4 ms·

The ILO studies ends in 2000 and shows a slight increase in the US near the end. Here's what happened after 2000: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA06

by em500 6y ago

The ILO studies ends in 2000 and shows a slight increase in the US near the end. Here's what happened after 2000: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEUSA065NRUG (Note that it's not clear if decreases in worked hours are actually desirable. Some people believe many part-timers would want to work more if they could.)

h0l0cube 6y ago
Yeah, given the dips corresponding to tech crash and financial crisis, it could be more an effect of underemployment, rather than more leisure time, or less overwork. Given the relatively weak social welfare policy in the US (amongst developed nations), that would match with the narrative of social unrest in lower income brackets in recent years.
- em500 6y ago
  Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative. more hours worked = slavery less hours worked = underemployment Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be?
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative. I made a post above that addresses your plaint I believe. I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm trying to make sense of the data. Obviously hours worked (on average), is not separable from employment figures. > Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be? I think it's troublesome to look at economic indicators alone and make a hedonic judgement. Because when someone says, 'The world is better', I immediately think they are saying, people are 'happier'. Globalisation and technological advancement have increased the world population, as well as per-capita quality of life, and GDP. So perhaps in that 'positive-utilitarian' sense, the world is better in aggregate. However, let's take the Chinese. They have bided their time, and now have a quality of life far exceeding their forebears. However, they can now ask for higher wages, and the value of the currency has increased, and they were losing the lower-end of the manufacturing market.. so the government found a population they could put to work for nothing - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here. Currently I don't see incentives for these low substinence-wage jobs going away, so I don't see how data about per-capita improvements make the reality of sweat-shops disappear. If I could see global policy shifting towards the direction of human rights, and meaningful enforcement of those human rights, that would convince me the world hasn't just reached a plateau, but can actually uplift the very bottom rung of the population. EDIT: If there was one measure that would convince me, it would be a trend in reduction in forced-labour and sustenance-wage labour. But I couldn't find data that captures this quantity changing over time, as it's not something that could be easily surveyed, or would likely be under-reported.
    - QuesnayJr 6y ago
      Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out. As I've said in my original post, this just means that labor force is now sourced from another country. Subsistence wages are just the minimum you can possibly pay someone, and I don't see how this will stop being a thing unless governments across the board make it so. Happy to be proven wrong about this.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
h0l0cube 6y ago
The graphs for other countries are interesting too. India is in favor of the argument that hours are going up in 'poorer' countries, Brazil against. Though unemployment appears chronically worse in Brazil vs India (pre-covid) India - significant increase https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEINA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEINA065NRUG https://tradingeconomics.com/india/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/india/unemployment-rate Brazil - significant drop https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEBRA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEBRA065NRUG https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate

by em500 6y ago

h0l0cube 6y ago

Yeah, given the dips corresponding to tech crash and financial crisis, it could be more an effect of underemployment, rather than more leisure time, or less overwork. Given the relatively weak social welfare policy in the US (amongst developed nations), that would match with the narrative of social unrest in lower income brackets in recent years.

em500 6y ago
Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative. more hours worked = slavery less hours worked = underemployment Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be?
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > Try to avoid fitting the data to your narrative. I made a post above that addresses your plaint I believe. I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm trying to make sense of the data. Obviously hours worked (on average), is not separable from employment figures. > Are there any measures at all that would convince you that the overall the world is better than it used to be? I think it's troublesome to look at economic indicators alone and make a hedonic judgement. Because when someone says, 'The world is better', I immediately think they are saying, people are 'happier'. Globalisation and technological advancement have increased the world population, as well as per-capita quality of life, and GDP. So perhaps in that 'positive-utilitarian' sense, the world is better in aggregate. However, let's take the Chinese. They have bided their time, and now have a quality of life far exceeding their forebears. However, they can now ask for higher wages, and the value of the currency has increased, and they were losing the lower-end of the manufacturing market.. so the government found a population they could put to work for nothing - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about here. Currently I don't see incentives for these low substinence-wage jobs going away, so I don't see how data about per-capita improvements make the reality of sweat-shops disappear. If I could see global policy shifting towards the direction of human rights, and meaningful enforcement of those human rights, that would convince me the world hasn't just reached a plateau, but can actually uplift the very bottom rung of the population. EDIT: If there was one measure that would convince me, it would be a trend in reduction in forced-labour and sustenance-wage labour. But I couldn't find data that captures this quantity changing over time, as it's not something that could be easily surveyed, or would likely be under-reported.
  - QuesnayJr 6y ago
    Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > Subsistence wages are set by the value of the "outside option" for workers in undeveloped countries, which is subsistence farming. As a country develops, labor productivity increases and wages rise, until companies are willing to switch to lower productivity but cheaper workers. This cycle ends once the supply of subsistence wage workers runs out. As I've said in my original post, this just means that labor force is now sourced from another country. Subsistence wages are just the minimum you can possibly pay someone, and I don't see how this will stop being a thing unless governments across the board make it so. Happy to be proven wrong about this.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

h0l0cube 6y ago

The graphs for other countries are interesting too. India is in favor of the argument that hours are going up in 'poorer' countries, Brazil against. Though unemployment appears chronically worse in Brazil vs India (pre-covid) India - significant increase https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEINA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEINA065NRUG https://tradingeconomics.com/india/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/india/unemployment-rate Brazil - significant drop https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEBRA065NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AVHWPEBRA065NRUG https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate https://tradingeconomics.com/brazil/unemployment-rate