Article: Leisure time disparity

[AJ]

I'm not sure exactly what I think about this, but it was interesting: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2007/03/the_theory_of_the_leisure_class.html

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.

...

But not for everyone. About 10 percent of us are stuck in 1965, leisurewise. At the opposite extreme, 10 percent of us have gained a staggering 14 hours a week or more. (Once again, your gains are measured in comparison to a person who, in 1965, had the same characteristics that you have today.) 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.

Aguiar and Hurst can't explain fully that rising inequality, just as nobody can explain fully the rising inequality in income. But there are, I think, two important morals here.

First, man does not live by bread alone. Our happiness depends partly on our incomes, but also on the time we spend with our friends, our hobbies, and our favorite TV shows. So, it's a good exercise in perspective to remember that by and large, the big winners in the income derby have been the small winners in the leisure derby, and vice versa.

Second, a certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing—usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years—say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what—if anything—is the fundamental difference.

[Jamesqf]

And conversely, the smallest leisure gains have been concentrated among the most educated, the same group that's had the biggest gains in income.

That one's easy.  There are two factors at work.  First, the number of people willing (and perhaps able) to invest the time & effort needed to become highly educated & skilled is smaller than the demand for people with those skills.  (Which is why we have H1b visas in the tech industry.)  So these people and their employers have incentives for them to work more hours.

Second, these people are, by and large, interested and involved in their work.  If they (or perhaps I should say we, since I'm one of them) have to spend more hours staring at a screen, they'd rather put in the extra hours coding than watching TV programs intended for the brain dead.

[tooqk4u22]

James - I like your view of it and wish it were true but it is more idealistic in nature, it is simply a case of people willing to do more get more.

This ties to another thread but this is where productivity gains are going.   A few more people are being far more produtive resulting in far more people not being able to be productive resulting in more money going to the productive people and more leisure time going to the unproductive.

Of course I could probably say it differently in that a smaller part of the population is willing to become educated and/or highly skilled and the work more and harder than average which typically translates to more income and there are those that don't want to put forth that time and effort and lose out through being un- or under-employed (more leisure time sounds so much better).