Author Topic: Nice work if you can get out: Why the rich now have less leisure than the poor  (Read 726 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,356
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
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

April 19, 2014
No byline

FOR most of human history rich people had the most leisure. In “Downton Abbey”, a drama about the British upper classes of the early 20th century, one aloof aristocrat has never heard of the term “weekend”: for her, every day is filled with leisure. On the flip side, the poor have typically slogged. Hans-Joachim Voth, an economic historian at the University of Zurich, shows that in 1800 the average English worker laboured for 64 hours a week. “In the 19th century you could tell how poor somebody was by how long they worked,” says Mr Voth.

In today’s advanced economies things are different. 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.

(excerpt)
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline massadvj

  • Editorial Advisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,336
  • Gender: Male
No surprise here.  The marginally rich have been priced out of the market for domestic labor, and the businessman must pick up the slack for employees he can no longer afford.  Why?  So Democrats can have patronage votes.  It's that simple.