The lab that knows where your time really goes

November 2, 2015 9:06 AM

The collection is helping to solve a slew of scientific and societal puzzles — not least, a paradox about modern life. There is a widespread perception in Western countries that life today is much busier than it once was, thanks to the unending demands of work, family, chores, smartphones and e-mails. But the diaries tell a different story: “We do not get indicators at all that people are more frantic,” says John Robinson, a sociologist who works with time-use diaries at the University of Maryland, College Park. In fact, when paid and unpaid work are totted up, the average number of hours worked every week has not changed much since the 1980s in most countries of the developed world.
posted by sciatrix (13 comments total)

I guess no one wants to comment here for fear of not looking busy.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 10:07 AM on November 2, 2015 [5 favorites]

I tried keeping track of my time using the Gleeo app for Android for a couple weeks. It was really interesting how far off my own perceptions of my time use were -- for example, there were days when I felt like I spent ALL DAY in meetings and emails, and when I actually looked at the clock I had spent 4 hours actually doing really valuable work. I always feel like I spend way too much time watching TV, but when I look back at the logs it ends up averaging something like 20 minutes a day. Cooking and shopping for food always seem tremendously time consuming in my head, but in reality it ends up being like 30 minutes a day. I never feel like I spend enough time with my family and friends, but in reality it's always my #2 activity after work, averaging more than 2.5 hours a day. Overall I didn't end up changing anything as a result of that experiment, but I did learn a lot.

Also, yes, I am a huge nerd.
posted by miyabo at 10:29 AM on November 2, 2015 [15 favorites]

In 1980 I spent a lot more time in the sandbox though...
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:49 AM on November 2, 2015 [5 favorites]

Economic productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 50 years - we do more in less time. How much more productive are we when it comes to domestic/household labor? Are women in the workforce more likely to say they feel rushed because they have to do similar amounts of household work in less time? Do women report feeling rushed more now than they did in 1965? Does the increase in domestic labor by men offset the decline in female household labor, factoring in improvements in household technology?

Personally, I think I'd report feeling rushed because of personal and social expectations of what I should be doing and all I'd like to accomplish, versus what I actually do and accomplish.
posted by MetalFingerz at 10:56 AM on November 2, 2015 [2 favorites]

Did a quick search for "context" and "switching", and it didn't come up. Which means there's something wrong (appart from a diary, which is not the most accurate of measurements and, havinbg seen medical diaries in action, so inflexible in it's entries that much is lost anyway): context switching takes a lot of time and mental effort, so anyone who does anything work related outside of work (wether unassisted or due to incoming email or calls) is losing at least ten minutes if not much more due to that mental context switching from private/work/private.

And I don't see that taken into account here.
posted by MacD at 11:26 AM on November 2, 2015 [9 favorites]

Hours worked, and amount accomplished during those hours, aren't the same thing. Still, this is a lot better than relying on people's memories of how busy the feel like they used to be compared to today.
posted by rebent at 11:31 AM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

Did a quick search for "context" and "switching", and it didn't come up.

This seems highly relevant: time confetti
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on November 2, 2015 [2 favorites]

Economic productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 50 years - we do more in less time.

As measured how? I don't mean this as argumentative, but economics has a big problem. We keep taking things that were not traditionally measured economically and privitizing/monitizing them. That activity looks like an increase in productivity, the GDP grows and all that, but it isn't.

This line from the op:

In fact, when paid and unpaid work are totted up, the average number of hours worked every week has not changed

had me headed in here to point out how huge that information should be to economics, and you kind of set it up perfectly :)
posted by Chuckles at 11:36 AM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

I don't really see an issue that quantitative working hours hasn't changed since the computer revolution - that's what this paper measured - but this narrow result can only make sense under a larger theoretical context. For example, as part of a ceteris parebus type of argument. But does the article address this? I don't really think it was emphasised.
posted by polymodus at 11:45 AM on November 2, 2015

We keep taking things that were not traditionally measured economically and privitizing/monitizing them

Example, please? Having trouble thinking of some.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 12:29 PM on November 2, 2015

Child care. A mom spends 40 hours a week taking care of her kids = 0 impact on the "economy." A mom works 40 extra hours a week, and spends 100% of that income paying babysitters/child care centers? The "economy" counts 80 hours/week of labor (first for the mom, second for the child care worker) even though nothing has materially changed. This has a massive distorting effect on government decisions to incentivize people to work. Then you add homemade food vs. prepared food, care for the elderly, individual time spent on home/yard/car maintenance rather than paying people, and you can see how productivity can increase while no one really benefits.
posted by miyabo at 12:52 PM on November 2, 2015 [9 favorites]

Child care. A mom spends 40 hours a week taking care of her kids = 0 impact on the "economy." A mom works 40 extra hours a week, and spends 100% of that income paying babysitters/child care centers? The "economy" counts 80 hours/week of labor (first for the mom, second for the child care worker) even though nothing has materially changed.

Couldn't you say the same thing about a man who is a subsistence farmer vs. one who works in his field of study but spends all his income on food, clothing, and shelter? Since we don't generally assume that most men are best suited to being subsistence farmers, we would probably agree that a lot has materially changed.
posted by Ralston McTodd at 4:33 PM on November 2, 2015 [1 favorite]

Yes, you could. In most cases working for money instead of barter is a net positive. But some "free" labor is disappearing from the economy either way. If I make $100K as an engineer, but I could instead produce $10K of vegetables as a subsistence farmer, then the true net value of my labor as an engineer is only $90K because the world is losing out on my amazing vegetables. But that $10K would never be counted or tracked so no one includes it in their calculations. Replace "subsistence farmer" with "stay at home parent" and it's exactly the same situation.
posted by miyabo at 8:31 PM on November 2, 2015