> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > As I recall, this thread's prehistory was that James H and I
> > disagreed on the increased work effort measured at the household
> > level (i.e., more women working for pay). I still think that's true.
> > But the more recent threadlet was about absolute levels of leisure,
> > and at 4-5 hours a day, that's a long way from the sweatshop. I
> > wonder if the time crunch is a more socially acceptable way of saying
> > alienation, depression, and anxiety?
> I still insist that households/families are working more wage labor
> hours than they were in the 1960s. The data that James provides
> obscure this fact by treating the individual worker as the unit of
> analysis. The household unit is under far more significant time
> pressures than households a generation or two ago.
Sorry to be doggedly empirical but the result of this argument is a stalemate. More members worker bur because of the declining hours work the same as before. But that has very different sociological implications.
Again the empirics are:
1964.......1.00 1970.......1.003 1985.......0.982 1990.......1.013 2000.......1.037 2006.......0.998