In a paragraph lamenting an "incredibly weakly argued piece," Mr. Graeber asks "Has the process of teaching become three times more complicated than it was in the 1930s?" This is not an argument, this is not even data. Yet the intrepid interviewer answers with "All true, and very correct about the universities...." Can we do any better about grounding our beliefs with evidence? Here's a paper that finds an increase in American leisure. It appears to be mostly based on the PSID.We document that a dramatic increase in leisure time lies behind the relatively stable number of market hours worked (per working-age adult) between 1965 and 2003. Specifically, we document that leisure for men increased by 6‒8 hours per week (driven by a decline in market work hours) and for women by 4‒8 hours per week (driven by a decline in home production work hours). This increase in leisure corresponds to roughly an additional 5 to 10 weeks of vacation per year, assuming a 40‐hour work week. We also find that leisure increased during the last 40 years for a number of sub‐samples of the population, with less‐educated adults experiencing the largest increases.
Thanks for pointing this study out. Interestingly, check out page 49. What is defined as total non-market work (Food Preparation and Indoor Household Chores & Shopping/Obtaining Goods and Services) has increased for men with children, whereas for women with children, their market work increased, but their non-market work decreased dramatically. Working through the study, I began to wonder if the findings didn't significantly depend upon the definition of leisure activity. Eventually, I began to search for an analysis/critique, which led me to this pub by Kristie M. Engemann and Michael T. Owyang at the St. Louis Federal Reserve, where they point out another study that found a slight decrease in leisure over the same period; of course, it depends upon how you define leisure. Whatever the case may be, the discussion by Engemann and Owyang is worth considering: Economists Daniel Hamermesh and Jungmin Lee offered a different interpretation. The authors studied people’s perception of their time stress, finding that people who make more money—but did not work more hours—reported that they felt more stressed for time. Hence, the authors attributed at least part of the time stress simply to having too much money to spend, given the amount of time left after working. These conflicting studies leave open this question of whether today’s Americans actually have more leisure time than past generations had. The salient difference in these studies’ conclusions appears to stem from what one considers leisure and who is being asked. Focusing only on working-age adults, as do Aguiar and Hurst, suggests that Americans enjoy more leisure now than in the mid-1960s. On the other hand, when school and work by children and retirees are included, Americans work about the same amount of time now as they did in both 1900 and 1965. However, no matter which definition of leisure is preferred, the broad conclusion is that Americans’ leisure time is, at worst, the same now as it ever was—regardless of perception. I think an interesting question is whether or not we should be concerned about the number of hours worked or hours spent in leisure, but instead address that which leads one to perceive that they are working more hours, with the presumption that they are to less effect. Maybe the hours worked is not the issue, but a stand-in for one less easy to define?Are Americans enjoying more free time than they used to? Not if you ask them. Social scientists John Robinson and Geoffrey Godbey found that in surveys conducted in various years between 1965 and 1995, Americans increasingly felt rushed. In 1965, 24 percent of respondents aged 18-64 “always felt rushed”; this percentage climbed to 38 percent in 1992, but then dropped to 33 percent in 1995. Moreover, the percentage of respondents who “almost never felt rushed” fell from 27 percent to 17 percent between 1971 and 1995.
I don't think "feeling rushed" is a good proxy for whatever we are trying to measure with the term leisure. Imagine a worker in 1800, most likely working in agriculture. From dawn to dusk he or she is milking cows, mending fences, gathering eggs, pumping water, hand-washing laundry, or working in the garden. The milk only comes out of the udders so fast, so there's not much to be gained by rushing. What leisure time there is might be spent taking a walk, fishing, smoking a pipe, playing cards, or sitting around talking. Not much leisure, but not much rushing. By 1900, there was a good chance the worker had moved to a city. That alone leads to a more hectic lifestyle. But work in a factory, aided by mechanical advantages, is far more productive than manual farm labor, so the worker is able to earn enough while working fewer hours to purchase food, clothing, and household needs from others rather than creating these things at home. Electricity is about to completely transform leisure, especially the refrigerator, air conditioning, radio and television, and especially the washing machine. The worker has far more options for entertainment, thanks to urban distractions, artificial lighting and disposable income, but he may feel a bit rushed with so many more responsibilities and relationships to maintain, even if he has more weekly hours not devoted to job and household work. By 2000 the trend is even more pronounced. Eight-hour workdays and two-day weekends are typical, and household chores can be wrapped up Saturday morning. Food preparation becomes a hobby instead of a duty for many people. The worker has all the options for leisure as the farmer and factory worker and many more. Gyms, coffehouses, libraries, parks, cinemas, restaurants, arenas, shopping malls and the Internet all compete for attention. Entertaining a child is no longer a choice between a game of catch or flying a kite, it could also be karate, Chinese class, tandem biking, the water park, go-karts, lacrosse, or a movie. With so many options, people will feel rushed trying to take advantage of them all.I think an interesting question is whether or not we should be concerned about the number of hours worked or hours spent in leisure, but instead address that which leads one to perceive that they are working more hours
Perceptions are important, but I would prefer to focus on objective measures of well-being, difficult though they may be to obtain. My stress over getting behind on my Instagram feed does not really compare to the sunburn and back pain of the farmer in 1800.
Your complaint and data aren't about the same thing which is slightly confusing. I would argue that Graeber's rhetorical question is just there to question the absurdity of that articles own assumptions. For, realistically, if production was so much more complicated (pieces of the production process scattered around the world etc) it would also incur extra cost .. they ship around the world to save money. But I agree, its quite likely there have been statistically increased changes in leisure. However, that's not really the point. I'm not even sure Mr. Graeber knows how important these measures of importance are in our lives, but I think he makes a lot of compelling claims. Especially since, well I don't know about you, but when he talks about the arrogance of those people who think if workers don't find value in their jobs, that their just being overly self important. This kind of inane logic (and probably loss aversion for themselves, as Graeber puts it "the visionary entrepreneurs") needs to be confronted.
The big idea of the interview is that things are getting worse for workers, especially the amount of time they are expected to work and the satisfacation they get from their work. People are always getting misquoted in interviews, but he makes the same points in his "bullshit jobs" essay. He doesn't link to his source, which makes it pretty obvious on page 2 that the biggest shift since 1910 has been the near evaporation of farm labor. People didn't stop eating, and the population didn't disappear. How can so few farmers produce ever more food? I will speculate that it has something to do with the large numbers of people who today work in air-conditioned offices doing things like weather forecasting, insuring against the risk of bad harvests, making financial deals to smooth out good and bad years, negotiating sales contracts, making and importing agricultural machinery, analyzing statistics on fertilizer and pest control, and a host of other logistical challenges. And many of these people, as well as the few remaining farmers, enjoy retirement programs, health insurance, information systems and other benefits that require an army of office personnel. This seems more plausible than a conspiracy of "the ruling class" to keep us all busy and obediently purchasing iGoodies to support CEO yacht demand. An accountant helping out on the John Deere account does not get the satisfaction of dirt under her fingernails, but this does not mean it is a useless job. The fact that the job does not entail sweaty labor from morning to evening, but allows her to take coffee breaks and even look at Hubski from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing.Your complaint and data aren't about the same thing which is slightly confusing.
My complaint is that Graeber appears to rely on speculation and intuition, but these do not make a sound basis for forming beliefs.