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.")

18 of 311 comments (clear)

  1. By what definition of "rich"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:By what definition of "rich"? by Enry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I consider myself middle class, but by income standards I'm in the top 10% of income earners in the US. And I don't have a mansion or yacht.

    2. Re:By what definition of "rich"? by BreakBad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mansion / Yacht are status symbols of the 80's/90's. You probably have a 3 or 4 character twitter account name.

    3. Re:By what definition of "rich"? by Enry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nope, just a 630 UID

    4. Re:By what definition of "rich"? by gweihir · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed. Seems "rich" is now is you earn enough money to live decently. That is not the original definition.

      "Rich" usually means "has enough money to live pretty well without the need to be working at all".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:By what definition of "rich"? by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the poor and starving in Africa and India are not in debt either.... I will call them rich and see how they react.

  2. That's a strange definition of "rich" by gman003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:That's a strange definition of "rich" by NIK282000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about 'People with 60k in student loans work more hours.'

      --
      Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
    2. Re:That's a strange definition of "rich" by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe, but I know what it's like to live with dirt floors, without any running water or even a well in your yard. You can check it out, but in all likelihood you are probably already in the 1%, so yeah you are rich.

      Yeah, your rent is higher, but you are probably so rich you turn on the faucet and pour potable water down the drain waiting for it to heat up, without even thinking about it. Most likely you have carpet or wood floors, not concrete or dirt. If you live somewhere hot in the US, you probably have air conditioning. You probably have a car. You probably never worry about not having enough food. You can go on vacation in Hawaii if you feel like it.

      If you have a median US college degree income and you don't feel rich, it's only because you've gotten used to the feeling of being rich, just like we've all gotten used to the feeling of electric lighting, but that is magical.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  3. "Working" by Dancindan84 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  4. College degree != rich by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  5. Re:Hourly versus Salary by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?
  6. Obamacare as a cause? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  7. im seriously supposed to believe this?! by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. No, That's incorrect... by PortHaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:No, That's incorrect... by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Throughout history, the defining characteristic of the powerful versus the powerless has always been "works to earn a living" versus "Has others work to earn a living for them." I'm always hesitant to bring up that distinction in political discussions, because some disingenuous asshat will be inclined to pretend the meager(and temporary) social safety net the US provides is a living, which makes it impossible to actually discuss that separation.

      The key is, once your lifestyle is secure, you can fully focus your efforts on expansion, rather than maintenance, letting you play social climber, investor, or entrepreneur with much greater freedom. And that last one is a good thing, as long as the first two don't represent a rent-seeking upper class that threatens to topple the entire social structure of the nation.

  9. Missing definition by LoRdTAW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Missing definition by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Informative
      You have made a bad definition of wealth. The major problem is you have fallen for the common mistake fo measuring wealth by income. A single, healthy childless 21 year old women making $100,000/year is wealthy. A married 50 year old women, with 1 grand child, 4 children, 2 in college, and a husband with dementia is not wealthy.

      The real way to measure wealth is how Forbes does it - not income, but by net worth.

      If your net worth is over 2 million, you are wealthy. If your net worth is more than your age in thousands, you are middle class. Otherwise, you are poor. I don't care if you make $300,000 a year, if your net worth is negative,you are poor.

      A prime example of this is Donald Trump. The man has never been poor, even when his income was negative. Why? Because his assets always far exceeded his debt, even when he was losing money hand over fist.

      By my definition, quite a few people are poor that think they are wealthy - particularly musicians and sports stars that make millions but save nothing.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com