Tom Walker, like John, takes issue with the evidence that on the average, fewer hours are worked in the US today, than were in 1963. Comparing apples with pears, he says, since there are more women working. Service sector work replacing manual work, says John. Read Juliet Shor, the Overworked American, says Tom.
I do not think that you can explain the shift away. It is true there are many secondary texts that argue that we work longer hours than we used to (like Madeleine Bunting's book, or Pietro Basso's Modern Times, Ancient Hours). However, looking at the statistics, I find this not to be the case, at least not in the long term. The real movement in working hours is that there was a sharp turn upwards from the mid eighties, but that the longer term trend (say from 1947 onwards) is downwards. In Britain and the US, the upward shift in the eighties has been reversed. Most people are remembering the eighties increase, and projecting it backwards, without really taking on board how much longer people used to work.
There is a point that work is spread more evenly between the sexes. But do you really want to argue for the exclusion of women from full-time work?
I think what really needs to be explained is the near-universal assumption that the past was better than now, even when the evidence is to the contrary. I suggest the following answer. The past was not better than the present in material terms. But in terms of social agency, most people enjoy less influence over the direction of society today than they did thirty years ago. This is projected backwards (mistakenly) as 'we were better off then', when all the evidence is that in terms of material fulfilment, that is not a plausible proposition.
fraternally
James Heartfield (off to France for a week, so happy posting) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050524/9337eccd/attachment.htm>