–by Juliet Schor , Yes Magazine,Jan 12,2012

Working fewer hours could save our economy,save our sanity,and help save our planet.

Millions of Americans have lost control over the basic rhythm of their daily lives. They work too much,eat too quickly,socialize too little,drive and sit in traffic for too many hours,don’t get enough sleep,and feel harried too much of the time. It’s a way of life that undermines basic sources of wealth and well-being—such as strong family and community ties,a deep sense of meaning,and physical health.

Earn less,spend less,emit and degrade less. That’s the formula. The more time a person has,the better his or her quality of life,and the easier it is to live sustainably.

Imagining a world in which jobs take up much less of our time may seem utopian,especially now,when a scarcity mentality dominates the economic conversation. People who are employed often find it difficult to scale back their jobs. Costs of medical care,education,and child care are rising. It may be hard to find new sources of income when U.S. companies have been laying people off at a dizzying rate.

But fewer work hours for people with jobs is a key step toward solving the unemployment crisis—while giving Americans healthier lives. Fewer hours means more jobs are available to people who need them. Living on less pay usually means consuming less,making more of the things one needs at home,and living lighter,whether by design or by accident.

Today,driven both by necessity and the deliberate choice to live simply,more Americans are shifting toward fewer work hours. It’s a trend that,if done correctly,could get us out of our current economic crisis and away from unsustainable economic growth.

Finding Time

Economists today focus solely on growth as a mechanism for job creation. But for much of the industrial age,falling hours have been roughly as important a contributor to employment as market growth.

The grueling schedules of the 19th century undermined health and prevented people from achieving what we now call quality of life. Hours of work in the United States began to decline after about 1870—from about 3,000 a year to 2,342 by 1929. In 1973 annual work hours stood at 1,887 (fewer than 40 hours per week,on average). If hours hadn’t fallen,unemployment would have grown even before the 1930s Depression.

Since the 1970s,Americans have been working longer. According to government survey data,the average working person was putting in 180 more hours of work in 2006 than he or she was in 1979. The trends are more pronounced on a household basis. Many more men are working schedules in excess of 50 hours a week. (Thirty percent of male college graduates and 20 percent of all full-time male workers are on schedules that usually exceed 50 hours.)

Not surprisingly,over the last 20 years,a large number of U.S. employees report being overworked. A 2004 study found that 44 percent of respondents were often or very often overworked,overwhelmed at their jobs,or unable to step back and process what’s going on. A third reported being chronically overworked. These overworked employees had much higher stress levels,worse physical health,higher rates of depression,and a reduced ability to take care of themselves than their less-pressured colleagues.

Doing it yourself,or self-provisioning,is now on the rise,both because of a culture shift and because in hard times,people have more time and less money.

But there are recent signs that a culture shift toward shorter hours has begun. In 1996,when I first surveyed on this issue,19 percent of the adult population reported having made a voluntary lifestyle change during the previous five years that entailed earning less money. In a 2004 survey by the Center for a New American Dream,48 percent did.

The stagnant economy,difficult as it is,represents an opportunity for expanding the norm of part-time work. In the first year of the recession,many businesses avoided layoffs by reducing hours through furloughs,unpaid vacations,four-day workweeks,and flex-time. By mid-2009,one study of large firms found that 20 percent had reduced hours to forestall job cuts.

Unfortunately,a lack of institutional support for short hours policies reversed many of those programs,as economist Dean Baker argued in a recent paper. Baker hypothesizes that businesses would provide an additional 1 to 2 million jobs a year if workers could collect unemployment insurance when they are on short schedules.

One thing we do know is that people who voluntarily start working less are generally pleased. In the New Dream survey,23 percent said they were not only happier,but they didn’t miss the money. Sixty percent reported being happier,but missed the money to varying degrees. Only 10 percent regretted the change. And I’ve also found downshifters who began with a job loss or an involuntary reduction in pay or hours,but came to prefer having a wealth of time.

Then,there is the wealth we make ourselves.  Earn less,spend less,emit and degrade less. That’s the formula. The more time a person has,the better his or her quality of life,and the easier it is to live sustainably. A study by David Rosnick and Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research estimated that if the United States were to shift to the working patterns of Western European countries,where workers spend on average 255 fewer hours per year at their jobs,energy consumption would decline about 20 percent. New research I have conducted with Kyle Knight and Gene Rosa of Washington State University,looking at all industrialized countries over the last 50 years,finds that nations with shorter working hours have considerably smaller ecological and carbon footprints.

There’s also a small but growing body of studies that examine these questions at the household scale. A French study found that,after controlling for income,households with longer working hours increased their spending on housing (buying larger homes with more appliances),transport (longer hours reduced the use of public transportation),and hotels and restaurants. A recent Swedish study found that when households reduce their working hours by 1 percent,their greenhouse gas emissions go down by 0.8 percent. One explanation is that when households spend more time earning money,they compensate in part by purchasing more goods and services,and buying them at later stages of processing (e.g.,more prepared foods). People who have more time at home and less at work can engage in slower,less resource-intensive activities. They can hang their clothing on the line,rather than use an electric dryer. More important,they can switch to less energy-intensive but more time-consuming modes of transport (mass transit or carpool versus private auto,train versus airplane). They can garden and cook at home. They can meet more of their basic needs by making,fixing,doing,and providing things themselves.

Doing-it-yourself,or self-provisioning,is now on the rise,both because of a culture shift and because in hard times people have more time and less money.

In April 2009,according to a national survey,one in five Americans said they were making plans to plant a garden that year. After the recession hit,service-oriented businesses such as salons,pet groomers,and nannies experienced a decline in business as people began doing these things for themselves. An annual expo called Maker Faire that started in California has been attracting growing numbers of do-it-yourselfers and inventors. It’s spreading to new locations around the country,and attendance has reportedly quadrupled since 2006.

True Wealth:How and Why Millions of Americans Are Creating a Time-Rich,Ecologically Light,Small-Scale,High-Satisfaction Economy By Juliet Schor Penguin Books,2011,272 pages,$16 Support YES! when you buy here from an independent bookstore.

People are returning to lost arts practiced by earlier generations—woodworking,quilting,brewing beer,and canning and preserving. They are also hunting,fishing,and sewing. People engage in these activities because they enjoy them and they yield better-quality products or products that are not easily available. Producing artisanal jams,sauces,and smoked meats,or handmade sweaters,quilts,and clothing makes these pricey items affordable.

Self-provisioning is also getting popular in housing. For example,the movement toward straw-bale homes has taken off in the Southwest. Straw-bale construction has become prevalent enough that some localities have introduced code for it,and there are even banks that lend for these structures. People are also experimenting with the use of compressed earth bricks,poured earth,“papercrete” (which uses recycled paper and a small amount of concrete),and a variety of other materials. New Englanders have revived the colonial-era tradition of community barn-raisings,only now they’re coming together to build yurts.

As failed housing markets around the country stagnate,one can expect more real estate refugees to construct their own debt-free shelter with recycled,low-cost,or no-cost materials.

Self-provisioning is also a spur to entrepreneurial activity. Most people who practice it don’t self-provide everything. They find some productive activities they prefer,are more skilled at,or can do more easily. They trade or sell what they’re best at producing. With this specialization,self-provisioning becomes a pathway to incubating a set of small businesses that will flourish as the sustainable economy takes off.

A large-scale switch to less work and more production and self-provisioning at home will require some collective solutions. We need systems that provide basic security to all individuals and families—from childhood through old age. Access to basic needs such as education and health care must be widely affordable.

More articles on how to take back your time— and share it,too.

But it’s possible for many people to take small steps—right now—toward fewer job hours and more self-sufficiency. There are challenges,to be sure,but for many,the switch from paper-pushing to gardening has been welcome. Self-providers value their newfound skills,love the chance to be creative,and are getting satisfaction and security from constructing a more self-reliant lifestyle. The ability to work for oneself is highly valued. They are nourished by connection with the earth. Perhaps most important,they are rewarded by the opportunity to live without endangering others and the planet.

Juliet Schor is professor of sociology at Boston College and the author of the national bestseller, The Overspent American. This article is adapted from True Wealth by Juliet Schor,reprinted by arrangement with Penguin Books,a member of Penguin Group (USA),Inc. Copyright (c) Juliet Schor, 2011. It appeared in New Livelihoods,the Fall 2011 issue of YES! Magazine and is reprinted here with permission.

By Willie Nelson,Reader Supported News,17 December 2011

hanks to the Occupy Wall Street movement,there’s a deeper understanding about the power that corporations wield over the great majority of us. It’s not just in the financial sector,but in all facets of our lives. The disparity between the top 1 percent and everyone else has been laid bare –there’s no more denying that those at the top get their share at the expense of the 99 percent. Lobbyists,loopholes,tax breaks…how can ordinary folks expect a fair shake?

No one knows this better than family farmers,whose struggle to make a living on the land has gotten far more difficult since corporations came to dominate our farm and food system. We saw signs of it when Farm Aid started in 1985,but corporate control of our food system has since exploded.

From seed to plate,our food system is now even more concentrated than our banking system. Most economic sectors have concentration ratios hovering around 40 percent,meaning that the top four firms in the industry control 40 percent of the market. Anything beyond this level is considered “highly concentrated,”where experts believe competition is severely threatened and market abuses are likely to occur.

Many key agricultural markets like soybeans and beef exceed the 40 percent threshold,meaning the seeds and inputs that farmers need to grow our crops come from just a handful of companies. Ninety-three percent of soybeans and 80 percent of corn grown in the United States are under the control of just one company. Four companies control up to 90 percent of the global trade in grain. Today,three companies process more than 70 percent of beef in the U.S.;four companies dominate close to 60 percent of the pork and chicken markets.

Our banks were deemed too big to fail,yet our food system’s corporations are even bigger. Their power puts our entire food system at stake. Last year the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Justice (DOJ) acknowledged this,hosting a series of workshops that examined corporate concentration in our farm and food system. Despite the hundreds of thousands of comments from farmers and eaters all over the country,a year later the USDA and DOJ have taken no action to address the issue. Recent decisions in Washington make clear that corporate lobbyists have tremendous power to maintain the status quo.

In November,the Obama administration delivered a crushing blow to a crucial rule proposed by the USDA (known as the GIPSA rule),which was meant to level the playing field for independent cattle ranchers. The large meatpackers,who would have lost some of their power,lobbied hard and won to leave the beef market as it is –ruled by corporate giants. In the same month,new school lunch rules proposed by the USDA that would have brought more fresh food to school cafeterias were weakened by Congress. Food processors –the corporations that turn potatoes into French fries and chicken into nuggets - spent $5.6 million to lobby against the new rules and won,with Congress going so far as agreeing to call pizza a vegetable. Both decisions demonstrate that corporate power wins and the health of our markets and our children loses.

Despite all they’re up against,family farmers persevere. Each and every day they work to sustain a better alternative –an agricultural system that guarantees farmers a fair living,strengthens our communities,protects our natural resources and delivers good food for all. Nothing is more important than the food we eat and the family farmers who grow it. Corporate control of our food system has led to the loss of millions of family farmers,destruction of our soil,pollution of our water and health epidemics of obesity and diabetes.

We simply can’t afford it. Our food system belongs in the hands of many family farmers,not under the control of a handful of corporations.