« A Different Baseball Story | Main | »
March 24, 2007
Ah, Sweet Mystery Of Life!
In Slate Online, Steven Landsburg marvels at our continuing inability to crack the code on some age-old conundrums:
As you've probably heard, there's been an explosion of inequality in the United States over the past four decades. The gap between high-skilled and low-skilled workers is bigger than ever before, and it continues to grow.
Holy wage discrimination, Batman - an explosion of inequality! Fetch the Income Redistributor, pronto!
What could explain this mysterious "gap" between those with lots of skills and those who have few skills? Surely we don't want to look at anything so mundane as a possible correlation between hours spent working and income?
In 1965, the average man spent 42 hours a week working at the office or the factory; throw in coffee breaks, lunch breaks, and commuting time, and you're up to 51 hours. Today, instead of spending 42 and 51 hours, he spends 36 and 40.For women, time spent on the job is up from 17 hours a week to 24. With breaks and commuting thrown in, it's up from 20 hours to 26. But time spent on household chores is down from 35 hours a week to 22, for a net leisure gain of four to six hours. Call it five extra vacation weeks.
But not for everyone. About 10 percent of us are stuck in 1965, leisurewise. At the opposite extreme, 10 percent of us have gained a staggering 14 hours a week or more. (Once again, your gains are measured in comparison to a person who, in 1965, had the same characteristics that you have today.) By and large, the biggest leisure gains have gone precisely to those with the most stagnant incomes—that is, the least skilled and the least educated. And conversely, the smallest leisure gains have been concentrated among the most educated, the same group that's had the biggest gains in income.
Aguiar and Hurst can't explain fully that rising inequality, just as nobody can explain fully the rising inequality in income.
Well of course they can't. But we do know two important things.
First, money does not buy happiness. And secondly there is absolutely no point in examining pie-in-the-sky theoretical relationships between effort and income. Such moralistic approaches to science only punish the victims of economic inequality, who should be left free to enjoy their leisure time until we can redistribute excess income from their leisure-poor but cash-burdened brethren.
Posted by Cassandra at March 24, 2007 03:17 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1387
Comments
Might part of the disparity be the 20 million illegal aliens and the millions of "victims" who wouldn't know a hard day of work if it slapped in the face.
Posted by: Rightmom at March 24, 2007 05:08 PM
I see plenty of Mexican immigrant laborers (illegal or legal) that work plenty hard. They built a significant part of the house I live in.
You might look out in the parking lot of any company or shopping center and count the cars that aren't made in the US for a better clue as to what has happened to the wages of semi-skilled and low skilled wages. Steel, tires, glass, and all the other work that goes into making a car.
Still, I think most UAW guys were and are overpayed; just sayin'.
Posted by: Don Brouhaha at March 24, 2007 05:46 PM
Unions are a problem, Don. When my best friend and her husband lived in Lee's Summit, MO, just outside of KC, I went up to visit once or twice. I met their friends/neighbors, the husband half of which was an electrician. He worked in a non-union shop. Over dinner at Olive Garden one evening, he explained how he is able to work regularly, unlike those electricians who are in the union. Because of the union's minimum wage requirements, union shops loss many jobs because they are underbid by non-union shops. The union's minimum wage requirement doesn't do the union members much good when they can't earn the wage for lack of contracts won by their employers.
Posted by: Miss Ladybug at March 24, 2007 08:58 PM
I.AM.THE.KING.OF.LEISURE! ;-)
Posted by: JHD at March 24, 2007 09:21 PM
I like my deal on 3rd shift in the Military-Industrial Complex; since 1st shift and 2nd shift are each 8 hours plus ½ hour for lunch, that only leaves 7 hours in a 24 hour day...during which I still get ½ hour for lunch. I get paid for 8 hours, plus an 8% shift differential.
3rd shift isn't for everyone, but I like my 32½ hour work week...
Posted by: camojack at March 25, 2007 12:26 AM
Unions, per se, are not the problem, but the mentality that they foster, is.
Today, union and non-union workers in the US are competing with people who make a whole lot less in China, Thailand, India and elsewhere.
When union workers' representatives are inflexible in work rules and negotiating benefit packages, they only hasten the day when the factory they work in shuts down and moves its production to "somewhere else".
My whole working, adult life (30 years now) has been a witness to the erosion of manufacturing jobs right in front of me by a combination of stupid, lazy management and ridiculous contracts with labor.
Increases in efficiency are part of it and have played a part in reduction of earnings for low and semi-skilled labor. When the railroads went from steam engines to diesels in the '40's and '50's, their needs for labor for operations and maintenance dropped by two-thirds. Something similar is happening over a lot of manufacturing companies right now, which is part of the story of losses in earning power for low-skilled and semi-skilled labor.
If you've ever been in an auto factory, and compared the way one of the "Big Three" operate compared to, say Honda, there's another clue. Union guys don't design cars, parts or manage the operations of large assembly or parts plants for the auto companies, and frankly a banana eating chimp could do a better job of running some factories than the management of the "Big Three".
Posted by: Dopn Brouhaha at March 25, 2007 12:23 PM
"Unions, per se, are not the problem, but the mentality that they foster, is."
I agree with this statement. In many cases, Unions are quite needed, especially when dealing with a large company who could just as easily screw you over as look at you with the mentality that there's more where you came from. Its a good way to keep the balance.
But... as a counterpoint, when I worked in a union, I ran into some of THE MOST LAZIEST PEOPLE in my LIFE! The whole system encourages abuse.
Posted by: Kevin L at March 26, 2007 12:13 PM
I agree with everything you said Kevin ... and whats more, in my experience the union helps foster an attitude that would changes a motivated person into a lazy person. Where I worked, I saw it all the time ... a new employee would come in and bust his/her chops and do an excellent job ... UNTIL they came to the realization that they were killing themselves while other sat around doing little to nothing and got paid the same and no matter how hard they worked, they would still get the exact same pay raise as the person doing nothing.
Posted by: Frodo at March 26, 2007 12:41 PM