Index Last Week Contact DQ News Latest Issue
More 'News' From the Times Data Mine
An article by Louis Uchitelle in the October 5th issue of The New York Times explores the historic relationship between the number of hours American workers work and their incomes. The article uses data from several sources (including the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics) and the opinions of several economists and sociologists to conclude that workers work longer hours during times of prosperity than during periods of recession.
The article also superficially examines how data concerning hours worked are obtained and what such data really mean. For example, the Census Bureau's surveys ask workers how many hours they worked in the recent past. Other surveys require the workers keep on-the-job diaries. There is also controversy about the changing nature and structure of work. The article does not discuss "mandatory overtime," the reluctance of corporations and organizations to add capacity, and other possible reasons why work-weeks are longer.
According to the article, Americans worked an average of 1,980 hours per year in 1995 vs. 1,840 hours in 1982 (when there was a serious economic recession). A chart appearing with the article shows that, according to Census Bureau data, there has been a gradual increase in the number of American men and women holding full-time jobs during the past decade, with a decline during the last recession. The article appears on page 4 of the "Week in Review" section.
Pentagon Data Faulty on Some Projects
According to a front-page article in the October 10th issue of The Washington Post, the U.S. Department of Defense revealed on October 9th that some of information it provided to President Clinton before he vetoed several dozen military construction projects was inaccurate, putting the White House on the defensive and fueling calls from the U.S. Congress to reverse the President's action and even repeal the line-item veto law.
The erroneous information apparently affected about a half-dozen of the 38 military construction designated for elimination by the Administration. President Clinton decided to trim $287 million from a $9.2 billion military construction spending bill. The decison represented the first extensive use of the line-item veto authority granted by Congress last year.
President Clinton had previously stated that only projects that had not started design work would be considerated for elimination. The White House based its assessment on information supplied by the Pentagon. But on October 9th, Pentagon officials said design work had, in fact, been started in a handful of cases that that Defense Department had listed among the projects where no design work had occurred.
Several senior members of Congress were outraged by the Presidential veto, and plan to introduce legislation to restore the funding for the vetoed projects. During hearings on October 9th, senior budget officers from the Army, Navy, and Air Force seemed unaware that design contracts had been awarded and engineering work performed until they were told by senators from the affected states.
According to the article, the disclosure caused confusion and anger at the White House and undercut a presidential initiative that would make President Clinton look tough on spending. But the Administration expressed a willingness to consider restoring funding to some of the projects. The article was written by Post staff writers Eric Pianin and Bradley Graham.