On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 4:56 PM, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps for the first time since we've kept track of such things, > > higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do. Since > > 1980, the number of men in the bottom fifth of the income ladder who > > work long hours (over 49 hours per week) has dropped by half, > > according to a study by the economists Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano. > > But among the top fifth of earners, long weeks have increased by 80 > > percent. > > > This seems like an excellent example of lying with statistics. How > does the above account for the unemployed who are most likely to be > poor? And what about those who work multiple part-time jobs along with > the hassles that go with it like commuting, night shifts etc? On the > other hand, is some hotshot CEO flying in his private jet to Davos > considered to be 'working'? > -raghu. >
what occurred to me is that the workers in the bottom fifth must surely be hourly workers, right? so their working fewer hours means less income. i suppose that, not being an economist and all (despite doyle's salutations), if i had to guess, i would guess that lower-income workers working more than 49 hrs/wk are pushing themselves out of the bottom fifth, maybe by working 60 or 70 hours. or more. meanwhile, one also suspects that most in the bottom fifth (presuming they are in fact working) are only able to land one job that might get them 40 hrs/wk if they're lucky. but i'm just guessing. sorry, it's late and i'm tired. were i more coherent, i would probably not post this. :) j
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
