The Working Rich Now Have Less Leisure Than The Poor
Interesting piece in The Economist, noting that it's the rich who now don't have so many breaks from their work time. (Of course, they are more able to choose to take them if they want.) The piece gives a number of reasons, but here's an excerpt I found interesting:
The status of work and leisure in the rich world has changed since the days of "Downton Abbey". Back in 1899 Thorstein Veblen, an American economist who dabbled in sociology, offered his take on things. He argued that leisure was a "badge of honour". Rich people could get others to do the dirty, repetitive work--what Veblen called "industry". Yet Veblen's leisure class was not idle. Rather they engaged in "exploit": challenging and creative activities such as writing, philanthropy and debating.Veblen's theory needs updating, according to a recent paper from researchers at Oxford University*. Work in advanced economies has become more knowledge-intensive and intellectual. There are fewer really dull jobs, like lift-operating, and more glamorous ones, like fashion design. That means more people than ever can enjoy "exploit" at the office. Work has come to offer the sort of pleasures that rich people used to seek in their time off. On the flip side, leisure is no longer a sign of social power. Instead it symbolises uselessness and unemployment.
The evidence backs up the sociological theory. The occupations in which people are least happy are manual and service jobs requiring little skill. Job satisfaction tends to increase with the prestige of the occupation. Research by Arlie Russell Hochschild of the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that as work becomes more intellectually stimulating, people start to enjoy it more than home life. "I come to work to relax," one interviewee tells Ms Hochschild. And wealthy people often feel that lingering at home is a waste of time. 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.
Personally, I find that I am the most productive when I have a ton on my plate.
It's a truism: you either have time or your have money.
For too many years, we had pretty scary finances. Now our finances are just fine, but it's thanks to high-stress jobs and too little free time.
I'm not sure which I prefer...
a_random_guy at April 25, 2014 2:28 AM
I find myself discouraged when I have too much on my plate. I like a challenge, but I dislike being overwhelmed.
MarkD at April 25, 2014 5:03 AM
MarkD, that may be because we evolved to shut down when something seems futile. Randy Nesse believes depression is "low mood," and may kick in when our course of action is hopeless.
Amy Alkon at April 25, 2014 5:49 AM
Most corporate jobs are very dull, and I can't imagine what it must be like working for the government.
The corporate goal is to make jobs and people as interchangeable as possible. I saw this with my very first job out of college, 20 years ago. It was with a mortgage company, and my entry-level job involved handling all of the application escrow accounting for the branches in my assigned states. When people bought houses, they typically put $300 down to cover appraisals and inspections, and our job was to do all the deposits, pay all the invoices, and make sure the escrow accounts were cleaned up when the process was finished.
During my time there, management overhauled the department so that you either did deposits all day, paid invoices all day, or reviewed 90+ day balances all day. The scope of our jobs narrowed to one single activity and became very dull, since you essentially had no more variety to your day whatsoever. It was inherently alienating, but that was the whole point. They wanted to set up the positions so that no real mastery of anything was required, and any dumb monkey could do the job. Of course that was all they ended up with, because smart people who embrace responsibility and enjoy challenges never stick around in jobs like that.
But if you have to hire people, think how stupid the average person is and consider that half of them are even dumber than that. Would you want to stick yourself out there and rely on being able to find a smart person?
With the Great Depression in force, of course, all bets are off. There is a small sliver of smart people in engaging jobs, a lot of smart people in dumb jobs, and a lot of dumb people with no jobs at all.
Pirate Jo at April 25, 2014 6:00 AM
It's not suprising. Despite all of the "income disparity" arguments, there is still plenty of chance for upward mobility; people tend to actually EARN their money now. I work for a VP at an energy company. I keep his calendar; I know how busy he is. Even when he DOES get to play golf or goes to dinner on a weeknight, it tends to be work-related. And I don't think he's taking more than two weeks of vacation this year, despite the fact that he is entitled to quite a bit more.
At this point, even the people I know who have inherited money work. (The men do, anyway.)
ahw at April 25, 2014 1:01 PM
The thing I have found is the rote jobs, even in tech fields, generally are going to be 8-5 or a very fixed schedule in 24 hour shops. Those are your level I help desk types or the tech bench that sets up the standard configuration PC's.
But once you get to level II you are expected to get the work done even if it is extended hours.
Then when you get to the level III and beyond you start getting into 45+ hours a week. You have weekend hours. No matter how much you automate there is a new project that will put you back over 40 hours again. You also start having to find a way to burn off the spare vacation days that you have accumulated before the end of year or lose them.
I have usually had good bosses that won't say a word if I want to take a comp day for having worked weekends or over the scheduled times. What I get pissed at is that my bosses have given me an option for weekend work to either take it as comp time or file an expense report for "excess mileage" and food for weekend work; but corporate management changes the rules to disallow the expense reports even though your manager signs off on it.
So if you look at it -- those at the top of the job food chain are stuck with overload just because there is a lack of competence at lower levels that just can't be overcome.
Jim P. at April 25, 2014 5:32 PM
Leave a comment