A minor quibble that doesn't change your point: Walmart and MacDonald's workers may well be working two jobs, to be able to make the rent at the wages that those companies pay. However, that likely means that both members of the couple are working a lot of hours, thus the "doesn't change your point".
True, but like you say it doesn't change the point. I don't know the average or median for all males in the county or Western world or whatever it is we are comparing here. And if we wanted to get even more precise we'd need to add the few chores a lot of men actually do around the home like mowing the yard and grilling the steaks.
wow calm down with the straw, so someone is dealing with other stresses for a few hours (or a few hours more if the mother is working too) and providing for a family. its not like the father isn't coming home and dealing with the kid and household when out of the job. now maybe the tasks done are different, but if we want to look at pure labor hours they are still their. i was just commenting on who actually works that little. maybe France does have that limit but you would never think it talking to the Sat Gen guys.
A.) full of massive assumptions B.) I make it a point to surround myself with interesting and ambitious people. naturally they are going to work more.
Ah--we've circled around. I was talking about the situation where every aspect of the house and children is seen as the wife's job, every hour of the day and night. If the father is coming home and dealing with the kid and household at night, then he's not the situation that I, at least, was talking about.
yeah and all i bring up is how low ball the hours worked were. i got to wonder how common it is that one spouse is completely domestic front.
Your issue was the hours worked were lowballed so instead of checking the data you highballed them. According to the BLS, I was closer to the mark.
Remember that a whole lot of people get paid on an hourly basis, so their employers not only don't make them work extra hours, they won't *let* them work extra hours, because that would mean extra pay.
well considering i dont know few people that work that little it does seem low. guess it says something about pay on performance and bonus.
Come on @DPVP, surely you recognize your personal anecdotal tally is seriously limited compared to broader data collected by the BLS?
Yes, and employers will also hire enough part time workers so that none of them hit full time status, much less get overtime. A lot of those employees have a second job, though.
A few major employers do/did keep hours lower than full time (like Walmart) or redefine workers as 'contract' (Microsoft did this) in order to save labor costs. I don't want to address the ethics and economic shortsightedness of that because I don't have the time to invest in that debate. But because it tends to be a frequent news topic and political talking point on both sides, it gives the impression it's more common than it likely is. So it's best to look at data that was more systematically collected than the selective sample brought to our attention by the media. Again from the BLS which uses 2 different sampling methods, household and establishment surveys. From the establishment survey data: From the household survey data: One could probably hunt the data down to find a more precise number of part time workers with more than 8 hour days but when you see that That would make 8 million part time workers about 5% of the work force. I think it's safe to say a 50 hour work week is not the average and the number of part time workers is probably not bringing the average down as much as the news media might lead us to believe.
It is very common in certain industries - the restaurant industry, for example. I know a number of people in that industry, and we also represent clients in that area, and for that industry the practice seems to be more common than not.
@Steerpike, you have a degree with a research focus. Surely you also know your personal anecdotal tally is seriously limited compared to broader data collected by the BLS?
I never said it wasn't. My close is clearly directed to how things seem to be in that industry based on my experience. If you're reading more into it than what I said, that's a mistake on your end, not mine.
No one is saying there are not lots of people working part time jobs nor is anyone saying there are not people who work two jobs or 50 hour work weeks. The discussion was about the norm, the average, and it came about when I compared a full time male worker's hours to a full time housewife's. In other words, how is your point applicable to the discussion? If it's just some random information tangentially related, well then, that's nice. My only mistake was thinking you were in the discussion arguing the average male worker in the US has a 50 hour work week.
Yes, that was the discussion. However, a thread like this tends to develop organically, and as you can see from reading any number of them, comments tend to travel separate paths away from the main focus of the thread (in fact, this whole discussion is a tangent from the main topic). My post was clearly relating anecdotal evidence, as was my intent. I don't think any reasonable person will have a problem with that. If one does, I'll stand corrected.
Because you seem to reply faster than my second thoughts, here's the above edit you may not have seen: In other words, how is your point applicable to the discussion? If it's just some random information tangentially related, well then, that's nice. My only mistake was thinking you were in the discussion arguing the average male worker in the US has a 50 hour work week.
You seem to make the mistake that every discussion is a formal debate. It's not, nor should it be. It was just interesting anecdotal information related to the topic, and based on my experience with employers in a certain industry. If you could take your adversarial hat off, and while you're at it remove your college debate and rhetoric hats, set all three aside and just engage in a natural conversation, that would be nice. In natural conversations, people sometimes provide anecdotes. Astounding, but true. As for how many hours the average male or female in the U.S. works, I don't know. I haven't researched it. If I were involved in something more important than an anonymous internet forum debate, I'd consider it
There was a dispute of my numbers, I addressed it. @DPVP doubled down with a personal anecdote. I addressed that. You weighed in with your own personal anecdote. I addressed that. Now you say you were off on some meandering tangent and why do I see everything as a 'formal' debate? First, it hardly implies a formal debate to support one's statements. Second, if you weren't arguing in support of DPVP's claim of 50 hour work week average, care to show me which post you made that clear in that I so rudely missed? And third, if I'm the only one that thought this was a discussion of a disputed fact, why have you described it a debate? I don't care either who agrees, disagrees, gets bored, walks away, doubles down, or brings up a non sequitur because they didn't read the beginning of the discussion. I do try to post valid information and conclusions. In this case when I pointed out that a personal anecdotes were of limited value I did so with the intent to promote critical thinking, as much as to defend my position. I care when I post something that it be accurate and valid. That's just me. I don't like to post anecdotal memes that then get passed on again and again as if they are facts. You certainly can if you want to, but if it is something that contradicts what I've said, I check and either correct my position if I was wrong, or support it if I believe I was right. No one else has to care, I can't control that. But my tiny little impact on this world that I want to leave behind is to move the ball a nanometer down field where the goal is evolution of humans into a critically thinking species. It's grandiose, I know, but hey, some of us just want to leave a mark.
i have never said its not true, i just dont see who all these sub 40 hours a week people are, considering that outside of PE i dont know anyone that works that little. figuring most young professional work 10 plus a day 5 to 6 days a week. so lets take where i work for example. 50 hours a week is considered the minimum and less is frowned upon. then when you think that we work less then guys in IB or associates at law firms who work like dogs. you get some PE guys that work 40 hours a week but , they usually did their shifts working like dogs in IB. considering that full time is cut of at 35 hours a week, their must be a lot of people working 35 or very little over to compensate for the guys working real hours.
