If Tom is second I will third that proposition. Ray Evans Harrell
----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 12:42 PM Subject: Re: Work-Leisure Balance (was Immense productivity) > If I could very drastically sum up your hypothesis here, Keith, would it be > that the increase in working hours is being driven by a decline in the > quality and sociability of accessible leisure activity? If so, I couldn't > agree more. > > There are times when getting through the weekend becomes an ordeal. Would it > be priggish to suggest a tie between the industrialization of leisure and > leisure fatigue? > > http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98oct/hacienda.htm > > Keith Hudson wrote, > > Tom, > > > > I'm changing the subject of the thread again because I think something > very > > interesting is emerging in this discussion. > > > > You made quite a number of interesting insights in your posting but I'm > > going to cut through to your last (postscript) sentence where you appear > to > > have summarised your overall ideas very neatly. > > > > At 15:33 05/09/02 -0700, TW wrote: > > <<<< > > I'm for shorter hours because, as a consequence of research over more than > > 20 years I have become convinced that the expansion of working hours has > > come from our society's refusal to confront its social, economic and > > spiritual problems -- that is to say that the longer hours, like > > alcoholism, are as much a symptom of malaise as a source. > > >>>> > > > > I'd agree with that. Holding that in mind, let me now backtrack to > > something earlier that I wrote and you replied to: > > (KH) > > <<<< > > Thus, unfortunately, the working week will always tend to expand well > above > > the necessary minimum -- the hours demanded being pulled and pushed from > > both employers and employees. > > >>>> > > (TW) > > <<<< > > This is a recent phenomenon since the 1980s for the U.S., the 1960s for > > manufacturing. Until then, the trend since the mid-nineteenth century was > > reduction of the work week. > > >>>> > > > > I'm glad you made reference to the 19th century because two things can be > > said about this period: (a) the ordinary working man in the cities was > > working immensely long hours up until about 1850 -- far longer than he was > > a few decades earlier in a mainly agrarian economy ('tho we must bear in > > mind that many people came to the factories of the cities from the > > countryside voluntarily and not all of them because they were forced out > by > > landlord enclosures); (b) despite the ordinary factory worker being > > exploited pretty ruthlessly, his hours nevertheless declined in the course > > of the century. > > > > I suggest that the workers' hours didn't decline because of trade union > > activity. This featured strongly, of course, during the century, but I > > suggest that the underlying reason was that as productivity (and the > > profitability of British exports) improved, some of it was bound to spill > > over into higher wages so that, as the average wage of the worker > increased > > above the basic costs of survival (food, clothes, house-rent), then a > > proportion of disposable income was bound to be spent on leisure > activities > > as well as in the pubs. > > > > We can instance the immense growth of spectator sports during the latter > > decades of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th (soccer, > > rugby and cricket mainly). We can also instance the music halls and also > > immense growth of radio. These alone would account for at least 15-20 > hours > > a week of the average adult male worker's leisure time. > > > > Any particular type of economy cannot be sustained for long if the goods > > that the working man produces cannot also be purchased by him. But also -- > > and very importantly -- the working man must also have the leisure time > (as > > well as the money) to use them (in this case, the spectator leisure > goods). > > This, I suggest, is the real underlying reason why the working week came > > down so spectacularly from the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century -- > > say, from 70-90 hours a week to 40-60. > > > > Now let me nip forward to the present. There's an awful lot written about > > immensely long working hours and yet, at the same time, as I quoted a few > > days ago, opinion polls in America say that most people are reasonably > > content with their working week. I suggest that this apparent anomaly can > > be reconciled by the fact that those who complain and write about the long > > working weeks are the middle-class meritocrats, not the workers. And the > > meritocrats, generally, have much more interesting jobs than the > workers -- > > so interesting, in fact, that their work is more satisfying than much of > > the passive entertainment that's available to them in their leisure time. > > > > This polarity in the use of time is, I suggest, self-reinforcing. And one > > result of this is that the quality of what's available by way of passive > > entertainment -- TV and radio -- continues to decline. But I won't > continue > > along this particular vein because I'll be tempted into discussing one of > > my strongest beliefs (that society and the job structure is dividing into > > two parts). > > > > Instead, let me just instance one interesting case in point -- the one > that > > started this thread. This is that it's not surprising that the French, > more > > than most European cultures, and certainly more than America, still retain > > a healthier and more satisying notion of what leisure should be about. > They > > take enormously long holidays in the summer -- often returning to their > > countryside families localities. They still believe in a caf� society. > > Families dine out for long meals (it's an eye-opener to watch such in a > > restaurant and the enjoyment and fun that goes on!). In short, they're > > still hanging onto some sort of community life -- and it's *active* at > > that, and not passive. > > > > So let me summarise. If leisure "goods" are a significant part of an > > economy, then the average worker must also have sufficient time as well as > > money in order to keep the show going. I don't know what the figures in > > terms of GDP, but the leisure industry (that is, passive entertainment) is > > substantial. This has a strong, albeit hardly visible, effect on the > length > > of the working week. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > ------------ > > > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ________________________________________________________________________ >
