The author of this article makes a rather emotional appeal, but really he's arguing against specialization of labor. Imagine if each person had to contribute their part to each thing that needs to be done. OK, so it might take 10,000 people to build the washing machines of the world, or the US, or whatever civilation we're talking about. We don't have to go down to the river to get water, we don't have to heat it on a wood burning stove, and we don't have to spend hours manually scrubbing those clothes. And because the people who do each of those jobs required to produce the washing machines are far more efficient than if each person were to build their own washing machines from scratch, the amount of time spent getting clothes clean is insignificant compared to what it would be if everyone had to wash their own clothes. And I don't think having clean clothes in our society is something for the rich. I don't really care about my appearance too much, but no matter what I look like, I can't stand not having my clothes clean!

Yes, it most definitely is efficiency. Not that having such efficiency is inherently good (or inherently bad). But most people have a tendency to use that efficiency in a way less than ideal, and then we have to turn to stuff like entertainment to fill up that free time that all this efficiency has created. But I think that's more a matter of culture rather than mere efficiency being at fault. I don't have any answers, except to say, yes, this is efficiency. Great marvels are achieved that could never be done by people working alone, and that's what makes humans unique among the animal kingdom.

Yes, specialization of labor (and the alienation that comes with it) is part of it, but there's also another issue here. How many of the people whose work goes into the washing machine are living in abject poverty? If it was manufactured outside of the U.S. (as most everything is these days), chances are high that many were.

If everyone involved were paid a decent wage by U.S. standards, would washing machines still be affordable for most people in this country? Maybe so, or maybe not. Even if they were, I doubt the prices would allow us to afford nearly as many other trinkets as we do now. If not, then the greater efficiency argument goes out the window.

Much of American "efficiency" is built on the backs of people who get no part of the benefit.

What you speak of is a different issue, and has nothing to do with efficiency. What you speak of is really an imbalance of consumption with production. So instead of washing machines selling for $300 or so, they'd probably be closer to $800. And it would probably be good for the environment because then we could go back to fixing stuff (which, at least monitarily, is less efficient because of the cost of labor here). But people could still afford stuff, just a whole lot less. I don't have exact numbers, but I imagine a very significant portion of our debt driven economy is used in buy luxuries, and if the cost goes up, it would just mean less luxuries.

I think it's as ridiculous as you do, but it doesn't make it less "efficient".

Efficiency is switching from human assembly line workers to robots. Efficiency is using giant tractors with tires 15 feet tall to dig metal out of the ground instead of paying poor miners to swing a pickaxe all day. Efficiency is automating people out of jobs. Is that good or bad? I'm not too sure either way. There's a lot more I could say debating one way and the other, but I'll just stop here and let the reader decide what they think (and hopefully respond).

If the cost goes up, there comes a point at which it is no longer worthwhile to buy from a purely economic standpoint. If we assume that time is money (which I personally believe to be a flawed statement, but I use it for the sake of argument), then the point at which it is no longer "efficient" to use the washer comes when the cost of the machine (plus the power to operate it) exceeds the value of the total time saved over its lifetime.

Using your $300 to $800 change, let's hypethetically say that the time the machine saves is worth $700. If that were the case, then it is no longer "efficient" to buy an $800 washer.

The classical definition of efficiency would be the amount of energy lost in a process. If you count fossil fuel lost in the process of washing clothes, washing machines aren't very efficient, in that they spend a lot of energy to wash a little clothes. But that isn't the point.

The more compelling question is this: where does it end. Americans work longer hours than they have in at least two generations, but as a whole we aren't any happier than generations before us. So if we're using more natural resources AND human resources, but arguably getting no return on that investment, it would mean that increased economic efficiency is actually a net loss. I'm not arguing against technological progress or specialization of labor, but at some point we have to ask when the cycle of consumption will make a return on our investment, especially in light of the fact that our energy resources are starting to decline.

The problem, bouncing, is that most people don't get what you said. You are wise enough to know that material possessions don't bring happiness. Sadly, you and I were born in a society which screams at the top of its lungs: MATERIAL POSSESSIONS MAKE YOU HAPPY!

Most people, hear that assertion, believe it, and spend their lives on the hamster wheel trying to own more and more, rather than thinking about the assertion and figuring out that it is a fundamental falacy.

To all those around us who consciously or subconsciously believe that the more they own, the more they will be happy, they do feel like they are getting a return on their investment of natural resources and labor.

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, "only a little while."

The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish?

The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs.

The American then asked, "but what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life."

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

To which the American replied, "15 - 20 years."

"But what then?" Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!"

"Millions - then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."

that story is cool, and oh so true of the american dream force fed to us. thanks for posting it, it's a good reminder to go for a walk and just chill for a bit

I'm not sure where you get the belief that we Americans work more hours now than ever before. How are you measuring that?

I know a lot more women are in the workforce now than 20 or 40 years ago and our population is bigger, so the total number of hours worked is indeed much higher.

I can't speak for everyone, but anecdotally, in my family the trend during the last three generations is heavily from more work towards less work. My grandparents on both sides were farmers, and thus worked nonstop from before the sun rose until way after dark. They had just enough time to sleep, and then repeated that for 6.5 days per week. Neither side were Adventists and neither side kept Sunday strictly, but they did take some leisure time on Sunday.

My mother is and always has been a homemaker, but my dad has been married to his work and routinely worked 60 hour weeks during most of his career.

I believe there is much more to life than work and refuse to work more than 45 hours on average per week. Occaisionally I've flexed to 50 or 60 when needed, but otherwise I stay real close to 40 hours per week--thus the 45 average, yet my comfort level and standard of living is WAY higher than my parent's.

Most of the rumblings I hear from the previous generation (not just my dad) is how my generation "doesn't have a real work ethic" and "doesn't know what it means to really work".

But yes, that is all anecdotal. :-)

I thought it was common knowledge that people are working harder and longer. Farmers are a notable exception, because they've always worked long hours. (Having spoken to people who own their own farms, they wouldn't trade it for anything in the world though.)

Other professions are quite different:

• New York Times: Americans now work 1,978 hours annually, a full 350 hours -- nine weeks -- more than Western Europeans. The average American actually worked 199 hours more in 2000 than he or she did in 1973, a period during which worker productivity per hour nearly doubled.
• NOW (PBS): "In just twenty years Americans have added an hour and a half a week — or over a week of extra work a year."
• Compared with Europe and even Japan, we work the most. BBC: 'Americans work longest hours'
• USA Today: Survey: Third of Americans are overworked (that seems like a low estimate to me)

And not only are people with jobs working more, consider the fact that in the 1950s only one person in the family worked. I'm not arguing against mobilization of women in the workforce, but I am arguing that we work too much in general.

Not long ago, France reduced their work week to 35 hours. In Germany, 30 hours is typical. Economists from the work-crazy societies of the US and UK predicted massive economic catastrophe. There were no catastrophes, but unemployment is way down in France.

The real problem is, when people realize the system is broken, they often feel (or are) compelled to overwork themselves to stay "compeditive" in the corproate environment. I think as a society, we need to re-evaluate what's important to us: is it a new flatscreen tv we won't have time to use, or is it spending time with our friends and family?

You and I agree materialism isn't the answer.

However, I do take issue with your stats. First of all, your stuff comparing us with Europeans, while interesting, is irrelevant to our original discussion. It has nothing to do with Americans working longer than Americans did in the past, which was the assertion I was challenging.

Every other stat these links refer to is the "Average American works more than they used to". That factors in women joining the workforce. So of course, as more women have joined the workforce, the average number of working hours per American has risen.

What those stats don't count is that women not in the workforce are homemakers. That is a LOT of hours worked, it just doesn't show up on a study.

I personally know of many families in which both spouses work, but they hire people to clean their house, mow their lawn, they eat out and buy microwave meals. This makes for little homemaking work when the people aren't at work. The woman in these situations may actually be working LESS hours per week than she was before, even though the government's stats claim she is working more.

I will agree that the people doing the lawncare and the house cleaning may be working ungodly hours. I'm just not convinced by stats that say, "The average American." The stats need to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison and thus avoid the issue of more women in the workplace.

Also, it seems to me that the older generations in general were big on Work, Church, and Country. The younger generations like ours believe less in the corporate structure, the religious structures, and governmental structures. While many in our generations are not as hostile to these institutions as the author of this site, we are much more interested in what is in it "for us" than previous generations. Thus, we are much less willing to make sacrifices for the company, church, or government.