Dow+30.69up+0.29%
10,464.40
Nasdaq+6.87up+0.32%
2,176.05
S&P+4.98up+0.45%
1,110.63

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player. Click here to download.
More video on MSN Money . . .
Earn less money, have more time © Purestock / SuperStock

The Basics

Earn less money, have more time

You already know education can boost earning power. But it turns out the leisure class isn't the class with the most money. A chart breaks down how time is spent.

[Related content: college, education, jobs, economy, child care]
By U.S. News & World Report

If extra schooling seems like a lot of effort, get used to it -- the more educated you are, the more hours you're likely to work.

It's obvious that there's a big pay gap between people who have more education and people who have less: Doctors and engineers with advanced degrees earn a lot more than high-school grads working blue-collar jobs. It turns out there's also a growing "leisure gap" between more- and less-educated Americans: the more schooling, the less time devoted to leisure.

In a new study published by the American Enterprise Institute, economists Mark Aguiar and Erik Hurst reveal some fascinating facts about how Americans of different educational levels spend their time.

The average: The average American adult spent about 32 hours a week working in 2005, the latest year for which data are available, and about 106 hours a week on "leisure," which includes sleeping, eating, watching TV and most activities you'd think of as forms of relaxing.

Many people won't be surprised to learn that the amount of time we spend on leisure is falling. Since 1985, weekly leisure time has dropped by about an hour and a half overall. For women, it's fallen more. That's a reversal of the trend from 1965 to 1985, when overall leisure time increased by 5.4 hours. The reasons for the decline: Women are working more, and women and men both spend more time each week on child care.

By gender: Men spent about 40 hours a week on work, 106 hours on leisure and 13 hours on unpaid work such as shopping, housekeeping and car maintenance. Women spent about 26 hours a week on work, 105 hours on leisure and 23 hours on unpaid work -- about 10 hours more than men.

By education level: The leisure gaps are bigger when broken down by education level. Men with more than 12 years of education -- at least some college -- spent 102 hours each week on leisure. Men with a high-school education or less spent 110 hours a week on leisure. The differences get more stark up and down the education chain. Men with a college degree or more spent the least amount of time on leisure -- just 100 hours a week. That's down six hours since 1985, the biggest decline among any educational group. At the bottom of the chain, men with less than a high school diploma spent 113 hours a week on leisure. That's eight hours more than in 1985, the biggest jump of any group. The gaps are similar for women.

Behind the numbers

It's tempting to imagine that America's professional class has become so enslaved to their BlackBerrys that their graduate degrees have done little more than turn them into workaholics. Or that there's a class of simple, wholesome Americans who simply treasure their free time and would rather relax with their families than work for any amount of money.

That may be part of the story. But another reason undereducated Americans have more leisure time is that unemployment is higher among those with less schooling: If you're not working, you're spending more time on "leisure," whether it's quality time spent with your kids or mindless hours watching cable and waiting for a recruiter to call. Disability rates are also higher among those with less education, which means less time spent on the job.

It may also be true that highly educated people enjoy their work more, so they spend more time doing it. (Because the data are from years prior to the current recession, they don't reflect changes that may have resulted from rapidly rising unemployment over the past 12 months.)

Continued: How we're spending our time

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 28
Friday, July 31, 2009 2:01:28 PM
Would wasting our time reading bias articles on the internet be leisure time or just a waste of time?  In the 80's it was said that American didn't have enough leisure time.  But, educated or not we are all looking for work, while we leisurely pass our time.  Of course shipping jobs off shore could have something to do with this but no I'm sure there are lots of jobs in America paying lots of money with great benefits, but we are all just so happy sitting around, unemployment being such great pay and all, that going to work just isn't worth our time.  Wake up America we all are in deep doo.
Friday, July 31, 2009 1:05:54 PM

motedegrange

wealth redistribution is not about "making us all poor", it's about bringing up the living standards for EVERYBODY. We live in a world with 80% of the wealth is concentrated in 5% of the population. There is no way we can all be equal, but there should be a smaller gap. Just look into social democracies, they are better prepared to handle crises and their standards of life are higher.

This country cannot call itself civilized or a first world nation when health care and education are not considered human rights (i.e. they must be free). Those are the true litmus tests for a prosperous society, but of course, most Americans wouldn't know this, since they don't realize there's much better places in the world to live.

Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:44:58 PM
The authors were referring to UNPAID work for women vs. men.  This did not involve any math. 
Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:42:26 PM
They were talking about UNPAID work here, not total.  This did not involve any math!
Friday, July 24, 2009 2:19:59 PM
motedgrange

It is not about "income redistribution". Some things cannot be accomplished except at a national level. There is no incentive in the private sector to do certain things - the capital requirements are too large, the timelines are too long and risks are too high.

This country once could build entire cities overnight. Now, people cannot see past their own selfish, short-term needs long enough to move forward on anything. The corporate interests constantly gum up any efforts to move us up to the next level.

I've worked in the corporate world for more than two decades and, frankly, you have no idea how much capital is wasted on large projects that never see the light of day due to the selfish personal goals of MBAs.

Friday, July 24, 2009 2:19:08 PM
motedgrange

It is not about "income redistribution". Some things cannot be accomplished except at a national level. There is no incentive in the private sector to do certain things - the capital requirements are too large, the timelines are too long and risks are too high.

This country once could build entire cities overnight. Now, people cannot see past their own selfish, short-term needs long enough to move forward on anything. The corporate interests constantly gum up any efforts to move us up to the next level.

I've worked in the corporate world for more than two decades and, frankly, you have no idea how much capital is wasted on large projects that never see the light of day due to the selfish personal goals of MBAs.
Friday, July 24, 2009 2:14:35 PM
motedgrange

It's not about "income distribution". There are things that need to be performed at a national level that cannot be done in any other way. Private sector is not interested because the capital requirements are too big, the risks are too big and the time frames are too long. This country once could build entire cities overnight. But, today, people cannot see past their own selfish motives to even figure out what needs to be done and actually accomplish something that requires coordination, long-term planning and real effort. One would think that the wealthy in this country would have the most on the line because their wealth will worth squat if the U.S. economy does not recover properly.

I have been in the corporate world for 20 years and you cannot believe how much capital investment is actually wasted on large projects that never see the light of day due to the selfish motives of some MBAs.

Thursday, July 23, 2009 11:36:48 AM
I certainly don't agree that people are working less because they want to work less.  Aguiar and Hurst are way out of touch if they think that most of us out here aren't working long hours simply because we'd rather have leisure time.  Perhaps they can start picking up the bills for those of us who are either unemployed or underemployed and desperate to make a living...
Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:53:14 PM
OC_Ski

Because you get what you pay for. I live in the reddest state in the union: Texas. Our roads are not maintained (even in the upscale neighborhood where I live), our airport looks old and smells moldy, 25% of state residents have no health insurance, we have no regulatory body to defend consumers against criminals, insurance companies, utilities, cable companies, toll companies and homebuilders from ripping us off.

You save money but you have no services, no law enforcement and your infrastructure rots.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:38:28 AM

I can see once again we are publishing articles without the benefit of an editor. The math is definitely wrong you do math like my sister. Men spend 40 hours at paid work, 106 hours at leisure, and 13 hours at unpaid work. 40 + 13 = 53 hours work. Women spend 26 hours at paid work, 105 hours at leisure, and 23 hours on unpaid work. 26 + 23 = 49.

This was obviously written by a feminist because only a feminist could do the math and come up with the facts that men work 53 hours a week and women work 49 hours a week, therefore women are working ten hours a week more than men.

1 - 10 of 28
To add a comment, pleasesign in