The rich have begun to work longer hours than the poor?

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21600989-why-rich-now-have-less-leisure-poor-nice-work-if-you-can-get-out?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/nicework

by patrickk • 12 years ago

30 12 12 years ago

economist.com

ryguytilidie• 12 years ago

Just reading through the article, it seems like they mean to say that the middle class have less leisure than the poor. Someone finishing college and working 60-80 hour weeks isn't generally "rich" at all.

greedy_buffer2• 12 years ago

I wonder how many of those putting in long hours are expecting early retirement, only for their savings to fall short.

chris_mahan• 12 years ago

What savings?

greedy_buffer2• 12 years ago

I would assume it to be house price less mortgage balance, but not really familiar with the situation in the US. How do people prepare for retirement?

tjtrapp• 12 years ago

Figures from the American Time Use Survey, released last year, show that Americans with a bachelor’s degree or above work two hours more each day than those without a high-school diploma.

The title is a bit off.

smtddr• 12 years ago

>Why the rich now have less leisure than the poor

Leisure = Free time.

I can annually go with my family to Paris for 2 weeks with the peace of mind that I have a very-well-paying tech job waiting for me upon my return. And my weekends are almost always completely relaxing.

A poor person can be not working months out of the year but filled with stress and anxiety, watching daytime TV, wondering how to get the bills paid and where/when the next job will come along.

If you're mentally full of stress & anxiety during your free time, was it really free time? I'll take my weekends and 2 weeks in Paris over their "leisure" anyday.

jackschultz• 12 years ago

While the article mentions a bunch of different explanations for this phenomena, most of them are from the point of view of the well-off. The most telling explanation (in my opinion) is stuck at the bottom of the article.

The author mentions that, with the decreasing costs of leisure, "low-earners do not need to work as long to enjoy a reasonably satisfying leisure." This is the biggest difference when comparing current state of work to the Downton Abbey era mentioned at the beginning of the article.

cbhl• 12 years ago

The way you word your comment implies that this statement is patently false. Can you explain further?

Are you saying that low earners do not choose to work less, and if so, can you explain why this is the case?

jmalicki• 12 years ago

In the United States, at least, the poor often have marginal tax rates nearing or beyond 100%, once you include loss of means-tested benefits.

If high tax rates affect work ethic, it is most pronounced among the working poor in the United States.

See, for example, http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/effective-marginal-ta...

rahimnathwani• 12 years ago

The title is misleading. Differences in the _mean_ time available for leisure can be the result of (i) shorter hours worked by those who are fully employed, or (ii) more people who are underemployed (working less than they/society would like).

If all middle class people were to work 50 hours per week, and 50% of poor people were to work 2 jobs (80 hours per week), whilst the remainder were unable to find work, the mean leisure hours would show the middle class working longer hours.

The median leisure hours of the two groups would be more useful.

throwwit• 12 years ago

Maybe the article re-frames a cutback of full time jobs and their related benefits. Isn't there an increase in the number of lower wage jobs in North America?

The rich have begun to work longer hours than the poor?

Related Stories