Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich? (not a joke)

[shrike]

The Theory of the Leisure Class
An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Friday, March 9, 2007, at 1:23 PM ET
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.

How can we close the gap? Well, I suppose we could round up a bunch of assembly-line workers and force them to mow the lawns of corporate vice presidents. Because the gap I'm talking about is the gap in leisure time, and it's the least educated who are pulling ahead.

In 1965, leisure was pretty much equally distributed across classes. People of the same age, sex, and family size tended to have about the same amount of leisure, regardless of their socioeconomic status. But since then, two things have happened. First, leisure (like income) has increased dramatically across the board. Second, though everyone's a winner, the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.


Okay, who's broke on DU? Anybody who thinks they've got it made leisure-time-wise, raise your hands.




http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/?GT1=9231

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I had a LOT of free time when I was "between jobs" for a period

from 2002 to 2006 with three jobs intermittently that lasted three months tops. I also had no real purpose to get out of bed and no disposable income.

[hobbit709]

2. If you define "Leisure Time"

as the time not working. If I had a 40 hour/week job that would be 40+ hrs of less "leisure time" I would have. Of course, most of my "leisure time" is spent in worrying about how I'm gonna pay my bills.
Fretting over your living expenses, keeping your 15 year old car running, hoping I don't have massive medical expenses and so on could be considered "leisure" pursuits by some.

[denverbill]

3. What an idiotic article.

The reason is because so many workers are now forced to work part-time, ala Walmart, so they don't have to pay for health insurance or other benefits. Geez, all that wonderful extra 'leisure' time.

And those of us lucky enough to have full-time jobs are now forced to work OT because Shrub, et al, have changed the laws about who has to get paid overtime. So skilled workers are working free overtime and unskilled workers are working part-time.

Ahhh. Paradise.

[murray hill farm]

4. Well...OK, I am retired...and poor by standard ranking in the US

Soooooo, being retired, I naturally have more time to do what I want to do each day. But, low income has it's advantages...and one of them is more leisure. The reason being that one does not use up all of ones time chasing the money to pay for a life style that requires all of ones time to maintain. Moving into a lifestyle that allows one to give up that chase and just enjoy life is one of the best kept secrets of happiness.

[shrike]

10. I understand where you're coming from

And you're in a very nice place. But I'm sure you know that for many lower-income people, the constant worry and fear of not being able to pay your bills does not make leisure time "leisurely."

This article reminds me of the "lucky duckies" article published in the Wall Street Journal.

And you do live in Mexico, I presume? Whereabouts? I've considered that option for myself later in life.

[murray hill farm]

13. I live in Brunswick, GA now!

Reuturned here about a year ago to live, but did live on Isla Mujeres..off coast of Cancun...and it was great to live there. I returned to the US when I turned 65 so that I could use medicare when it became available to me. Sure....I do know what you are saying...in the really low income area where I live now, poverty and the hard work of survival on a min wage job is every day survival here, but it is still less stressful for most than the struggle to maintain the mcmansion life style...especially as the economy is failing for everyone. Here, one is more likely to survive the coming crunch because living on min wage is at least possible....and for the folks in my neighborhood, life will not change all that much no matter how bad it gets...and there is security in that knowing.

[HughBeaumont]

5. "You middle classers and po' folks don't even KNOW what hardship is like!!!"

"What with all that free time your lazy asses have!"

I'm too stunned to come up with an insult fitting enough for the fuckstick who wrote this. Leisure time. Right, all of us have-nots hob-knob in Aruba on our downtime. Sure thing, pally.

[fed-up]

6. when pain or illness causes one not to work-"leisure" is NOT a good adjective nt

[demnan]

7. Being unemployed is not "Leisure" time

It's the most stressful difficult thing to try and network with people and constantly go on interviews and promote yourself on the phone.

Also did this article take into account that people are working 2 and sometimes 3 jobs to make ends meet?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

8. Fuck him

Most rich people have a shitload of leisure time and those who don't could choose to cut back their work hours and still live better than most people. Landsburg is making a cutesy comparison of leisure time to income in his column but it doesn't hold up. Poor people, whether or not they have a lot of free time, are struggling to feed their families, find affordable housing, and get basic health care. That's why "a certain class of pundits and politicians" along with most Americans favor what he calls "redistribution" of some wealth.

And BTW, Landsburg, a lot of poor people are already forced to mow the lawns and clean the houses of the wealthy.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

9. I am reminded of an old Doonesbury comic arc

A conversation between Jane Fonda and her cleaning woman. This was about the time JF's workout video came out, and JF was trying to get the cleaning lady to take up aerobics. She made an argument to the effect that, look at me, I have a busy schedule, but I still find the time to exercise.

The cleaning woman's response has always stuck with me: "You're only as busy as you want to be. I'm as busy as I need to be."

[A Simple Game]

11. In 1965 most families had one person in the workforce.

Now the rich have one person in the work force working maybe 50 hours a week. Non-rich families often have two members in the workforce working less hours per person but more hours total for the family.

"An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?" I don't think that they really do if you figure leisure time the family has together.

[Gormy Cuss]

12. The cited analysis uses some specific definitions for work and leisure.

"Work" includes both paid labor ("market work") and household chores ("nonmarket work.")
"Leisure" is, in simple terms, the remainder.

Since nonmarket work has decreased dramatically from the level in the 1960s, that alone may account for a substantial portion of the increase in time available for leisure. Market work totals were influenced by a long trend of increased market work by women at the same time that hours decreased for men, too.

The writer of the Slate piece glommed on to the term "leisure" and ran with it.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. What rot!