You Busy? Part II


Very simplified and rounded to full hour, here's how an average American age 18+ spends his/her 24 daily hours. (see the study in previous post for breakdowns by gender, employment, etc.)

Sleep: 8 hour
Personal Care: 1
Eating and Drinking: 1
Housework: 1
Food Prep: 1
Purchasing goods and services: 1
Caring for kids:2
Employment: 4
Television: 2
Socializing: 1
Other leisure & sport: 1
Not noted here: 1

Very interestingly email + phone + mail were only listed as 6 minutes daily in this 2004 study. TV time is probably getting replaced by computer time which hopefully will be separated out in the future studies.

You Busy?


FInally I've found the bomb of a resource to help determine the truth of my contention that everybody complaining so much about "being too busy with important stuff" tells you less about people doing necessary activities than about people choosing to do things they a) don't need to do and b) often do suboptimally and c) think are necessary when in fact they are simply preferences.

American Time Use Survey Summary
Technical information: (202) 691-6339 USDL 05-1766

               http://www.bls.gov/tus/

For release:  10:00 A.M. EDT
Media contact:                691-5902     Tuesday, September 20, 2005

AMERICAN TIME USE SURVEY--2004 RESULTS ANNOUNCED BY BLS

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) of the U.S. Department of Labor
reported today that in 2004:

--Employed persons worked 7.6 hours on average on the days that they
       worked.  They also worked longer hours on weekdays than on weekend
       days--7.9 versus 5.8 hours.

--On the days that both worked, employed men worked about an hour more
       than employed women--8.0 versus 7.2 hours.

--Married persons spent more time doing household activities than
       unmarried persons--2.1 versus 1.4 hours per day--and women, regard-
       less of marital status, spent more time doing these activities than
       men.

--On an average day, persons age 65 and over spent the most time--7.3
       hours--participating in leisure and sports activities of any age
       group; 35- to 44-year-olds spent the least time--4.2 hours.

This second annual release of ATUS data focuses on the time Americans
worked, did household activities, cared for household children, and par-
ticipated in leisure and sports activities in 2004.  This report also
includes new measures of time use by occupation, earnings, and marital
status.

ATUS data collection began in January 2003.  The survey is sponsored
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.
ATUS estimates for 2004 are based on interviews of about 14,000 individuals.
Respondents were interviewed only once and reported their activities for the
24-hour period from 4 a.m. on the day before the interview until 4 a.m. on
the day of the interview--their "diary day."  If respondents reported doing
more than one activity at a time, they were asked to identify which activity
was primary.  Except for secondary childcare, activities done simultaneously
with primary activities were not collected.  Activities were then grouped
into categories for analysis.  For a further description of the survey, see
the Technical Note.

- 2 -

"Average Day" Measures

"Average day" measures for the entire population provide a mechanism
for seeing the overall distribution of time allocation for society as a
whole.  The ATUS collects data about daily activities from all segments
of the population age 15 and over, including persons who are employed,
unemployed, or not in the labor force (such as students or retirees).
Data also are collected for both weekdays and weekends.  Thus, "average
day" measures developed for the entire population reflect the average
distribution of time across all persons and days.  Activity profiles
will differ based upon age, employment status, gender, and other charac-
teristics.  On an "average day" in 2004, persons in the U.S. age 15
and over slept about 8.6 hours, spent 5.2 hours doing leisure and sports
activities, worked for 3.7 hours, and spent 1.8 hours doing household
activities.  The remaining 4.7 hours were spent in a variety of other
activities, including eating and drinking, attending school, and shopping.
(See table 1.)  By comparison, persons employed full time who worked on an
average weekday spent 9.2 hours working, 7.5 hours sleeping, 3.0 hours
doing leisure and sports activities, and 0.9 hours doing household activ-
ities.  The remaining 3.4 hours were spent in other activities, such
as those described above.

Many activities typically are not done on a daily basis, and some activ-
ities only are done by a subset of the population.  For example, only
46 percent of all persons age 15 and over reported working on an average
day because some were not employed and others were employed but did not
work on their diary day.  For this reason, much of the analysis that
follows uses time-use estimates that are restricted to specific population
groups, such as employed persons or adults in households with children.

Working (by Employed Persons)

--Employed persons worked 7.6 hours on average on the days that they
       worked.  They also worked longer hours on weekdays than on weekend
       days--7.9 versus 5.8 hours.  (See table 4.)

--Many more people worked on weekdays than on weekend days.  About 83
       percent of employed persons worked on an average weekday, compared
       with 33 percent on an average weekend day.  (See table 4.)

--On the days both worked, employed men worked about an hour more than
       employed women.  The difference partly reflects women's greater like-
       lihood of working part time.  However, even among full-time workers
       (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked slightly
       longer than women--8.3 versus 7.8 hours.  (See tables 4 and 6.)

--About 76 percent of persons employed in management, business, and
       financial operations occupations reported working on a given day--a
       greater share than those employed in any other occupation.  Ninety-two
       percent of people in these occupations worked on a given weekday and
       33 percent worked on a given weekend day or holiday.  (See table 5.)

--Employed women living with a child under age 6 spent about an hour
       less per day working than employed women living in households with
       older or with no children.  Among employed men, the time spent work-
       ing did not vary by age of youngest child.  (See table 8.)

Household Activities

--On an average day in 2004, 84 percent of women and 63 percent of men
       spent some time doing household activities, such as housework, cook-
       ing, lawn care, or financial and other household management.  (See
       table 1.)

--Women who reported doing household activities on the diary day spent
       2.7 hours on such activities while men spent 2.1 hours.  (See table 1.)

--Nineteen percent of men reported doing housework--such as cleaning or
       doing laundry--compared with 54 percent of women.  Thirty-five percent
       of men did food preparation or cleanup versus 66 percent of women.
       (See table 1.)

--For men and women, and overall, the amount of time spent doing
       household activities did not vary greatly by the presence or age of
       household children.  (See table 8.)

- 3 -

Care of Household Children (by Adults in Households with Children)

--In households with the youngest child under age 6, time spent provid-
       ing primary childcare averaged 2.7 hours for women and 1.2 hours for
       men.  Physical care, playing with children, and travel related to
       childcare accounted for most of the time spent in primary childcare
       activities.  (See table 9.)

--For adults living with children under age 6, women provided an average
       of 1.2 hours of physical care--such as bathing, dressing, or feeding a
       child--per day to household children, while men provided about one-
       third of this amount--0.4 hour (about 24 minutes).  (See table 9.)

--Adults living in households where the youngest child was under the age
       of 6 spent nearly three times as much time (1.8 hours) per day caring
       for and helping household children compared with adults living in house-
       holds where the youngest child was between the ages of 6 and 17.  This
       difference was somewhat greater for women than men.  (See table 8.)

--Among adults living with children under age 6, those who were not
       employed spent about 1 hour more per day caring for and helping
       household children than employed adults, 2.6 versus 1.6 hours.
       (See table 8.)

--Adults living in households with a child under age 6 spent 4.0 hours
       per day doing leisure and sports activities.  About half of this time
       also was spent providing childcare as a secondary activity.  That is,
       they had at least one child under age 13 in their care while doing
       leisure and sports activities.  (See tables 8 and 10.)

Leisure Activities

--On an average day in 2004, nearly everyone (96 percent) age 15 and over
       reported some sort of leisure or sports activity, such as watching TV,
       socializing, or exercising.  Including the small proportion of the pop-
       ulation that reported no leisure activities, men spent more time do-
       ing leisure activities (5.6 hours) than women (4.8 hours).  (See
       table 1.)

--Watching TV was the leisure activity that occupied the most time, ac-
       counting for about half of leisure time on average for both men and
       women.  Socializing, such as visiting with friends or attending or
       hosting social events, was the next most common leisure activity, ac-
       counting for about three-quarters of an hour per day for both sexes.
       (See table 1.)

--Men were more likely than women to participate in sports on any given
       day, 20 versus 15 percent.  Men also spent more time in sports activ-
       ities on the days they participated, 2.0 versus 1.3 hours.  (See
       table 1.)

--On average, individuals spent 33 percent more time (1.6 additional
       hours) in leisure and sports activities on weekend days than weekdays.
       The biggest proportional gain was in socializing time:  Individuals
       spent 92 percent more time socializing and communicating on weekend
       days than on weekdays.  In absolute terms, TV watching and socializ-
       ing and communicating each were about one-half hour per day greater
       on the weekends than on weekdays.  (See table 11.)

--Employed adults living in households without children (under age 18)
       engaged in leisure and sports activities for 4.5 hours, about 49 more
       minutes per day than employed adults living with a child under age 6.
       Half of their additional leisure time was spent watching TV.  (See
       table 8.)

--Among individuals age 25 and older, those with less than a high school
       diploma spent 1.8 more hours per day engaged in leisure and sports activ-
       ities than those who had earned a bachelor's degree or higher.  (See
       table 11.)

--Married women spent 4.5 hours per day participating in leisure and sports
       activities.  On average, this amounted to less leisure time than married
       men (0.6 hour less), unmarried women (0.8 hour), and unmarried men
       (1.7 hours).  (See table 11.)

Almost 5000 dead and counting


No, not from the Indonesian earthquake – indeed a terrible tragedy. Global warming? Ha – not even the most alarmist proponents make this claim. Nope, not from terrorism, which tragically took perhaps 5 or even 10 lives today despite *trillions* of dollars spent fighting wars and providing security across thousands of first world venues.

Malaria killed the 5000. Today. And yesterday. And tomorrow. 1-3 Million per year with some indications the count has been historically too low on this disease.

But let's not worry about Malaria because the cost to dramatically reduce transmission is …. $2.50 for nets that protect people while they sleep. $5.50 for the really good nets that can protect people for 5 years.

More death news you won't see on CNN or FOX. Yet today (nor yesterday or the days before) I didn't see anything on CNN or FOX about this ongoing life and death battle with parasitic diseases where the death toll eclipses that of *all wars ever fought for all time*.

CNN did, however, have a long report lamenting the fact that that about 100 people per week die waiting for organ transplants. We better get to work on that, because why spend $2.50 for a net to save a kid's life when you can spend $250,000.00 giving a rich guy a extra few years?

Save the world, ignore global warming


As I noted before I actually admire and respect Al Gore for his passion regarding the environment and his sincerity about creating a better world. However I wonder if his global warming alarmism is misguided.

Here is a short and articulate summary by the controversial "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg of the view that Global warming is happening but that those suggesting dramatic measures are proposing we waste time and innovation better spent on problems we *can* solve.

Personally, I'm incredibly frustrated by how *every source I've read* suggesting global warming remedies fails to even attempt a cost benefit analysis when this should be a key concern due to the overwhelming costs associated with, for example, Kyoto Protocol implementation.

Lomborg suggests:
… in a curious way, global warming really is the moral test of our time, but not in the way its proponents imagined. We need to stop our obsession with global warming, and start dealing with the many more pressing issues in the world, where we can do most good first and quickest.

Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" suggests that many of the sacred cows of the environmental movement, including Global Warming, are supported more by political and ideological rather than scientific and mathematical motivations.

Lomborg has been villified in some scientific circles and if I can get permission I'll post some very interesting correspondence I had with the editor of Scientific American, which challenges Lomborg in what I feel are more personal rather than scientific ways. Lomborg's critics are notoriously vicious with ad hominem attacks on Lomborg rather than attacking his math and scientific assumptions. I'd suggest this is a strong indication that we should be paying more attention to Lomborg's analyses of pressing global concerns and that we should be careful to review the motivations of ALL of those involved in the global environmental debate.

Wikipedia on Global Warming – an excellent summary

EPA's Global Warming Site
Cooler Heads Coalition – industry funded I think. Note the paper about Terraforming Mars using injected greenhouse gasses! These guys seem to LIKE global warming!

Clear vs Artistic thinking


I wonder if a reasonable way to broadly categorize people's thinking is dividing folks into TWO groups?.  "Clear thinkers"  tend to apply reason, logic, and the experimental method, accept new information as it comes to them, change their mind when evidence demands it, and generally seek out information even when it contradicts their position.  

The second group is much larger and in fact more representative of the forces that shaped humans over time, and tends to think "tribally" (Groupthink, conformity, dogma, prejudices,alliances) and "emotionally".   I'm starting to call this "artistic" thinking, which is often more interested in the outcome of the analysis than the analysis itself.      For artistic thinkers facts are collected with the outcome in mind rather than to support or disprove their working hypothesis.   Focus is narrowed to those things that support the story line.

What if we all agreed for a few years to apply a combination of rational analysis, experimental method, and highly optimized government spending using things like risk and reward analysis rather than political and emotional analysis?

We could solve a lot of problems by accepting more risk/danger in areas where we now demand far too much safety or quality standards.

naaaaaaaahhhhhhhh! 

Global Warming, or Global Alarming?


Tim O'Reilly's looking forward to the upcoming film by Al Gore about Global Warming.
It's called "An Inconvenient Truth" and premiers very soon.

I respect Al Gore for many reasons, but I'm concerned by what appears to be a "propagandistic" rather than "scientific" lean to this film (this is based on clips and comments by those who have seen the film). I do not think Gore is a clear thinker on this topic and sees himself more as a "prophet".

If we focus on addressing the many global problems like health and economies of the developing world we can get a spectacular return on the investment of mental and monetary capital. Collateral advantages will be reductions in terrorism and a huge boost in good will and personal satisfaction.

Investing in alleviating human causes of global warming has no clear path to success, yet the costs are simply staggering.

Tim replied to my concerns, which I posted over at his blog. I love the internet for letting little old me, and thousands of others, actively engage with some of the world's best and brightest. Whatever one's views on the *most* pressing problems, certainly the collective application of innovation has the power to bring us the solutions.

Joe —
I see you've read The Skeptical Environmentalist. And I certainly agree with Bjorn Lomborg that there are other pressing problems where there is a great return on investment. But it also seems to me that many of the things that would be required to help with global warming could have enormous payoff. Critics talk about enormous costs, but it seems to me that the costs of the current way of doing things are always hidden.

A great example of this is railroads vs. automobiles. There's always been a huge debate about rail from the north bay down to San Francisco, with critics talking about the $150 million projected cost as a subsidy. But no one talks about the tens of billions of dollars of subsidy represented by the creation and maintenance of the highway system. Railroads are expected to carry their costs and described as uneconomic because they need subsidies, but the automobile industry managed to get much larger subsidies baked into the economy and hidden so that they no longer even appear as subsidies.

——-
I agree with Tim that some hidden economic subsidies are not always identified in discussions, but Economists do talk about and study these relationships. Unfortunately these observations are almost always buried in the politically/emotionally motivated budgeting processes. Political budgeting is not rational budgeting.

He's also right that greenhouse alleviation *might* have a big payoff, especially from things like alternative energy innovations that we might not explore unless we tackle global warming more aggressively. Still, the benefits seem so very unclear that I'd rather have the government spend my money on alleviating the abundant clear, present, and (most importantly) CHEAP-to-fix dangers like global health and poor education. (I'm against much of the excessive military and security spending as well as potential global warming big spending.)

I'd even suggest that the positive technology spinoffs from $250,000,000,000 towards global health and development would simply dwarf those from that investment in Greenhouse gas alleviation (or military or first world health care, etc, etc).

Death on Everest. Would YOU have stopped climbing to save the guy?


News Item:
David Sharp, 34, died apparently of oxygen deficiency while descending from the summit during a solo climb last week.
More than 40 climbers are thought to have seen him as he lay dying, and almost all continued to the summit without offering assistance.

Our first reaction is to be appalled at the lack of concern and I'm anxious to hear from those who passed him by to hear their rationalizations. A Semper Fi sensibility hardly seems to apply to the new Everest hiking crowd. Sir Edmund Hillary observed this in his harsh criticism of the decision to put the summit above saving a life.

YET don't we ALL do this every day when we choose to distance ourselves from far more pressing global concerns where saving lives requires nothing like the efforts needed in this case? The key difference is proximity rather than ability to help. A modest Unicef contribution is more likely to save a life than attending to an oxygen deprived climber at 27000 feet in 80 below zero weather. Yet we don't have to look the malnourished kid in the face and thus we condemn and abhor the feelings of those who passed by the climber but absolve ourselves of what are probably more justified feelings of guilt for doing little in the face of great need.

It's a cruel world, right?

Update 

Flight Health tips


This just in from that bastion of journalistic objectivity, FOX news –
Health tips for frequent (or infrequent) flyers –

Swelling of intestines means avoid overeating? Avoid junky food? [C'mon, flying's a new great excuse to nab some fast food between flights!]

Drink lots of water, but NOT from the unregulated bathroom source.

Earache? Put a warm towel on ear.

Keep babies alert during takeoff and landing to clear sinuses.*

Afrin and Claritin for adult sinus problems.
DO NOT drink the bathroom water, it's cleanliness is not regulated.

Last seat in Coach in aisle is safest statistically.

Gone Scuba? Wait 12-24 hours before flying

Book ’em!


I just read that we Americans have 1 in 136 people locked up. Right now. Incredibly, about 1 in 37 Americans have served time.  Among industrialized nations (and most others) we are the world's leading incarcerator. This is not a statistic to be proud of by any means and is an alarming indicator of an unhealthy society.

The Sentencing Project tried to answer the question "why?". This from a 2003 study comparing incarceration rates around the world:

The high rate of imprisonment in the United States can be explained by several
factors:
· A higher rate of violent crime than other industrialized nations.
· Harsher sentencing practices than in other nations, particularly for property and drug
offenses.
· Sentencing policy changes over a period of three decades, particularly the shift
toward mandatory and determinate sentencing, restrictions on judicial discretion, and
a greater emphasis on imprisonment as a preferred sanction.
· Policy changes adopted as part of the “war on drugs,” leading to a vastly increased
use of the criminal justice system as a means of responding to drug problems.

The Downloadable Brain era


Some have suggested quite reasonably that the "next" really significant step in human evolution is the computerization of our brain functions, and that we'll usher in this downloadable brain era in about 30-70 years.  

Once humans have a process to "download" our brains into machines, or perhaps simply create processes where machines have their own consciousnesses, many of the challenges facing humanity could go away – perhaps overnight.     Concepts like health, water, food, fuel, and population will change as increasing numbers of societal participants will need few resources other than enough power to sustain their electronic consciousness .

For reasons I don't understand this sounds fanciful or even foolish to many who fail to realize or acknowledge the degree to which we NOW rely on machine intelligence.   From simple calculators and spell checkers to satellite photos to internet searches and computer models of climate our information gathering and processing is enhanced via machine processes.  

Sure, the leap to conscious machines is much larger but I'd suggest it will not prove qualitatively different from the subtle enhancements machines now bring to the table of conscious thought.

I'm just looking forward to playing perfect chess games every time.