IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/2800.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shirking or Productive Schmoozing: Wages and the Allocation of Time at Work

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel S. Hamermesh

Abstract

Major strands of recent macroeconomic theory hinge on the relation of workers' efforts to their wages, but there has been no direct general evidence on this relation. This study uses data from household surveys for 1975 and 1981 that include detailed time diaries to examine how changes in the use of time on the job affect wages. Additional time spent by the average worker relaxing at work has no impact on earnings (and is presumably unproductive). Additional on-the- job leisure does raise earnings of workers whose break time is very short. Only among union workers, for whom additional leisure time (in unscheduled breaks only) appears productive, does this pattern differ. The results suggest that further growth in on-the-job leisure will reduce productivity (output per hour paid-for), that monitoring workers can yield returns to the firm, but that entirely eliminating breaks is counterproductive.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1988. "Shirking or Productive Schmoozing: Wages and the Allocation of Time at Work," NBER Working Papers 2800, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2800
    Note: LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w2800.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alan B. Krueger & David Schkade, 2008. "Sorting in the Labor Market: Do Gregarious Workers Flock to Interactive Jobs?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    2. repec:wsi:jdexxx:v:22:y:2017:i:02:n:s1084946717500108 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Robert Tuttle & Michael Garr, 2009. "Self-Employment, Work–Family Fit and Mental Health Among Female Workers," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-292, September.
    4. Derek C. Jones & Srecko Goic, 2010. "Do Innovative Workplace Practices Foster Mutual Gains? Evidence From Croatia," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp993, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    5. Earle, John S. & Sakova, Zuzana, 1999. "Entrepreneurship from Scratch: Lessons on the Entry Decision into Self-Employment from Transition Economies," IZA Discussion Papers 79, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    6. James R. Spletzer & Katharine G. Abraham & Jay C. Stewart, 1999. "Why Do Different Wage Series Tell Different Stories?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(2), pages 34-39, May.
    7. repec:pri:cepsud:139krueger is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Harley Frazis & Jay Stewart, 2010. "Why Do BLS Hours Series Tell Different Stories About Trends in Hours Worked?," NBER Chapters,in: Labor in the New Economy, pages 343-372 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Daniel Hamermesh, 2009. "It’s Time to “Do Economics” with Time-Use Data," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 65-68, August.
    10. Fidan Ana Kurtulus, 2011. "What Types of Diversity Benefit Workers? Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Co-Worker Dissimilarity on the Performance of Employees," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2011-11, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    11. David L. Dickinson, 2006. "Work effort effects in the classical labor supply model," Working Papers 06-13, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    12. Harley Frazis & Jay Stewart, 2009. "Comparing Hours per Job in the CPS and the ATUS," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 191-195, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:2800. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: () or (Joanne Lustig). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.