Americans are working less

[HemiEd]

I have my own theories on this, such as the stay at home working during covid and the stimulus money being the worst thing that has happened in a very long time.


Why Americans Are Working Less

Gallup finds that average hours worked have dropped progressively since 2019 when U.S. employees reported working an average of 44.1 hours. In 2024, they work 42.9 hours per week.

The decline in hours worked is more pronounced among younger (those younger than 35) than older workers (those aged 35 and older). Between 2019 and 2024, older employees have seen an average reduction of just under one hour per person per week, while younger employees have reduced their hours by nearly two hours.

Over a year, that’s the equivalent of older employees taking an extra week off of work and younger employees taking two weeks. These trends apply to full-time employees working at least 30 hours per week.

Possible Reasons for the Drop in Average Hours Worked per Week
Several new findings may explain this shift:

Overall employee wellbeing has been on the decline.
Employees now have less trust in institutions in general and feel more detached from their employers.
After a decade of steady improvement, employee engagement has reverted to its 2014 level.
Advances in technology may be making work more efficient. Gallup finds that nearly half (45%) of employees say AI has helped them improve their productivity. However, a workforce that is becoming more technically efficient and less engaged may lack the motivation needed for long-term growth.
Employees -- especially younger ones -- now place a higher priority on their overall wellbeing. In fact, work-life balance and better overall wellbeing now rank among the most important considerations when choosing a new job.
Additionally, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows declines in overall hours worked per person, particularly in industries that traditionally employ more young workers such as retail, leisure and hospitality.

The Connection Between Hours Worked and Employee Burnout
Burnout may be a major reason why employees are working fewer hours. The World Health Organization (WHO) has classified “burnout” as a work-related syndrome resulting from chronic stress.

Previous Gallup research has found that an unmanageable workload is one of the contributing factors to burnout. This may help explain why employees report higher burnout (very often or always) as the number of hours they work rises above 45 hours per week.

more here

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/658...78644b3aaad4a0

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

I am pretty lucky to have a pension. Been in a new role in the past year and work life balance is what I make of it but it is a 24\7 operation so it can be tough to disconnect at times.

Pay is just "ok" but freedom and benefits are really good. Someone would have to back up the brinks truck to pull me away from this. I still think a public safety adjacent tech company might be an option but I have so many things going for me in my current spot and could retire here pretty happy.

There is a lot of fulfillment associated with a job well done in my field so times where you have to put in the extra hours it is usually tied to do something worth it and extra money is nice.

On my recent big trip, about half the people on one of my ships were doing a six-month "world cruise", which cost about $200,000 for a couple. That's a chunk of change. Most or all were retired, since that's the only way to get six months off to travel.

I was listening to how people became affluent enough to afford such a trip, and two reasons were far and away the most common. People either worked for government or (in the past) a large company that offered defined-benefit pensions, or they owned and sold a business. Those were far and away the most common reasons. The pension people were not C-suite types who made big money, but my impression is that they felt secure with the pensions and didn't feel a need to manage risk to a retirement portfolio.

The other reason that I heard to some degree was people who merely had a high-wage job, mostly doctors. I met a couple of people who had legacy family money, and one couple who invested early and hard into crypto and made a bunch of money, but those were exceptions to the rule.

The loss of defined-benefit pensions is a major factor in people feeling less secure about retirement, in my opinion. I'm not sure there was ever a time where a majority of workers got them, but they're rare now. You pretty much have to work in government to get them.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by kysirsoze

I think quarantine and the stimulus gave people time to reevaluate their priorities. Working ourselves to the bone to maybe someday retire with security just didn't seem as appealing. Plus with wage stagnation and employees being increasing disposable, it seemed more difficult to even achieve that.

Also, recent appreciation for mental health and self care has people less likely to sacrifice their well being and happiness for a company that probably doesn't really give a shit about them.

I know that's not every company or boss, and I hope the good ones are flourishing in an environment where more employees are demanding to be treated like people.

I think it made many of them lazy and getting the free money to a bunch of workers around here took them out of the labor market.

It was like flipping a switch, several are now drug addicts dependent on welfare.

The rest of your post reads like people are owed something and don't have to earn it.

Companies don't need to give a shit about them, they are paying them a wage for a job they need done. It's not personal.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I think it made many of them lazy and getting the free money to a bunch of workers around here took them out of the labor market.

It was like flipping a switch, several are now drug addicts dependent on welfare.

The rest of your post reads like people are owed something and don't have to earn it.

Companies don't need to give a shit about them, they are paying them a wage for a job they need done. It's not personal.

A few months ago I was chatting with a young (late 20s) woman and we were talking about careers. She mentioned that her boyfriend "doesn't want a job", and it frustrated her. She said that he only wanted to play video games all day and then make money doing DoorDash deliveries and stuff part-time. She could see that he wasn't going to thrive long-term doing that. (She had a career going.).

I kind of worry about young men in our society. Something is happening that's sapping the drive of a lot of them. I've noticed it in some of the younger men that I know, and it's a really bad mindset.

I sympathized with the woman, and I thought that she should probably find a guy with some long-term potential. I think people need to be more ruthless and businesslike when choosing a mate.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by BWillie

I don't know how married people with kids who work 50 hours a week have any me time at all. How do they have time for ANY hobby? It is mind boggling to me.

The amount of time I spend on my hobbies is astronomical. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

I made time, while working exactly 50 years and raising two daughters with my wife.

Once you have kids, your love will help you overcome your selfishness.

While helping raise them and providing, I restored several vehicles, played darts, bowled, played a lot of pool, had several boats, camped etc. They were a part of much of it and it taught them some valuable lessons.

The satisfaction I now enjoy from their success in life far outweighs any enjoyment I ever had from things I had done.

But I get it, the newer generations are getting away from this, thus our society has some issues.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

My joy came from spending time with my kids when I got home from work...even when I worked OT.

I made my kids a priority.....because it also provided the greatest joy in my life.

It's that simple......I don't get why people see kids as a burden.

Exactly, and it just keeps growing as there are grandkids and great grandkids.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Third Eye

As a former pension actuary, the move from pension to 401k was primarily driven by desire to de-risk on the employer side. Plain and simple. Yes, portability is an advantage for employees, but let's not get it confused. The current hiring marketplace is a symptom of the disincentivizing of staying long-term, not the other way around.

As someone who worked closely with ERISA and plans in the past I don't necessarily disagree. However, as 401k's became more prevalent in the late 80's, it allowed certainty on the books for employer, as you mentioned, as well as an alternative for employees. This de-risking was necessary to compete in the evolving global economy, more so, than "how can we screw employees". Those that needed to compete for employees on the benefit side, still had substantial cost for matching contributions/profit sharing contributions, it was just a much more predictable cost. Many employers have went to cash balance plans in lieu of traditional Defined benefit plans in addition to their 401k plans. While this continues to grow and is a great benefit for employees, I've seen many employees leave and go to companies that don't offer a money purchase plan at all, which is a huge loss of a benefit. As an employee with a money purchase plan, I prefer the cash balance over a traditional pension plan for a variety of reasons.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Exactly, and it just keeps growing as there are grandkids and great grandkids.

The real question will be how it affects the population over the next few decades....

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

A few months ago I was chatting with a young (late 20s) woman and we were talking about careers. She mentioned that her boyfriend "doesn't want a job", and it frustrated her. She said that he only wanted to play video games all day and then make money doing DoorDash deliveries and stuff part-time. She could see that he wasn't going to thrive long-term doing that. (She had a career going.).

I kind of worry about young men in our society. Something is happening that's sapping the drive of a lot of them. I've noticed it in some of the younger men that I know, and it's a really bad mindset.

I sympathized with the woman, and I thought that she should probably find a guy with some long-term potential. I think people need to be more ruthless and businesslike when choosing a mate.

Excellent post from a man that built his own business and success!

So much of this is troubling and sad, and it makes me wonder how we got here and how it can be fixed?

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

As someone who worked closely with ERISA and plans in the past I don't necessarily disagree. However, as 401k's became more prevalent in the late 80's, it allowed certainty on the books for employer, as you mentioned, as well as an alternative for employees. This de-risking was necessary to compete in the evolving global economy, more so, than "how can we screw employees". Those that needed to compete for employees on the benefit side, still had substantial cost for matching contributions/profit sharing contributions, it was just a much more predictable cost. Many employers have went to cash balance plans in lieu of traditional Defined business plans in addition to their 401k plans. While this continues to grow and is a great benefit for employees, I've seen many employees leave and go to companies that don't offer a money purchase plan at all. As an employee with a money purchase plan, I prefer the cash balance over a traditional pension plan for a variety of reasons.

It's interesting to me that annuities still exist, as they're essentially a self-funded pension. So they've obviously found a way to make the model work.

On paper, annuities make a ton of sense to me. As an individual, I have to worry about a market that goes south for a decade. As a perpetually living corporation, an annuity (or a pension plan) doesn't need to worry about that as long as they're adequately funded. I guess there are some variables such as life spans that could be a risk, but it seems like those could be built in.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the return of pensions, but my own observations is that people who get them feel much more secure in retirement, rightly or wrongly.

I'm also a big fan of society putting $1,000 into a long-term deferred investment fund for every kid that's born. It's not a huge cost, and it confers huge long-term benefits to the kid.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

On my recent big trip, about half the people on one of my ships were doing a six-month "world cruise", which cost about $200,000 for a couple. That's a chunk of change. Most or all were retired, since that's the only way to get six months off to travel.

I was listening to how people became affluent enough to afford such a trip, and two reasons were far and away the most common. People either worked for government or (in the past) a large company that offered defined-benefit pensions, or they owned and sold a business. Those were far and away the most common reasons. The pension people were not C-suite types who made big money, but my impression is that they felt secure with the pensions and didn't feel a need to manage risk to a retirement portfolio.

The other reason that I heard to some degree was people who merely had a high-wage job, mostly doctors. I met a couple of people who had legacy family money, and one couple who invested early and hard into crypto and made a bunch of money, but those were exceptions to the rule.

The loss of defined-benefit pensions is a major factor in people feeling less secure about retirement, in my opinion. I'm not sure there was ever a time where a majority of workers got them, but they're rare now. You pretty much have to work in government to get them.

It's a trade off. If you are not in government or work for a company that doesn't offer a traditional Pension Plan, you most likely are earning substantially more money, 20-25%, in the private sector. Unfortunately not everyone understands the difference and then saves a large portion of that for retirement. Those that do can usually take a portion of those assets and purchase lifetime income that gives them certainty they will not out live their assets. The remaining assets can be invested more aggressively at this point for legacy assets or for travel and other wishes as they know their main expenses are covered.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

The real question will be how it affects the population over the next few decades....

Yeah, I have been trying my best to keep this out of D.C.

Spoiler!

but yes, as the population decreases we will have less workers supporting the retired.

China is experiencing this problem as well due to their government mandated birth restrictions for years.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I made time, while working exactly 50 years and raising two daughters with my wife.

Once you have kids, your love will help you overcome your selfishness.

While helping raise them and providing, I restored several vehicles, played darts, bowled, played a lot of pool, had several boats, camped etc. They were a part of much of it and it taught them some valuable lessons.

The satisfaction I now enjoy from their success in life far outweighs any enjoyment I ever had from things I had done.

But I get it, the newer generations are getting away from this, thus our society has some issues.

The reality is that many young people today would be incapable of actually doing something similar in today's economy. Most young people today cannot afford several vehicles, boats, etc. Simply working your ass off no longer provides young people all those extra things that you enjoyed. It's just not that simple these days. I know many young people who are very hard workers with great work ethic and have held a job for years, yet they can't even afford to own a home. Let alone extra vehicles, boats, etc. as reward for their hard work.

I'm not defending young people, because many are definitely lazy and unappreciative. But the idea that the entire younger generation simply needs to roll up their sleaves and get a job and everything will be provided like it was in the golden years, it just doesn't apply the same as it did 50 years ago. It's not all the younger generation's fault. Wages have been stagnant for decades while costs have skyrocketed. The playing field has absolutely changed.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

It's interesting to me that annuities still exist, as they're essentially a self-funded pension. So they've obviously found a way to make the model work.

On paper, annuities make a ton of sense to me. As an individual, I have to worry about a market that goes south for a decade. As a perpetually living corporation, an annuity (or a pension plan) doesn't need to worry about that. I guess there are some variables such as life spans that could be a risk, but it seems like those could be built in.

I'm not necessarily advocating for the return of pensions, but my own observations is that people who get them feel much more secure in retirement, rightly or wrongly.

I'm also a big fan of society putting $1,000 into a long-term deferred investment fund for every kid that's born. It's not a huge cost, and it confers huge long-term benefits to the kid.

There is really good white papers out there that have researched and surveyed thousands of retirees and those that have guaranteed income are much happier, and travel and recreate much more than those that don't. Even if the dollar equivalents are the same for those without lifetime income.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Jewish Rabbi

Baristas get pensions now?

No idea.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Fish

The reality is that many young people today would be incapable of actually doing something similar in today's economy. Most young people today cannot afford several vehicles, boats, etc. Simply working your ass off no longer provides young people all those extra things that you enjoyed. It's just not that simple these days. I know many young people who are very hard workers with great work ethic and have held a job for years, yet they can't even afford to own a home. Let alone extra vehicles, boats, etc. as reward for their hard work.

I'm not defending young people, because many are definitely lazy and unappreciative. But the idea that the entire younger generation simply needs to roll up their sleaves and get a job and everything will be provided like it was in the golden years, it just doesn't apply the same as it did 50 years ago. It's not all the younger generation's fault. Wages have been stagnant for decades while costs have skyrocketed. The playing field has absolutely changed.

Wages have been pushed down by NAFTA and illegal immigration. This is not meant to be a political statement as it is documented and quantifiable. I was a free market guy as an Economics major, but it has decimated the middle class. That being said, I see many of today's youths using door dash regularly, having the newest and best Iphone/Galaxy etc. Wealth doesn't come easy, but I've seen a lot of young folks with average jobs who are in great shape in their 30's.