Basic HTML Version
34
is being seriously contemplated by many
large industries.
What is replacing time formerly
spent in productive labor? The tele–
vision set, for one! The man-hours
spent each week in front of the tele–
vision in America already surpass the
weekly output of all productive labor by
at least 27% (2,600,GOO,OOO man hours
more before the television than the total
spent in productive labor) .
And even less time on the job is a
continuing goal. A 30-hour workweek
is predicted for the near future. And
even the 30-hour workweek is, accord–
ing to sorne estimates, too high.
One chairman of a leisure gr0up pre–
dicts, "within the century Americans
probably will bave the choice of one of
the following:
A- Working 22 hours a week.
B - Taking 25 weeks of vacation a
year.
C - Retiring at 38 years of age."
Meanwhile in Britain, the future
tycoon will work 20 hours a week or
6.ve days at four hours per day! This
prediction is not for sorne distant date
way off in the future, but for sometime
within the next 20 years!
This will mean more tin1e for
"holiday."
What the Experts Say
But even today, sorne experts tell us,
"Americans have more time to kill than
they spend working." One executive
director of a recreation association said
that the spare time per person now fig–
ures out to about 2229 hours a year.
That's more than 40 hours a week.
"In a lifetime," this executive said,
"we have 22 more years of leisure time
than our great-grandparents had."
Meanwhile, economist Marion Claw–
son estimated Americans will have
a total of 660 billion more hours of
leisure in the year 2000 than in 1950.
Dr. Clawson did not say 660 million,
but 660 billion, a tntly astronomical
figure.
He was immediately challenged by
another economist who termed the estí–
mate "absurdly low," and who daimed
that, in fact, "the U. S. faces such an
explosive increase in leisure that within
The
PLAIN TRUTH
a mere 10 years we may have to keep
the unemployed portion of our popula–
tion under more or less constant sedation
unless we guickly figure out something
better for them to do. .. ."
One mathematician went so far as to
say, "the day is coming when 2% of
our population, working in the factory
and on the farm, will be able to pro–
duce all the goods and food that the
other 98% can possibly consume, that
this day wiU arrive no later than 25
years from now, and more likely it will
arrive in about
lO
years."
However fanciful sorne of these pre–
dictions may
be,
one central fact is
clear. The majority of people are work–
ing less on the job and playing more.
Of course, recreation is necessary to a
balanced life. And work on the job is
11
Many a man th inks he
is buyi ng plea sure ,
when he is really sell–
ing himself to it.
11
Benjamin Franklin
not necessarily the only work a person
needs to do. Repairing one's home is not
necessarily play.
Following this reasoning, sorne
experts like Sebastian de Grazia, a Rut–
gers University professor, and author of
the monumental volume,
Of Time,
W
ork
And
Leism·e,
daims that much
"free time" is not necessarily "leisure
time." He purports we have little more
leisure today than we have ever bad.
Tbe Leisure Industry
Semantic controversy as to whether we
have more "free time" or less "free
time" doeso't seem to be bothering the
leisure industry.
It
is growing by leaps
and bounds. Although it is impossible
to accurately roeasure the dimensions of
tbe "leisure-time industry" it
is
in
any
terms gargantuan. Depending on what
is included, the estimated leisure indus–
try income ranges from $50 bíllion to
$150 billion annually.
The best estimates put it at
$90
bil–
lion for 1970 and a projected income of
over $99 billion fvr 1971. If laid end to
end, these dollars would stretch over
May 1971
9300 miles - enough for three paper
ribbons from New York toLos Angeles
or 25 from London to Glasgow.
Projections for 1975 are $250 billion
for the leisure industries. Sometime in
the 70's the leisure market
is
expected
to outpace the growth of our economy.
This may well be. For last year the leis–
ure industry was the fastest growing
business in America.
More money is poured into recreation
than into any U. S. social service.
Sixty-five billion is spent on medica!
health. For education, both state and
federal, $40 billion is spent. Old age
assistance and Social Security account
for another $35 billion. Each of these
amounts pales before the 100 billion
dollars speot on recreation. In fact,
Americans spend about the same num–
ber of dollars for recreation that they
spend for food.
And leisure, free time and recreation
are becoming iocreasingly
more impor–
tan/
to Americans.
For a price one can even go to a new
organization in Los Angeles called
''Constructive Leisure" and find out
how he can get more "pleasure" out of
his "leisure." This organization is
grounded on two premises: that the
average man or woman has 25 hours
of leisure time weekly ... s.oon pre–
dicted to rise to 35 hours weekly; and
that at least 30% of this West Coast
city's population are "unbappy" with
how their free time is spent.
But
why
are tbey unhappy? Isn't hav–
ing
more
leisure time the goal?
There
is
a reason why more Jeisure is
not bringing expected happiness. Max
Gunther in his book,
T he
W
eekender.r
(the title reveals the subject he stud–
ied) put it this way: "the magic aura
of good living eludes people tod:1y,
the evidence doesn't show that their
problems can be solved automatically by
lengthening the span of their workless
time.
The problems have the;,· roots
elsewhere."
It has to do with a feverish desire for
escape
f.rom the responsibilities and
problems of life. But Americans and
Britons are not the only ones who have
been eotangled in escapism. Every great
nation - sooner or later - has fallen
(Contintted
012
page 41}