Slashdot Mirror
In the US, Rich Now Work Longer Hours Than the Poor
ananyo (2519492) writes "Overall working hours have fallen over the past century. But the rich have begun to work longer hours than the poor. In 1965 men with a college degree, who tend to be richer, had a bit more leisure time than men who had only completed high school. But by 2005 the college-educated had eight hours less of it a week than the high-school grads. 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. Other research shows that the share of college-educated American men regularly working more than 50 hours a week rose from 24% in 1979 to 28% in 2006, but fell for high-school dropouts. The rich, it seems, are no longer the class of leisure. The reasons are complex but include rising income inequality but also the availability of more intellectually stimulating, well-remunerated work." (And, as the article points out, "Increasing leisure time [among less educated workers] probably reflects a deterioration in their employment prospects as low-skill and manual jobs have withered.")
Not starving to death on the street certainly, but most bachelors degree holders aren't tooling around on their private yachts either. Calling these sorts of people rich by the standards set it most developed countries is a load of crap.
If all you need to be rich is a college degree, then hot damn I'm already rich! When do I get my mansion, limousine and trophy wife?
It sounds more to me like "the educated now work longer hours", or maybe "the middle class now works longer hours" if you want to keep it related to income.
Often part of being poor means having your hours cut on top of already low pay.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This submission brought to you by someone who's probably reading /. when they're supposed to be working.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Anyone who thinks it does is pretty ignorant. I don't really care what your definition of rich is.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Fuck you and your political baiting, libertarian fantasy world, clickbait, NON-TECH bullshit this last year.
Where are the smart techies hanging out these days? I enjoy hearing them talk shop.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Probably even better-correlated than this:
Jobs which require college degrees are almost always salaried, which provides no reward for working extra hours (but it's expected of you)
Jobs which do not require college degrees are almost always hourly - which provides significant reward for working extra hours (but it's discouraged because it costs the company money)
There are hourly non-degree jobs that can pay quite well nowadays. (Construction can actually be quite lucrative...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That article has more holes than my old socks, and it even smells way worse.
Determining "rich" and "poor" by education is, well, rich. One could also say that the workload on college educated people went through the roof, while low skilled labour was laid off (which is one of the reasons why college boy gets to work overtime since he now has to write his own letters, clean his own desk and empty his own basket).
Of course that results in way more leisure time for the uneducated. Hey, if you have no job, you have 24 hours of leisure time a day, beat that when you're employed!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have more than a few friends on the low end of the pay scale who've been pushed down below 30 hours a week by their employers so their employers stay clear of Obamacare insurance mandates. (e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/wor... ) It usually comes across as a double-whammy: now they have less money in their pockets, and they're still up a creek in terms of health insurance.
Poor people may only work 20 hours per week, but i assure you its not fucking apathetic leisure they revel in. These hours have been intentionally redacted by large multinational corporations so as to create a permanent underclass of part time workers that is forced to take on two or three jobs in order to create a normal work week capable of sustaining basic rent and food. their total time spent at different jobs can easily total more than 50 hours per week. They spend long, odd hours standing at bus terminals waiting on neutered public transit systems to get them to starbucks after they work their walmart shift and then later, hopefully, back to mcdonalds to their fry cook job. their 'downtime' is sometimes spent figuring out how to balance getting their kids clothed and their bills paid without taking food off the table.
The economist is so detatched from the concept of poverty and the culture of indentured servitude in the service sector of the United States as to be bad comedy.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Currently I work around 62 hours a week with a 45 minute a day commute. Presently I consume more than 72 hours of my week either working, traveling to or from work.
So... when do I get the money? I suppose I could get an extra job on the weekends and see if I could get a full 80 hours a week, but for right now, from 6:30AM to 11:30PM, Monday through Thursday and 6:30AM to 4:00PM on Friday, I am pretty damned busy.
Not rich by any standard. Have a used car, 60 year old 800 sq ft home, no wife, no kids.
How others do it on less, I don't know.
Place something witty here
Probably even better-correlated than this: Jobs which require college degrees are almost always salaried, which provides no reward for working extra hours (but it's expected of you) Jobs which do not require college degrees are almost always hourly - which provides significant reward for working extra hours (but it's discouraged because it costs the company money)
There are hourly non-degree jobs that can pay quite well nowadays. (Construction can actually be quite lucrative...)
This. I actually have a graduate degree but am currently working an hourly job (working my way up through the company). Topped out hourly wage (10 years) is over $4k a month, with OT coming out to around $30 an hour. Salaried management jobs start around $50 a year. So a topped out hourly worker with no OT makes about as much as a new salaried supervisor. I knew people not topped out pulling in $70-75k a year with OT (same as a supervisor at topped pay, and working about the same amount of time each week), and there are some hourly people topped out pulling in over $100k. And this job requires only a high school degree. I am actually up for a job right now that several of my coworkers are more capable for than me, but because it comes with a minimal pay increase (and a lot more stress) and they are topped out, it isn't even worth it for them to take as they can make more in 8 hours of OT than the job gives monthly in extra pay.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Many of the people I work with might be called "high achievers". Whether it is work or school or sports, these people tend to work the hardest and get the best results. Being the best at something requires a commitment - not only of effort but of time. So they work overtime. Not because they are expected to but because they want to. For them the reward is not the overtime pay but the satisfaction in knowing that they have put forth their best effort.
As others have mentioned, non-degree jobs are often hourly. So any overtime has to be approved. There is a direct link between pay and performance. So you may tend to see fewer people working "off the clock" in these sorts of occupations.
Personally, I'm in a college educated job but with an hourly rate rather than salary. I have been salaried before and I prefer hourly. Why? Because it is my observation that many companies take advantage of salaried by asking them to work overtime without any compensation. You might get some vague promise of "we'll take care of you down the road" but that rarely pans out.
To the high achievers I would say this: If you want to work all kinds of overtime because it makes you feel better then knock yourself out. Just don't expect everyone else to follow the same path. Some of us have other priorities.
You're evaluating the middle income as equivalent as the middle class. This is incorrect thinking.
Middle Class is not the middle of average income, it is the class level in the middle of the working/incomed classes. To explain further, what you are saying is like stating the top 33% of of Americans are the rich, the middle 33% the middle class, the bottom 33% the working poor class.
With that logic, the income gap between someone in the working poor and the rich class is a few tens of thousands. Clearly something is inaccurate with your logic. You're essentially saying a $75,000 income puts you into the rich category that includes folks earning $500K - $500 million a year.
Classes are not defined by quantity, in other words, a feudal system had 3 classes. Peasants, Lords, and field lords (knights and such middle-class). In the break down, 95% or more fell into the peasantry.
Likewise today,...
Working Class is by far one of the largest.
Middle Class is also large, but shrinking. Middle class is defined by a quality of life factor. Usually defined by owning home, reasonably functional somewhat newer vehicles, being able to take a moderate vacation (Disneyworld, international travel, cruise, etc, periodically), having a safety net, retirement accounts, etc. Upper end may have a small vacation home.
Wealthy Class, usually has multiple homes, travels first class, may own private air or yachts, or other high end expensive recreational items in the $100K+ mark. Often do not have to do work, simply manage investments and resources. Often pays a low margin on taxes due to ability to maximize loopholes, capital gains, etc.
"A study in 2006 revealed that Americans with a household income of more than $100,000 indulged in 40% less “passive leisure” (such as watching TV) than those earning less than $20,000."
I can attest, that I work 40, commute 2+ hours a day. While those under $20K receive Section-8, Food Stamps, etc. And yes, they often have more free time to watch TV than I do. I get to watch Game of Thrones & maybe one other weekly show.
Heck, we had friends who fell on rough times stay in our guest bedroom the past year. And I can personally attest that they've probably watched as much TV in a week or two as I have all year.
Define "rich". Lets get the definition strait here. The only number they threw out in over $100,000 which is pretty vague. Anyone making under 200k/year is not rich. They are in my opinion, comfortable. You are only really rich when you have true wealth such as owning/running a profitable business or real estate that generates income. You are not rich if you are a low level employee who depends on a wage to survive, even if you are making 100k to 200k/year.
You think my boss works? Of course not. He comes in when he pleases maybe 4 or 5 hours a day. Takes whatever day off he pleases. Takes multiple vacations per year for one or two weeks at a time. His business is firmly rooted in the industry and will continue to make money. He is *RICH*. Not the poor schlubs (like me) working 50+ hours a week and certainly not the low wage help getting 10-12 an hour. He is like one of those wealthy English aristocrats they speak of. A top dog calling the shots who's hard working underlings produce his wealth for him. I believe he makes around 500-800k/year and has over a million in the bank (accidently saw his bank statement when I worked on his PC).
And the reality is those living comfortably are working their asses off as in order to justify their 100k+ salary. No employer wants to pay big money unless they feel they are getting their moneys worth. That may mean large work loads, 50+ hour work weeks, unpaid overtime and coming in on weekends to finish up backlogged work. At 100k+ you aren't hourly unless you are union or very lucky. Salary demands a certain number of hours per week to justify your pay grade and some of that includes unpaid overtime. Its not the same for everyone but everyone I know working in tech put in long hours for their 100k plus salaries.
The "poor" people they speak of have social safety nets in the form of health care, food stamps and rent subsidy and/or low income housing. But I believe they are being unfair as I know plenty of "poor" people who are struggling just to buy food and pay rent. A friend of mine had a tough life growing up, mother threw him out when he was 16, father doesn't give a damn about him, etc. No college and not the sharpest tool in the shed but he is an honest, good hearted person who is a hard worker. He works two minimum wage part time jobs for 60 hours a week with no days off as the two shifts overlap each other. He rents and shares a room at a "frat house". Place is more like a flophouse complete with drug dealer and rowdy parties which he winds up playing bouncer so the cops don't raid the place. Its a rough life for him but he works and doesn't give up. Many others are in the same boat making shit pay and having to work multiple jobs because employers don't want to pay benefits to full timers.
There are various state and federal mandated benefits that must be provided to workers who work 35+ hours a week
The only federally mandated benefits I'm aware of, aside from the impending ACA regulations, are social security, medicare, COBRA, unemployment insurance, and workers compensation insurance and those have nothing to do with the number of hours worked. Some states require disability insurance, and that is not dependent on hours worked. Of course, the only ones that cost the employee nothing are workers comp and unemployment. The astute reader may have noticed that none of these benefits actually do anything for the employee until the employee either retires, loses his job, gets injured, or works past Social Security "full retirement" age.
The federal government does not require employers to provide vacation time, holidays, sick time, or any other form of paid leave regardless of the number of hours worked. The only federally mandated leave is Family and Medical Leave, which is unpaid.
On the other hand, there are long-standing requirements for health care benefits, ACA aside. Basically, this means that if an employer chooses to offer health insurance, that insurance must cover certain specific conditions. But until the ACA employer mandate takes effect, employers are not required to offer insurance at all, and if they do offer insurance, they can make up any eligibility rules they want, including minimum hours/week.
A lot of people (in the U.S.) in middle class are classified as exempt (from overtime) as they are in management. There are FSLA rules that regulate the hours exempts work but since they are management they are project driven and no one who wants to climb the ladder is going to report working extra hours all the time.
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.
Join "WebEx".
The poor actually WORK. You know. Cook, clean, build, drill, pour, dig, etc.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Rich can be defined either by assets (wealth) or by income (cash flow).
While it may be true that the rich, by reported income, work longer, it is not necessarily true that the rich, by assets or actual wealth, work longer.
Also, what do you mean by work? Some of my friends "work" by producing music, or by running a charitable foundation their parents created that has them doing what they want to do.
Other people might call that play. Especially the 20 hours spent on the golf course in Scotland, or the conference on their yacht in the Mediterranean, that looks like a giant pool party when you see it up close.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
...The poor are working less because about every company that pays at the minimum wage level has cut there hours to part time so they don't have to pay full benefits.
Blame Obamacare?!
Only if you are a moron.
If you bothered to read TFA you would see that The Economist is using data from 2006. I don't think Obamacare is so powerful that it changed working hours for the poor 3 years before it was written, and 7 years before it went into effect.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age