
The U.S. is the Most Overworked Developed Nation in the World - acangiano
http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/
======
yummyfajitas
This article is pretty crappy.

Misleading stats: _...“in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70
percent of American children live in households where all adults are
employed.”_

"All adults"? That's a nice way of obscuring the fact that we have a lot more
single parent households (with 100% of the adults working) than we did in
1960.

 _One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work
hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker
in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the
case? Obviously not._

I'm not sure why it is so obvious. 80% of the poor don't work at all (another
10% work only part time) and they enjoy a standard of living similar to the
average 1950's American. For example, as of 1950, only 75% of the US had a
flush toilet. Today (and even as far back as 1980) >99% did.

[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_9.pdf+indoor+plumbing+1950+usa&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgWgD4J1TSjrFebCwZX5tuY6G1ARvizkLhGyclPfIR6dag1cG4LeDEIaT5DJwgmoGtaQTuMQ3k9PmYxlZ9XJXrMQHHXnPnYwN64RSOodAbrr8yzJ7w0DaR4ERd2c2PqcEyDfP8Z&sig=AHIEtbSiu12SP12LYDhTfU-
GEsc-X-Vuug)

~~~
sasmith
There's also the "graph on average paid vacation time in industrialized
countries:" which is actually mandated vacation. I'd be very interested in
seeing the 'average' graph to compare.

Original source of the graph (afaik):
[http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2007-05-no-
vacati...](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2007-05-no-vacation-
nation.pdf)

------
DanI-S
Nothing has hurt quality of life for the average person in this country more
than the mindless pursuit of "freedom from government regulation". In reality,
all it means is our lifestyle is regulated by industry rather than our elected
representatives.

The article ends with the statement that "Sometimes you just need to draw a
line in the sand and say “enough is enough”." That's all well and good, but
who can do that without the law on their side? Not many people can afford to
be fired.

~~~
rdtsc
> "freedom from government regulation"

Or the average person is easily brainwashed by propaganda and can be easily
manipulated to vote against their own interests.

I like how "death panels" became a favorite PR slogan during the healthcare
debate, while the same people don't realize their employers and the insurance
companies are already functioning as the effectively the same "death panels".

There is also another element to it: everyone seems to be wondering how come
we are "coming out of the recession", profits are up, and yet the unemployment
is so high !? The economists are just baffled and writing long essays
discussing this phenomenon. To me it seems that Americans are seeing their co-
workers laid off, they have their health insurance tied with their employment,
they have large mortgages that they cannot afford (yes, it is their fault for
taking on those depts), large credit card bills, no savings -- these are not
people who will protest and demand more vacation time and higher pay. They
will be working 60 hour weeks doing the work of their laid off co-workers,
trying not to be next. If they lose their job, most will end up losing their
home and health insurance for their children.

I understand this probably doesn't affect the average HN-ers, who are running
successful startups, or would have 2 job offers the minute they walk out of
their work place. But unfortunately that is not true for most Americans.

~~~
dpatru
It's somewhat true that insurance coverage can determine what treatment
someone will get. But, one always has the (perhaps theoretical) option of
switching insurance companies or paying for treatment out of one's own pocket.
When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears.

You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health
insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and
no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government.

Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government
minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the
lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with
incentives not to find a job.

Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules
encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the
normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for
a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer.

Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest
and by tax breaks associated with home ownership.

Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement
on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage
saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be
very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time
lows.

Would that more people would vote against government regulation.
Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.

~~~
DanI-S
"When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears."

This is never likely to be the case. In the UK, the state provides a high
standard of free universal healthcare in the form of the NHS. There is also a
huge network of private hospitals and clinics that you can pay for in cash or
using insurance. Many employers offer private health insurance as a benefit.

~~~
dpatru
Hilliarycare (President Clinton's healthcare proposal) failed in part because
it would have given the government too much control over healthcare decisions.
As described at [http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-
prerog...](http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual-
prerogatives/hillary-started-it-limiting-individual-prerogatives-part-2):

"In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty,
Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in
the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most
of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict
governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service
doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private
doctor’s fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a
serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make
illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get
“extra” healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and
patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in
December, 1993, “Mr. Clinton’s plan turns normal patient advocacy into a
federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for
surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and
accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in
prison.”

According to the source above, Obamacare is modeled on Hillarycare, except
that it's less organized and twice as long (2700 pages vs 1368 pages.)

The reason why people object to government interference in the marketplace is
because government involvement necessarily implies coercion, otherwise
whatever government is doing could be done privately. If you have a scheme to
provide affordable healthcare that is a "win" to all parties involved, you're
welcome to do it privately, without relying on coercion.

------
simonsquiff
Coming from the uk, whilst I'd love to work for a US based tech company
something that would strongly make me reconsider is the terrible lack of paid
vacation. 20 days is the minimum here - many (including me) get 25 and that
allows for some proper breaks: a weeks skiing, two weeks for a long vacation,
a long stretch off at Christmas and still enough for the odd day here and
there. I'd be lucky to get half of that in the US, a big disincentive.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Funny - I'm in the US, and I get a comparable amount of vacation.

If you want vacation, negotiate for it. Your pay might be lowered
commensurately, but there is no free lunch. Why would you care if other people
choose money over time?

~~~
simonsquiff
See Barrkel's post below <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2022642> \- it's
not something you can always negotiate. I don't care if others choose money
over time - I'm saying many just don't have that choice.

~~~
yummyfajitas
You can always negotiate for it - that doesn't mean the other person is
obligated to give it to you.

------
clofresh
I love The Onion's take on our work-life imbalance:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/wild-unattached-twenties-
sp...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/wild-unattached-twenties-spent-at-
work,1254/)

------
ramchip
> According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese
> workers [...]"

I find this very hard to believe. Could it be that unpaid overtime work was
not always declared?

~~~
yesno
Yes. Look around, people shun 9-5-ers.

------
jscore
I haven't met anyone who thinks US has any decent work/balance. The reality is
that US is a great place to make money and lots of it. Then you spend it on
the beaches of Brazil or Thailand.

------
beoba
The search for highest profits / lowest costs is a race to the bottom.
Regulations, whether they be for child labor, working conditions, or product
safety, determine where that bottom is located.

~~~
baltcode
The bottom right now are starving children in many parts of Asia and Africa,
and homeless people shivering outside. But that's not the case for most people
being discussed here. If we want to take parental leave, then save a little
while you're working so you can live on the savings when you need to. I am as
guilty as anyone else, but we can't deny the reality. The US is also very high
in per capita resource consumption, and we don't need the government, or a
small private cartel telling us how much to work and how to spend our money.
Yes, there are problems, but I don't think regulation is going to solve them.

------
waterlesscloud
I agree. We need a limit on the number of hours someone can work in a week.

Of course, startups would be exempt, right?

Right?

------
anthonycerra
I had to chuckle when I read the title. I'm at the office on a Sunday.

~~~
ultrasaurus
Same here, I imagine other industries are this way, but software (or maybe
let's say clumsy giant enterprise software) benefits a lot from one person
working 60 hours rather than 2 working 30 since so much of the effort is
actually keeping the cruft and procedures in your head, which is a fixed cost.
Clients want to meet with your development lead, who you also need to be doing
actually development; and if meetings take up 20 hours a week, 60 hours is
actually 4 times as many working hours as 30 not just double.

Not to say it isn't a little bit of a sad state of affairs.

------
bretpiatt
You're only overworked if you do activities each day at work that don't
strengthen you. If you're doing stuff you love why would you want to go home
and try to find a hobby or something else to do in the rest of your time that
you also enjoy as much?

This is why you see many people "lost" in retirement. Not because they didn't
have hobbies but because those hobbies were never as fun to them as what they
were able to do at work.

~~~
MoreMoschops
Great thinking. Where do I find the job that pays me to sleep in until
lunchtime and then spend the rest of the day drinking?

------
adaml_623
Different study says Australian's work longest hours

[http://www.careerfaqs.com.au/employment-
news/719/Australians...](http://www.careerfaqs.com.au/employment-
news/719/Australians-work-longest-hours)

------
gojomo
Note that the source study driving this blog post is from a left think tank,
the Center for American Progress. Their policy goals can be fairly
characterized as adopting in the U.S. more European-style employment
regulations on wages, benefits, leave, and termination.

There's some evidence Americans are working fewer hours; for example figure 1
on p. 9 of this survey shows a slight decline in hours worked from 1975-2003:

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1233842>

When considering such issues, the important question to ask is: do you want
people to be forced to work fewer hours (as in some other countries), or
simply to have the option?

Because if you want to maximize your leisure time, you can make certain career
and consumption choices to do so. For example, if you wanted to live with only
the amenities people had in the 1970s or 1950s, you could choose to work
significantly less than 40 hours a week in the 2010s.

------
hugh3
Oh hooray, another left-wing political rant on the front page. It's been a few
hours since the last one.

~~~
MoreMoschops
Why do you cast fewer working hours as left-wing? Being able to have a good
life without having to work yourself to death doesn't sound left-wing to me;
it sounds sensible and surely should be a dream of the right-wing?

If you think not being a wage-slave is left-wing, I think you've been fooled
by the people who need you to work yourself to death so they can take it easy.

Edit: Which is me. Forget I mentioned it :)

~~~
tomjen3
The reason it is a left wing article is that it complains about the lack of
government regulations over private agreements between willing partners.

~~~
barrkel
I tried to negotiate more holiday time (25 days rather than 10 days) when I
was planning to move to the US. They wouldn't budge; but they were willing to
employ me as a remote worker living in London, UK, rather than locally in CA.
(I didn't move, in part because of this, even though I had a H-1B visa at a
time they were handed out by lottery.) So now, I get the extra holidays (but
less pay), as well as having frequent transatlantic flights to get up to date
with the US folks.

Why was that? Could it possibly be because the willing partners in that
private agreement aren't as free to choose the terms of their agreement as you
seem to think they are? The extra holidays aren't just a line item in the
contract, with appropriately reduced pay etc. They are perceived to cause
jealousy problems, for one thing. They're also structured as a status perk for
long-term employees ("earn a whole extra day for every year of service!" they
said).

The issue is even bigger for someone contemplating emigrating to the US,
because longer holidays increase the cost effectiveness of transatlantic trip
home. Only having 10 days holiday effectively means saying (relatively)
permanent goodbye to all your friends and relatives if you also want to have
e.g. a Christmas holiday and a summer break.

~~~
enjo
If I was going to guess: They didn't want you in the office with 2.5x the
vacation of the rest of their workers. By stashing you in London, if anyone
took issue, they just point out that it's customary.

~~~
exit
barrkel says that himself in his comment, "They are perceived to cause
jealousy problems, for one thing."

