Rhian, if you read the ABS publication that I refer to in my article (Work: Paid Work - Working Longer Hours, in Australian Social Trends 2003) you will see that your assertion that average weekly working hours for full-time workers is at an all time low is incorrect. Although this figure has stabilised in the 1990s, is currently at 44 hours while in 1982 it was around 42 hours. This figure, considered together with the figures showing changes in the proportion of workers working more than 50 hours per week, shows that Australians are working harder now than they were in 1982.

Christian:

I didn't say full time workers, I said Australian employees. Fewer people are working full time and more part time, and as a result, average hours per employee are falling (from 35.9 in August 1982 to 34.7 in August 2004). Average full-time hours rose during the 1980s and early 1990s, but peaked in 1994 and have drifted down erratically since then. It is misleading to say that "Australians are working harder now than they were in 1982." Part-timers are Australians too.

Timkins,

The surveys are not as far apart as you might expect.

The HILDA survey shows that most people are working roughly the hours they’d prefer, but that there is more likely to be a gap between actual and preferred hours for couples than singles (http://melbourneinstitute.com//wp/wp2005n07.pdf).

OECD data do show that Australians work longer hours than employees in many developed countries (Japan and the USA often rank higher, Europe generally lower). Although there are some methodological inconsistencies across countries, my guess is that this is broadly accurate. Australians’ average working hours have fallen less quickly than in other countries, but they have still fallen.

However, I think you are wrong to say that the data show that raising dependant children “requires” two incomes. All the survey shows is the preferred hours of couple families, which presumably reflects their optimal balance of income, work, and time for family and other activities.

How do we judge these trends? I think the key question is whether working patterns suit what employees (and employers) want, not what commentators say they should do. Both the HILDA and the ABS surveys show that, while far from perfect, there is a pretty good match between the hours employees want what they actually work. The ABS data also show average hours falling and average real earnings rising. We can by all means debate whether deregulation will make the match between what employees want and what the labour market delivers better or worse; but alarmist claims about ever-longer working hours and an overwork crisis don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Rhian, if full-time workers work longer now than in 1982 and there are workers who were previously not in the workforce that are now working as part-time workers, the average hours worked per worker would decrease as shown by the figure you point out. However average hours worked per capita would increase as it would take into consideration that fact that previously some workers were not in the workforce (and therefore were not included when calculating average hours worked per worker) and now they are. This figure, and the fact that a higher proportion of workers work more than 50 hours now, is evidence of the fact that Australians are working longer.

Rhian,
I don’t think too many families of say 4 people (ie 2 adults and 2 children ) could operate on one income, unless that person was working at least 60hr weeks.

But the HILDA survey figures are quite concerning because the hrs being worked by parents are basically at a maximum. Both mothers and fathers in families with dependant children want to work less hours, but combined this was only about 6 hrs less per week. I think family income could have something to do with this, as 6 hrs less a week would equate to about $6,000 per year at $20 per hour, and I don’t think too many families could afford to lose much more than that, particularly with young children.

But at 48hrs per week for the father and 28 hrs for the mother, this is about the maximum hours that can be worked while still calling it a family. The father is at 6 * 8 hr days, or 5 * 10 hr days, and any more and he is hardly at home, and the mother is basically working school hrs, and any more and the children will be raised in day care centres or by someone else.

So if there is an increase in the hrs being worked by the mother and the father, there is basically no family, because the parents will hardly see each other, or they will hardly see their children.

So if the parents want to have more family time, there are two options available
1. Reduce hrs worked and lose family income
2. Increase workplace productivity so as to increase wages, so that fewer hrs need be worked with no decline in family income.

No 2 will require increased emphasis on developing industries that have the potential for higher export income and higher profits. Growing primary produce or digging dirt out of the ground (eg coal, iron ore etc) and then selling it without value adding will not be enough in future years, as most commodity prices are generally declining in time

Christian,

The change in weekly hours worked per adult since 1982 is very small – from 20.0 in August 1982 to 20.6 in August 2004. Almost all of this is explainable by the business cycle – hours worked per adult correlate closely and negatively with the unemployment rate, as you’d expect. Other things being equal, the drop in unemployment rate from 7 per cent in August 1982 would produce a rise in average hours worked per adult. If the increase in hours per adult is caused by falling unemployment, I’m all for it.

Likewise, if the rising participation rate since 1982 is due to jobs and hours better matching what people want, I’m for that too - even if this will also, other things being equal, raise average hours worked per adult. ABS data show that, for all working hours patterns, most employees are working their preferred hours. Of those that aren’t, more would prefer longer than shorter hours. Measured by the yardstick of employees’ preferences, these data suggest that Australia has more of an underwork than an overwork problem; and the greatest unmet demand is for more part-time and casual hours:

ABS Cat. 6361.0, table 10 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7884593a92027766ca2568b5007b8617/dcaeb99f3d00b0acca256a1e0002c0d6!OpenDocument

Overall, the rise in hours worked per adult since 1982 is smaller than the rise in participation and fall in unemployment would be expected to generate, again reflecting the drop in average hours worked per employee.

The phrase “more Australians are working, averaging fewer hours” describes these trends better than “Australians are working longer”.

Timkins, you wrote "No shop can run at a loss forever, and Australia cannot run at a loss forever either." That's not correct. Australia can run a current account deficit so long as overseas financiers are prepared to plough capital into Australia (the capital inflow balances the current account deficit). The financiers' willingness to do so depends on how they rate lending to/investing in Australia compared to alternative potential investments. The reforms of the last 20-odd years have made Australia increasingly attractive to overseas financiers. This is one reason for the unprecedented sustained growth in the Australian economy.