standards our parents were all losers. As for the other things you bring up, basically none of the facts fit your story. Homeownership has ranged from 64% to 69% since the 60's, but houses are twice as big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Historic_U.S._Homeownership_Rate,_as_of_2014.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home-ownership_in_the_United_S... http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?OpenDocument http://www.realtor.org/RMODaily.nsf/pages/News2007032701?Ope... Apparently there's no difficulty owning a home. College enrollments (as a % of new graduates) has done nothing but climb. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/images/2010/ted_20100428.png Note how: "after adjusting for inflation, today’s average hourly wage That's because we get more non-wage benefits and fewer dollars per hour. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but rise. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB Why not google these facts before making nonsensical arguments?

ikurei 10y ago

> working hours have no significant upward trend. [...] More people simply don't work. Just curious: Do those graphics take into account the people that don't work as 0h? or has the working hours not gone up among those who do work? > Looks like that protestant work ethic/capitalism/etc is working pretty well for us. Judging by economic growth and consumption, may be. And those might be good metrics. But are you happier for it? Are you enjoying the rewards of your hard work? Not trying to imply you aren't, by the way. And I say "you" because I'm a westerner, but not from the anglosaxon sphere and I don't see quite the same work ethic around me, although not too different either.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Weekly working hours is per worker, and is overestimated, as you can find by reading the fine print on that page: "Average weekly hours relate to the average hours per worker for which pay was received and is different from standard or scheduled hours. Factors such as unpaid absenteeism, labor turnover, part-time work, and stoppages cause average weekly hours to be lower than scheduled hours of work for an establishment. Group averages further reflect changes in the workweek of component industries. Average weekly hours are the total weekly hours divided by the employees paid for those hours." I don't know how to measure how much happier I am as a result. Happiness measurement - particularly across cultural boundaries - is more or less meaningless.

Asooka 10y ago

Well yeah at least you're not working more than physically sane. But you still don't get any vacations and the like. You don't even have sick days! I mean proper sick days where you're paid and they aren't counted against some imaginary limit of how sick a person can be.

Asooka 10y ago
Downvoting won't fix your broken employer-employee relations.