Despite all the labor-saving devices lavished upon us by modern
technology, we seem to be turning into a society of workaholics.
Recent studies have shown that we have less leisure time now than
ever before.
 
Engineers and computer scientists, for example, often put in more
than 40 hours per week on the job.  In addition, they often take
courses and read technical journals in order to keep up with the
technology. I'm sure the situation is similar in other
professions.
 
Do you ever wonder if all the work is worth it?  Do the payoffs,
both financial and spiritual, make it worthwhile?  When you start
"burning out," how do you cope?

50 responses total.

I have trouble working, at all.

A lot of people *always* have worked "more than 40 hours per week".  Many
still do.  It is my firm belief that the appearance that we have less
leisure time is because we now have quicker statistical analysis equipment
which gives us results that are more accurate than before.

Perhaps more people that were not included in previous surveys are now
incorporated.  Many professionals that normally would not be involved
in such surveys are now being included due to better survey methods and
better communications within the professional community.

I, however, very carefully protect the leisure time I acquire.  Even to the
point of refusing to intrude on it with "company business".  This is
not necessarily a hard and fast rule because "consultation" goes with the
territory.  There is often the time I choose not to respond to an
"emergency" because of my desire to preserve my relaxation time.  Nothing
is more important than that.  It keeps me "liking my job" a lot more.
Nothing is worse than going to work disgruntled.

Interesting.....in earlier parts of the century, laws forbidding
workweeks longer than 6 days of 10 hours a day were radical.
  
In a number of "tribal" cultures, the amount of work each person
does +per week+ is no more than 8-10 hours.

Certainly there are extremes to any example.  Even now, many occupations
require Overtime in some manner or other.  Others are so menial that
scraping by is a result.  Even so, in the mean of the numbers, I have
to believe that people works as much as they need to.  This need could
have an economic basis, or a gratification basis.  However you detail
it, it is most likely that humans "work" about the same regardless of
the time period.

I know that my leisure time involves many chores that are self-inflicted.
Are these not considered work just because no direct financial gain is
evident?  Many things can involve labor and be productive without 
receiving "compensation".  Just where do we draw the line between
"work" and "hobby" and "chores"?  Pleasure level?  Then I might consider
my work as almost a hobby...

I know in my case the effort that I put into my job is worth it to me
in terms of satisfaction.  It does seem that there is an information
overload associated with just about everyone's job nowadays.  I do let
business matters wander over into my homelife, but in most cases, it's
just easier and more comfortable to handle the telephone calls this way
than be interrupted at work.  What causes me to burn out and wonder whether
it's all worth it is usually just petty office politics.  When I feel like
I may be getting burned out, I take a day just for myself and do whatever
I feel like doing that day.  This works well for me, but I've often
wondered how people with small children manage to work, manage the family,
and still handle the inevitable office stress and burnout.  It seems that
it would be difficult to use the day for yourself approach very often
in those situations.

   Worth pointing out that the average american watches over
seven hours of television a day.  Now you know where all that
leisure time goes.  I don't watch TV, and don't feel terribly
harried.  'Though I have no other evidence, I suspect that the
two are strongly correlated.

I always wondered how people find time to DO that...I barely have
time to eat or sleep, much less watch TV 50 hours a week.

I always wondered if the incredible abundance of art/leisure/music/enter-
tainment type activity in Ithaca NY (three theater groups, art theaters in
addition to on-campus movies, two daily and two weekly newspapers all
thriving, concerts, high level of political activism, etc., etc., all in
a town only the size of Ypsilanti) was related to the "shortage" of TV there.
Because of the hills, broadcast TV is simply unavailable in most of the city,
and cable TV rates are extortionate, higher than in Manhattan.

   Could be.  Either that, or the water.

I dunno...I sometimes watch TV that much, but rarely if ever just WATCH TV.
I may have it on in the background if I'm playing on the computer, but just
sitting there watching...I don't know how people can do that. For a good 
movie, maybe, or the occasional good sporting event...

As a single person I excuse working 50-60 or more hours per week as
a choice that I alone have to deal with.  I feel that when I am married,
I will act as most others and work something closer to 40 hours a week, 
in order to spend any additional time with my family.  This of course
seen as a obligation.... for a choice such as giving up hours to go play
with friends is often dismissed....
 
One of my jobs is as a white collar worker, and frankly no matter how
stressful it is or mind-altering, it doesnt "feel" like work.  Only 
hard manual labor feels like a real accomplishment to me.

What feels like "work" to me is something that is dull and brain-numbing.
If it's interesting, or at least challenging, it doesn't bother me to
do it.

Unfortunately, even "interesting" work can be dull and brain-numbing
if there's too much of it.  My job is "white-collar," and many would
think I have a great job, but the last few months have been so busy
it's been hard to enjoy it.

Yeah, even interesting work gets old when you 'have' to do it more than
16 hours/day, 5-6 days/week, and my work isn't even interesting.

What *do* you do, anyways?  I never did get a bead on it.

We sell medical supplies and equipment to the occupational health and safety
market ( read automakers and suppliers ).   Times are very bad for these guys
these days and they are beating the shit out of their suppliers, i.e. me.
I have P/L responsibility for this. Quite an experience, but it's getting old.

Seems that I have had a mixture of both work and jobs. The difference
is that the jobs *had* to be done, like it or not, but the work was
something I would do anyway. So far leisure time demands have been
able to knock hard on my conciousness when they were actually needed.
I typically enjoy fully lengthy intense work and then a breather - and
there is no particular schedule except "it has to be done by ..." So there
are projects which run 20-30-40 hours at a strech - no problem. Some
work has a lengthier time frame but I prefer to work in those time
batches none the less even if the project takes a couple years.

What I wouldn't give for a programming job that required more than
forty hours a week...

... This item makes me feel bad ...

It is essential to be at peace (or in pieces) with yourself, then you
can do anything and be content.

Right, gunge, internal equlibrium works the best. When people
say one thing and do another, or say one thing to people in
public, but reverse it in "private" they create in internal
dissention that just gets larger and eventually shattering.

i really believe that as technology shortens or eliminates manual labor,
in order to support the population, we're going to have to move towards
higher wages for less work and 24-hour everything. people might work 
shifts of 6 hours as few as 3 or 4 times a week for many jobs, and the
notion of stores being closed is going to become an unusual one. as 
people begin to work different shifts and shorter hours, they're going to
take advantage of 24-hour access and diversify their schedules. not every-
body will be sleeping between 2 and 5 a.m. the entire idea of work being
"worth" this or that wage is going to become very difficult--with the 
surplus of workers and resources, competitive labor (jobs demanding such
and such a pay because of the difficulty or rarity of the service) is 
going to diminish.

consequently, people will devote themselves to pursuits not immediately
associated with survival. 

with an increase in multi-shift households, your prediction could further
degenerate the family unit to a simple "home-sharing" arrangement.  Soon
we'll need "virtual" families?  
Check out the virtual reality item in real.

well, though schedules may open up and vary, we certainly won't see an
increase of people per unit...i take it you mean, "one family sharing
a house, but not acting as a family" rather than, "two or more families
living different schedules and sharing the same quarters." even so, 
perhaps not. one of the families for whom i tutor has a father who works
nights and a mother who works days. nonetheless, when i'm there, it's 
not unusual to see the father up and about and spending some time with
the kids. sure--there are days when he does his sleeping and hasn't much
familial contact, but still...i think that this will remain a choice
determined largely by personal concerns and styles rather than by 
circumstances.

The most interesting point though, is, what are all these new people
going to do since we no longer have all those old labor-intensive
jobs?

perhaps work in new or expanding industries?

re #25:  That's a good point.  There are very few industries that are
really expanding.  It is going to be awfully hard to pay people a 
"40-hour" salary if they truly only work 24 hours per week.  They are
going to have to produce 40 hours of work in those 24 hours.

Here's the paradox. As you say, jobs that can be done by anyone will be
much more competitive, and this will tend to push salaries lower.  The
answer to that is to become expert at something that few people are
expert in.  This, of course, will push your salary up, but it will also
create demands on your time, i.e. you may find yourself working more
you really want to.

i think that what may happen instead is that disparate salary levels will,
comparatively, close. skilled or "important" workers will make more than
blue-collar workers, but the margin will not be on the order of multiples.
one good example is ben and jerry's...the top-paid executive is not per-
mitted to make more than seven times the salary of the lowest-paid employee.
it's a profitable company, and the workers are all in all quite satisfied.

it seems odd to think that people working 24 hours don't deserve a salary
we now consider a 40-hour salary, but that people on the other end of the
ladder, executives, who may well (in some cases) work that same 24-hour
week, earn 1500 40-hour salaries. 

industries that will expand (it's difficult to predict, of course) probably
include high-tech production of products suitable for consumers and the
service industries associated with them. as long as such ventures remain
profitable on the whole, i'd imagine there will still be demand for more
fundamental industries like corporate construction, housing, etc. looking
at our national profile, much of this depends upon increasing our compet-
itiveness in areas that already exist: computer/conductor technology, 
automotive, etc. 

Most of the executives that I have met who get anything done spend 60+ 
hours doing their job, but there's no overtime pay for them.  What really
suprises me is the union laborer who gets paid far too much for their
mindless little job...even when they are laid off!  This is not to say
that all union laborers have mindless jobs, just a lot of them.

i've no doubt that there are executives working 60 hours a week, some more.
but if 40 hours is worth, say, $400 (or about $25,000/year), why is 60 (in
select cases) worth $650,000-$1,000,000 or more? i'd rather have more
people making a decent wage, on the average, than a few people making 
astounding ones.

as to unionism...is mythago reading this item?

I'd rather be making $650,000-$1,000,000.

oh, sure...but would you rather make less than $10/hour before taxes for 
your entire career while somebody _else_ makes that kind of money?

gunge, how much would YOU have to be paid to work at a mindless job
all your life, using dangerous machinery, poisonous chemicals, in
a building that was freezing all winter and well into the 100's in
the summer?  I'd sure want more than $5 an hour.
  
If a union laborer gets paid "far too much," it's because the employer
didn't bargain well.

The fact is that those jobs are a thing of the past.  We don't need
PEOPLE to do them at all.  Waddya say we train the people who don't
have these jobs anymore to figure out how to get more people in this
country into safe, lucrative jobs, and get them out of the sweatshops.

By the way , do the phrases "dog eat dog" and "survival of the
fittest" mean anything to you?  How about "If you can't beat 'em, join
'em".  Until those at the top give a shit like you do, your only
alternative to repression is succession.

Um, no.  Your only alternative to repression is NOT to claw your way up
to a position of power and to repress others in turn.
  
"Those jobs" are most certainly not a thing of the past.  If the Big Three
could entirely automate their plants, they would--but you just can't 
turn _every_ job over to a robot.  Besides, it's usually still cheaper
to pay a person to do a job than to buy a robot, maintain it, etc.
for 25 years.

But a robot doesn't need health insurance, dental coverage, family leave
days, vacation and/or sick days.  Does it really "cost" that much more?

Even if you don't consider robots, the expensive blue collar force
in the U.S. has been drastically underbid by foreign workers.  They
will have to make some consessions in order to compete.

I thought my implications were obvious regarding the "corporate ladder".
I did not say that once at the top an individual would be required to
repress his or her subordinates.  Having the power to initiate change,
it would be entirely their option to make efforts toward fairness in
the workplace.
For instance, if someone was beaten by their parents, they ar not 
obligated to beat their children. 

But they are likely to do so.  People get burned in, in certain ways.
It was very hard for me to show some managers up the stream that they
would be better off doing something some other way.  You have to do it
their way for 20-30 years, until you look like up to their taste,
and by that time, you'll have no motivation to do it different.
On the contrary, you may even say, "Well, I did it this way to get here,
why can't you do the same" to a subordinate who would suggest something
different.

My solution is, don't support such places by working for them if you can.
Move if you have to in order to do so.  There are other ways of combatting
this attitude too, I leave it up to your imagination.

More concessions, you mean.
Robots need to be upgraded, maintained, and supervised by humans, too.
  
Labor costs in the auto industry are 16% of total costs, btw.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss