"Hard-Working American" Myth

[kpt018]

So we work more hours but the actual work involved is easier because of technology.

Just because a person may work longer doesn't mean they are working harder.

It's amazing, even though things have gotten easier at work, liberals want more money for doing less actual labor.

WTF are you talking about?

If my employer tells me I need to be in the office an extra 10 hours a week, wouldn't it at least be reasonable to think I deserve more pay? Regardless of what my employer has me work on, they are demanding that I am there more.

And what do you mean by "easier at work"? That only makes sense in a very narrowly defined way.

 

[Bay Area]

ok great

so the worker themselves isn't working any harder or faster than back in the 50's, they just take advantage of technology.

The company has to buy and install the technology that helps makes workers lives easier and more productive. The technology is then the one or mechanism that is the reason for the increase in productivity, but the worker (who now has it easier) says that the want a raise because a machine is making things more productive??

Steps involved

1. Company spends $100,000 on machine/tech
2. tech/machine cause the increase in productivity while making things easier on the worker.

3. Worker thinks they deserve raise because of a machine that they didn't pay for is making things more productive?

How is that even a logical conclusion?

So every company has a machine that has eliminated jobs now lol.

The largest employer now is the service sector genius. The service sector is a people oriented business, meaning, and stay with me here, people , not machines are required to do the jobs. People change the sheets at the hotel, people services events, people serve food, people try to get you to sign up for phone contracts, people do all these things. The service industry is notorious as a low paying industry. I know because I worked in one. They are notorious for long ass hours. Productivity has gone up do to employers forcing employees to work like slaves. The hotel I worked for cut back on employees, expecting workers to each do the job of three people. This is going on nationwide as the economy has suffered. So until we see this in the service sector:

GTFO with that argument.

And machines or no, did you also look on my graph where wages have not increased over the decades, except for the top percentile? The fact is workers have been working harder, while pay has stayed the same. Why have wages stayed the same for the bottom percent over the damn decades? There is no excuse for it.

 

[ABACA]

WTF are you talking about?

If my employer tells me I need to be in the office an extra 10 hours a week, wouldn't it at least be reasonable to think I deserve more pay? Regardless of what my employer has me work on, they are demanding that I am there more.

And what do you mean by "easier at work"? That only makes sense in a very narrowly defined way.

In his logic, people who do hard, manual labor are dumb, thus deserve little pay. People who do knowledge labor or less physically stressful manual labor are lazy, thus deserve little pay.

But of course the biggest conceit is to say "wages are set by market forces, thus any desire to change wages is silly" when of course wages are influenced by all sorts of policy decisions, corporate collusion, and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

When workers get together and demand higher wages through collective bargaining, it is all of a sudden antithetical to "market forces".

I think it is a similar line of thought as to why Don Sterling can go on racist rants because its his 1st amendment right, but people boycotting is "harassment" or a violation of Sterling's right to free speech.

 

[kpt018]

So every company has a machine that has eliminated jobs now lol.

The largest employer now is the service sector genius. The service sector is a people oriented business, meaning, and stay with me here, people , not machines are required to do the jobs. People change the sheets at the hotel, people services events, people serve food, people try to get you to sign up for phone contracts, people do all these things. The service industry is notorious as a low paying industry. They are notorious for long ass hours. Productivity has gone up do to employers forcing employees to work like slaves.

And machines or no, did you also look on my graph where wages have not increased over the decades, except for the top percentile? The fact is workers have been working harder, while pay has stayed the same. Why have wages stayed the same for the bottom percent over the damn decades? There is no excuse for it.

Machines have also changed the nature of the work and make it easier in some ways but more complex in others.

A fork lift makes it physically easier to move things, but requires more training and skills to operate safely.

And accounting system removes all the hand written and manual work, but now the accountant must learn the software and spend their time focusing on more complex accounting issues or just doing more number crunching.

Technology in restaurants makes workers more efficient. They don't get to sleep on the job now, it just means they can service more customers.

I'm starting to think the default response is to defend business owners and shit on workers regardless of what's going on.

 

[CableandThanos]

We work more hours (many people without additional pay), we take less vacation, do not use sick days (some do not even get paid sick days).

Basically, the number of hours worked per year have gone up.

You can check out the BLS and a million articles on the topic. It's basically bi-partisan to say that Americans are very productive (many will say the most productive in the world) and that production has increased over the last 50 years.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours

This says we work less hours than in 1990 and that the rich work more hours than the poor? HMMM

But data from the OECD, a club of rich countries, tell a more positive story. For the countries for which data are available the vast majority of people work fewer hours than they did in 1990:

And within the American labour force hours worked among the rich have risen while those of the poor have fallen.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sit...ogs/free-exchange/working_hours_picture_2.png


here is another one

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/pf/work_less/

The Employment Policy Foundation, a Washington think tank, interpreted the data differently. It says the problem isn't that most Americans are working demonstrably longer hours than before.

"Something else is happening," according to EPF economist Ron Bird. "People feel more overworked than in the past, mainly because other areas of their life are taking up more time."

A longer commute, for example, doesn't constitute additional "hours worked." Still, it's time spent in order to hold a job. Moreover, the rise of the two-income family means that collectively, Americans are putting in more time on the clock.

"With more dual-earner families and working mothers in the workforce," Bird said, "total family hours at work have increased, which means less time at home."


and another


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...s-and-have-more-leisure-time-than-ever-before
◾Since the mid-1960s, the amount of time that the typical American spends working fell by almost eight hours per week, while the time spent on leisure activities rose by just under seven hours per week.

They found that the amount of time Americans spend working has fallen by almost 8 hours per week since 1965. This single figure obscures different trends between the sexes. Men today are working just under 40 hours per week at paid jobs, which is 11.6 fewer hours than in 1965.[4] This figure includes work-related activities such as commuting to work.[5] That decrease is offset by a 3.7-hour-per-week increase in time spent on household work, such as vacuuming or shopping for groceries.[6] Overall, men work 7.9 fewer hours per week than men a generation ago, leaving today's men with more time to spend with family and friends and pursuing their own interests.

 

[CableandThanos]

WTF are you talking about?

If my employer tells me I need to be in the office an extra 10 hours a week, wouldn't it at least be reasonable to think I deserve more pay? Regardless of what my employer has me work on, they are demanding that I am there more.

And what do you mean by "easier at work"? That only makes sense in a very narrowly defined way.

are you sure we are working more hours?

http://caplibnews.com/study-americans-now-working-less-than-past-generations/

According to the chart (found here), the average worker in the United States works 33.7 hours a week compared to the average 38.2 hours per week in 1964. This is a drop of close to 12 percent and is mostly due in part to the growth of part-time jobs.

 

[kpt018]

In his logic, people who do hard, manual labor are dumb, thus deserve little pay. People who do knowledge labor or less physically stressful manual labor are lazy, thus deserve little pay.

But of course the biggest conceit is to say "wages are set by market forces, thus any desire to change wages is silly" when of course wages are influenced by all sorts of policy decisions, corporate collusion, and COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

When workers get together and demand higher wages through collective bargaining, it is all of a sudden antithetical to "market forces".

I think it is a similar line of thought as to why Don Sterling can go on racist rants because its his 1st amendment right, but people boycotting is "harassment" or a violation of Sterling's right to free speech.

Yup. It also seems like he is saying that if an employer requires their employees to work more, unless they are 100% productive, they shouldn't get a penny more. In other words, come in Saturday for 8 hours, but if they give you 4 hours of work you are not productive and should only get a half day pay (even though they make you work a full day).

 

[ultramanhyata]

I get that one takes more education.
that doesn't change the fact that it is by far easier labor than manual labor.

What is work?
work is technically a measure of joules, force times distance.
In reality this is basically calories burned.

So sure you burn calories thinking but not nearly as much as doing labor.
In terms of physics manual labor is harder work.

Dude, you can't convince a soft-handed professional person that they are not working as hard as a manual laborer. Their narcissism and egotism is such that they cannot settle for just being infinitely more wealthy and possessing infinitely more social status than the blue collars. They also need to believe that they are busting more ass on a daily basis. They've got to be granted the victory in every sphere. For they are as gods.

 

[kpt018]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/working-hours

This says we work less hours than in 1990 and that the rich work more hours than the poor? HMMM

But data from the OECD, a club of rich countries, tell a more positive story. For the countries for which data are available the vast majority of people work fewer hours than they did in 1990:

And within the American labour force hours worked among the rich have risen while those of the poor have fallen.

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sit...ogs/free-exchange/working_hours_picture_2.png


here is another one

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/06/pf/work_less/

The Employment Policy Foundation, a Washington think tank, interpreted the data differently. It says the problem isn't that most Americans are working demonstrably longer hours than before.

"Something else is happening," according to EPF economist Ron Bird. "People feel more overworked than in the past, mainly because other areas of their life are taking up more time."

A longer commute, for example, doesn't constitute additional "hours worked." Still, it's time spent in order to hold a job. Moreover, the rise of the two-income family means that collectively, Americans are putting in more time on the clock.

"With more dual-earner families and working mothers in the workforce," Bird said, "total family hours at work have increased, which means less time at home."


and another


http://www.heritage.org/research/re...s-and-have-more-leisure-time-than-ever-before
◾Since the mid-1960s, the amount of time that the typical American spends working fell by almost eight hours per week, while the time spent on leisure activities rose by just under seven hours per week.

They found that the amount of time Americans spend working has fallen by almost 8 hours per week since 1965. This single figure obscures different trends between the sexes. Men today are working just under 40 hours per week at paid jobs, which is 11.6 fewer hours than in 1965.[4] This figure includes work-related activities such as commuting to work.[5] That decrease is offset by a 3.7-hour-per-week increase in time spent on household work, such as vacuuming or shopping for groceries.[6] Overall, men work 7.9 fewer hours per week than men a generation ago, leaving today's men with more time to spend with family and friends and pursuing their own interests.

Lol, try not to use biased right wing think tanks next time. Like I said, use the LBS:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/special_requests/gap_update.2012.06.26.zip

The real data paint an entirely different picture.

 

[CableandThanos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

Most countries in the developed world have seen average hours worked decrease significantly.[20] [21]For example in the U.S in the late 19th century it was estimated that the average work week was over 60 hours per week.[22] Today the average hours worked in the U.S is around 33

In the United States, the working time for upper-income professionals has increased compared to 1965, while total annual working time for low-skill, low-income workers has decreased.[48] This effect is sometimes called the "leisure gap".

 

[Doodies]

So every company has a machine that has eliminated jobs now lol.

The largest employer now is the service sector genius. The service sector is a people oriented business, meaning, and stay with me here, people , not machines are required to do the jobs. People change the sheets at the hotel, people services events, people serve food, people try to get you to sign up for phone contracts, people do all these things. The service industry is notorious as a low paying industry. I know because I worked in one. They are notorious for long ass hours. Productivity has gone up do to employers forcing employees to work like slaves. The hotel I worked for cut back on employees, expecting workers to each do the job of three people. This is going on nationwide as the economy has suffered. So until we see this in the service sector:

GTFO with that argument.

And machines or no, did you also look on my graph where wages have not increased over the decades, except for the top percentile? The fact is workers have been working harder, while pay has stayed the same. Why have wages stayed the same for the bottom percent over the damn decades? There is no excuse for it.

There should be a labor movement(unions) to help bring wages up in the service sector. Although for some reason, everywhere I look I see unions demonized and a lot of it is perpetuated by the group that would benefit the most from them, the low and middle income workers, which is something I don't quite understand.

 

[CableandThanos]

Lol, try not to use biased right wing think tanks next time. Like I said, use the LBS:

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/special_requests/gap_update.2012.06.26.zip

The real data paint an entirely different picture.

ohh since they are from a site you don't like they have to be wrong.

LOL

 

[kpt018]

Dude, you can't convince a soft-handed professional person that they are not working as hard as a manual laborer. Their narcissism and egotism is such that they cannot settle for just being infinitely more wealthy and possessing infinitely more social status than the blue collars. They also need to believe that they are busting more ass on a daily basis. They've got to be granted the victory in every sphere. For they are as gods.

So what is more difficult, professional high level legal work or installing flooring or carpentry, or whatever?

Isn't that answer going to depend on how you define "difficult"?

 

[Bay Area]

There should be a labor movement(unions) to help bring wages up in the service sector. Although for some reason, everywhere I look I see unions demonized and a lot of it is perpetuated by the group that would benefit the most from them, the low and middle income workers, which is something I don't quite understand.

There should be. However, workers can't lobby in Washington. What people do not understand is this didn't happen by accident. The drop in the middle class, Free Trade Agreements, deregulation of industries etc was coordinated by CEOs of major corporations in the 70s. They got together and decided to triple their lobbing in Washington. The decline of the middle class happened shortly after...early 1980s.

http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/

 

[kpt018]

ohh since they are from a site you don't like they have to be wrong.

LOL

Uh, no. The site I provided is simply a presentation of data in excel/graph format from a non-partisan source. Your links (the two I read) include one interpretation (from a well know right wing think tank) and the other actually talks about things I've been saying lol. I stopped at that point and didn't read the third.

 

[kpt018]

There should be a labor movement(unions) to help bring wages up in the service sector. Although for some reason, everywhere I look I see unions demonized and a lot of it is perpetuated by the group that would benefit the most from them, the low and middle income workers, which is something I don't quite understand.

Yes, unions, the social safety net, science and better access to health care are "liberal wizardry and trickery" used to "buy votes" according to many republicans.

 

[CableandThanos]

here is one for the bureau of labor statistics

http://data.bls.gov/search/query/re...ih0hfrgl50&q=chart+of+historical+hours+worked

here is one from cnn

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/29/news/economy/working-fewer-hours/index.html

 

[CableandThanos]

Uh, no. The site I provided is simply a presentation of data in excel/graph format from a non-partisan source. Your links (the two I read) include one interpretation (from a well know right wing think tank) and the other actually talks about things I've been saying lol. I stopped at that point and didn't read the third.

I tried looking back (maybe I didn't go back far enough) what was the site you provided?

 

[OldGoat]

There should be a labor movement(unions) to help bring wages up in the service sector. Although for some reason, everywhere I look I see unions demonized and a lot of it is perpetuated by the group that would benefit the most from them, the low and middle income workers, which is something I don't quite understand.

Because industrial labor unions destroyed Detroit once one of the richest cities on the planet and drove manufacturing largely overseas? But at least we keep Burger Kings and lawn mowing services here.

 

[kpt018]

here is one for the bureau of labor statistics

http://data.bls.gov/search/query/re...ih0hfrgl50&q=chart+of+historical+hours+worked

What link are we looking at here? When I click this it brings up a bunch of results.

here is one from cnn

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/29/news/economy/working-fewer-hours/index.html[/QUOTE]

This seems like a big swing and miss, dude. They also include retirees, people who can't find work and college students. That has nothing to do with what I've been saying in here.

It finishes up this gem by comparing our hours to those in 1860s and 1600s. If you have to go back that far you probably don't make a point that is relevant now.