FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Americans Work Too Long for Too Little

by

shutterstock_277320227

American workers annually work more hours than workers in any other post-industrial, “1st world,” country.  In 2014, an average American worked 1,789 hours per year or 34.4 hours per week, placing the U.S. at 17th in the OECD’s list of developed countries; German workers rank 1st in terms of the lowest total annual hours worked, nearly one-quarter less per year at 1,371 hours or 26.4 hours per week.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, job growth and the minimum wage are major issues, but job satisfaction and the workweek are non-issues.  Many Americans feel they are living in desperate times and it seems better to have no job than one that doesn’t pay a living wage or is fulfilling.  While the official unemployment rate is slowly falling, those no longer looking for work are increasing and wages remain stagnant.

In the seven decades since the end of World War II, the U.S. has lived two lives.  The first life occurred during the postwar era of recovery and prosperity popularly known as the “American Century” that lasted from 1945 to the mid-1970s; it is the era that Trump invokes when he opines about “Making American Great Again.”  The second phase evolved from the mid-‘70s through today and is marked to the eclipse of the short-lived “American Century.”

The decline in the quality of working life during the last seven decades is revealed by examining four key factors: (i) changes in the length of the workweek, (ii) productivity gains, (iii) wage stagnation and (iv) the rise of personal debt.  Together, they suggest a modest – if fundamental – way to begin to address the problem.  One suggestion is to drastically cut the workweek while maintaining current wages.

* * *

For many Americans, the 40-hour workweek remains the labor standard.  According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve, at the beginning of the post-WW-II recover, in December 1945, manufacturing workers worked 41.2 hours per week; seven decades later, in December 2015, little changed for manufacturing workers who worked on average 41.7 hours per week.  However, as the Fed makes clear, total workweek hours for all private sector workers declined by nearly a quarter to 33.8 hours.

The average workweek means little in itself, but its value comes in terms of two decisive factors, productivity and compensation.  A 2015 study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that while “net productivity of the total economy” for the period 1948 to 2014 grew by a staggering 238.7 percent, the “average hourly compensation of production/nonsupervisory workers in the private sector” grew by only 109 percent.

The EPI broke up this past seven-decade period into two subsets and assessed compensation and productivity accordingly: (i) 1948-1973: productivity increased by 96.7 percent an hourly compensation by 91.2 percent; and (ii) 1973-2014: productivity grew by 72.2 percent and hourly compensation increased by only 9.2 percent, a 90 percent decline.  It found that during the postwar era of the American Dream, from 1948 to 1973, ”the hourly compensation of a typical worker essentially grew in tandem with productivity ….”  However, in the four decades following 1973, productivity continued to rise but wages stagnated.

During this long postwar era, as the St. Louis Fed detailed in a 2012 report, consumer spending ceaselessly grew as a proportion of GDP:

* 1951-1960 = 62.3%

* 1961-1970 = 61.8%

* 1971-1980 = 62.5%

* 1981-1990 = 64.5%

* 1991-2000 = 67.3%

* 2001-2010 = 70.0%

In conclusion it warned:  “Can American consumers continue to serve as the engine of U.S. and global economic growth as the did during the recent decades?  Several powerful trends suggest not, at least for a while.”

How was consumer spending able to increase while wages stagnated?  The magic of postwar American life was debt.  Secured installment loans, including mortgages and car loans, predated the war; unsecured loans, including credit cards, student loans, paydays loans and lines of credit, followed.  And debt skyrocketed by nearly 65 fold; between 1952 and 2015, per person debt jumped from $160 to $10,600 – and this was during a period when the U.S. population only basically doubled from 156 million (1952) to 319 million people (2015).

* * *

In 1930, the British economist, John Maynard Keynes, predicted that within 100 years, the average workweek would drop to only 15 hours.  His forecast was based on a projection of a modest global economic growth of about 2 percent per year.  According to one scholar, Keynes believed that “in a world with so much wealth, we would naturally choose to increase our leisure time rather than simply accumulate additional wealth.”

Capitalism outsmarted Keynes.  While economic growth exceeded Keynes’ modest proposal, it fostered a postwar world in which people in the U.S. were seduced by all the sexiness, glitter and false consciousness of consumerism.  And while wages stagnated, people were enslaved by ever-mounting debt.  The year 2030 is only 14 years away, but it does not look like the 15-hour workweek is in anyone’s future.

It’s time to readjust the traditional relations between productivity, the workweek and wages.  In 2000, Eric Rauch wrote, “An average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950.”  He adds: “if productivity means anything at all, a worker should be able to earn the same standard of living as a 1950 worker in only 11 hours per week.”

Globalization is restructuring capitalism and, with it, the U.S. economy.  It is fueling the rise of inequality, refashioning social relations and increasing the wealth and power of the 1 percent.  It is also transforming work-life.

So why not rethink the relation between the workweek and compensation?  The push for the $15 per hour minimum wage is a noble effort, one that brings real benefits to the lowest sector the working class.  Switzerland failed effort to provide a basic income of about $2,500 a month (2500 Swiss Francs) suggests a new way to think about income; Andy Stern, the former SEIU president, recently suggested a U.S. version, but for about $1,000.

While well intentioned, these proposals don’t go far enough.  One way to secure the benefits of the enormous productivity gains that have taken place since 1975 is to cut the workweek without cutting wages.  For example, what if manufacturing workers currently (2015) working 41.7 hours per week had their workweek cut to, for example, 20 to 25 hours but kept the same salary?; similarly, what if private sector workers working 33.8 hours could have their workweek cut to 15 to 18 hours at the same salary?  The business sector could take full advantage of productivity gains without having to increase wage expenses.

Such a scheme is, of course, utopian – and intentionally so.  But maybe that’s what’s needed in a time marked by dire predictions as to the nation’s economic future and the lack of real political imagination.

David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion:  The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).  He can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
Susan Babbitt
Don’t Raise Liberalism From the Dead (If It is Dead, Which It’s Not)
Uri Avnery
Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Fred Nagel
It’s “Deep State” Time Again
John Feffer
The Hunger President
Stephen Cooper
Nothing is Fair About Alabama’s “Fair Justice Act”
Jack Swallow
Why Science Should Be Political
Chuck Collins
Congrats, Graduates! Here’s Your Diploma and Debt
Aidan O'Brien
While God Blesses America, Prometheus Protects Syria, Russia and North Korea 
Patrick Hiller
Get Real About Preventing War
David Rosen
Fiction, Fake News and Trump’s Sexual Politics
Evan Jones
Macron of France: Chauncey Gardiner for President!
David Macaray
Adventures in Labor Contract Language
Ron Jacobs
The Music Never Stopped
Kim Scipes
Black Subjugation in America
Sean Stinson
MOAB: More Obama and Bush
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail