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.")

11 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

  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. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.