You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

IlyaShpitser comments on On not getting a job as an option - Less Wrong Discussion

36 Post author: diegocaleiro 11 March 2014 02:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (187)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Salemicus 11 March 2014 06:14:13PM 8 points [-]

But we are working less and less due to vastly increased productivity, and it's very clear in any graph of hours worked over time. And the effect is even bigger than the statistics show, because of the big shift from non-market to market labour - don't tell me that doing the laundry by hand, or being a subsistence farmer, isn't work, just because it's hard for government statisticians to measure! People today have far more leisure than at any time since the dawn of agriculture.

What is true is that hours worked haven't fallen as much as some people predicted (e.g. Keynes in "Economic Possiblities for our Grandchildren"). The reason for that seems pretty obvious - innovation doesn't just make us better at making the same old things, it also creates new things we want, and people have a pronounced tendency to underestimate the latter.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 12 March 2014 01:46:42PM *  3 points [-]

But we are working less and less due to vastly increased productivity, and it's very clear in any graph of hours worked over time.

Do you have any references for this claim? One thing I have read is this paper:

http://econweb.ucsd.edu/~vramey/research/Century_Published.pdf


To sharpen my question a bit further still: how much is the length of our workday shaped by necessity and how much by custom and culture.

Comment author: Salemicus 12 March 2014 04:42:28PM *  0 points [-]

I had not seen that paper; it is interesting and I will look over it more fully at another time. I should note that

  • They aren't measuring work, they are measuring leisure. For example, they count the big increase in time spent in education as eating into our leisure, which is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether we are working more.
  • Even those authors agree that per capita leisure increased by 4 hours per week over the past century in the USA.
  • Some of their claims are hard to believe. For example, they claim

Home-production time averaged over the population ages 14 and older decreased by only half an hour per week from 1900 to 2005.

Really? Despite the gas oven, the washing machine, the dishwasher, etc? They claim that the typical 25-54-aged woman worked 50.4 hours per week in home production in 1900, and 31.1 hours per week in 2005. This change is way too small to be plausible. I think, frankly, that all kinds of activities are now being classified as home production work that would not have been so classified in 1990, and that their broad categories ("childcare", etc) are unable to measure this.

You can see a general overview of the subject for the US here:

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

A nice blogger put together a graph over hours worked over time in US history here:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9kFluQyx4tM/TIcLhFVzVNI/AAAAAAAAAG8/hwfkDvU14-Y/s1600/Avg+Hours+Week.jpg

Data from various developed countries here:

http://phe.rockefeller.edu/work_less/

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 21 September 2014 05:28:00AM 2 points [-]

More Work for Mother argues that the most of the physical labor was taken out of housework, but the amount of time required stayed high because standards went up.