Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#11

Post by netcan »

There are some aspects of wealth that basic economic concepts and models don't capture. Here for example, diminishing marginal utility doesn't seem to play as big a part as it did.

My guess is that competitive dynamics dominate this issue. Within a career/job it is hard to progress with less than full effort because of competition, for example. On the consumption side, by working less an individual becomes poor relative to his peers. This in itself is meaningful. Where 4 kids in a small 2 bedroom was normal and middle class throughout Europe in Keynes' time, it is hardship today. Living without smartphones or Internet is hard because they are normal, both psychologically and practically.

Second, inflation is unevenly distributed. The average salary/price ratio for bread and cheese and cutlery sets improved miraculously but the ratio for a tennis lesson did not.

Then, there are many markets that are zero sum or reduced sum. The price of real estate in many limited supply areas like cities rises to the limit of affordability for the corresponding percentile of the population. IE the median house corresponds to the maximal borrowing amount for a median household.

I also think "you make what you measure" applies. Our governments' highest measurable priorities are usually gdp and employment. Then there's wealth distribution. Will the median person's wealth increase 8 fold?

All that said. I think number of working years is a place to look for any changes that did occur. College, travel retirement. People had longer working lives back the, especially considering life expectancy.

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#12

Post by sly_foxx »

Can you think outside of the communist box?

Competition is in part due to the fact there are more humans alive today fighting for the same resources. It's kinda similar to dating, where things are not getting easier(except for those who inherited good genes). Today with dating you have to do more to get the same result people use to get with less effort.

Lack of social safety net? Why do you care about that? You don't have a safety net when you get dumped. You know, if your girlfriend dumps you, you don't get another girl to give you blowjobs, because otherwise you might get depressed and suicidal. You're expected to figure it out on your own and you might not do it - you might end up lonely, without dates and maybe even commit suicide because of that. So, why not hold wage earners to the same standard? Don't be a hypocrite!

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#13

Post by MrTonyD »

badsock wrote: post #7
tim333 wrote: post #4

I think much of the choice of work hours must be down to human nature. We are awake about 112 hours a week and choose to work between a half (56 hours) and a quarter (28 hours) typically. People are seldom very happy unemployed. If money was the only reason people worked, the likes of Paul Graham would put their feet up when they cashed in for millions from Yahoo but they almost never do.

In my current job I've been working six hours a day, between one and three days a week. My favourite has been two days - enough to feel like I'm contributing to a collectively-held goal and have some workplace socializing, but short enough that I feel like my "real" life is away from work. Having said that, I spend nearly all the rest of my days industriously grinding away at my own projects. But that doesn't feel li…

Your experience makes sense. I've read articles analyzing happiness at work and there is a very strong correlation with job autonomy. (And that explains why executives often love work - studies find that executives control their time and choose their work. That is also why bosses are so often surprised when their subordinates aren't equally enthusiastic about the work they are assigned.) Really, it takes somebody very disconnected from the reality of working people to think that everyone wants to work at jobs as they are currently constructed in our society.

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#14

Post by illivah »

That sounds pretty legitimate.

My first thought is that what you're worth is not what you want, and not according to your contribution to productivity. You're paid according to what you'll accept.

So you gotta wonder, if there starts to be a slight shortage of jobs, what do the different actors do? The middle manager and the employee... Well, as an employee you have less and less say, and you probably want to try to prove yourself and work harder or longer. Motivation is toward equal or higher hours than normal.

And the employer just wants to get the job done. They don't want to sift through MORE employees to do it. That means more training, more managing, and generally more hassle. Motivation is toward giving employees equal or more hours than normal.

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#15

Post by marklgr »

tim333 wrote: post #4

I think much of the choice of work hours must be down to human nature. We are awake about 112 hours a week and choose to work between a half (56 hours) and a quarter (28 hours) typically. People are seldom very happy unemployed. If money was the only reason people worked, the likes of Paul Graham would put their feet up when they cashed in for millions from Yahoo but they almost never do.

People are seldom happy when doing nothing; they like to be recognized as worthy and valuable members of their group/community. Work is the most frequent way to partly achieve that, but it is not the only one, depending on how you define 'work' (generally involving exchange of money or service).

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#16

Post by vidarh »

at5 wrote: post #2

The thing about capitalism is that the capitalists tend to win. Gains have accrued to capitalists mostly. Lack of leverage on the part of labour means they are expected to be more productive not work less.

> The thing about capitalism is that the capitalists tend to win.

That's because the capitalists are the ones that already "won".

A capitalist - or aspiring capitalist - that fails, is/becomes a worker.

Anything that squeezes the economy of capitalists as a group forces some of them into the working class.

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#17

Post by [deleted] »

ScottBurson wrote: post #8

One answer is that the market forces tend to funnel all increases in income to landowners as rent. I was not familiar with this theory until a few days ago, when someone here on HN linked to an online version (edited and abridged) of Henry George's Progress and Poverty [0]. I've been reading it since; its clarity is stunning: I feel as if a great veil has been lifted from my eyes. Whether I'll still feel that way in…

[deleted]

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#18

Post by dnautics »

Because when you devalue the currency through a policy of secular inflation, you have to work harder to maintain the same standard of living: this is the whole point of manipulating the economy using the inflation/employment connection (aka Phillips curve). You can't negotiate a wage reduction with your employee due to sticky wages, so for a country to make it appear like they're doing a good job keeping employment numbers up, they have to screw over everyone (of course screwing the poor the hardest)

Re: Why Americans Work So Much Despite Keynes's Prediction

#20

Post by majewsky »

lhh wrote: post #9

This article is deeply flawed... change in wages != change in standard of living. But that aside, in addition to people wanting to take part in higher standards of living, I'd hypothesize that another driver is social status. In our culture, wealth seems to translate pretty directly to social status, and I think that's a pretty core human need/desire that most people aren't willing to opt out of competing for.

> This article is deeply flawed... change in wages != change in standard of living.

Measuring "standard of living" is a very hard problem. At least they're being clear about their definition, so I can judge the correlations they find for myself.

Post reply on HN