>
>
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> > Miles
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk