Something more fundamental about our present economics may be at the heart of it here.... I'm no economist, but with expanding technology (Capital), diminishing demand for Labor could make for a mass prisoner's dilemma of sorts. Employees everywhere have such little negotiating room due to increasing job scarcity that they have to compete on hours worked and can't "cooperate" by working less. This seems to even hold true at the national level -- France has managed to keep most players "cooperating" (working fewer hours) but the country's economy has suffered in the global competitive landscape.
Another way to look at it could be more polarizing. The best of the new white collar class (engineers, entrepreneurs, executives, etc) has each unit of labor multiplied so significantly by the internet that there is tremendous incentive to work a lot. On the flip side, the blue collar of today -- those mentioned as call center workers, filing clerks, etc -- are just warm-blooded, more versatile machines, doing noncreative work of too little value to be worthwhile without long hours.
But we want 2013 healthcare, which is far more labor intensive. I have a herniated disk. In 1950, a doctor would spend an hour telling me I'd have to live with back pain for the rest of my life. In 2012 many doctor hours were spent on my MRIs and laparoscopic surgery. Net result is that my deadlift is now about 285 - nothing impressive, but not possible in 1951.
So the short answer is that including healthcare, we work more because we want more. Many of the things we want more of require more labor in 2013 than in 1950.
Or is it more likely that the cost has sky-rocketed out of proportion with the quality of health care (in this country or in the world) with no good reason?
The ultimate question; are you willing to give up medicine invented since 1950 in return for paying 1950's prices? I'm not.
$1 in 1970 is worth $6.02 in 2013.
I would say it would be difficult to get the same quality as you had in 1970 as health regulations have increased so it would be rather difficult to get an estimate if you could actually get the 1970 cost.
Which "health regulations" have increased the "quality" of treating a basic non-compound leg fracture since 1970? And which "health regulations" does the US alone have that uniquely increase its costs?
I think that the key explanation is very simple - our expectations increase with our income, creating a ratchet of consumption. There is a very good body of research showing that people feel the benefit of increased consumption only briefly, and that they feel the effects of a loss far more acutely than the effects of an equivalent gain. We also tend to value our relative status far more highly than our absolute status - "keeping up with the Joneses" is a very powerful drive. We tend to feel worse about ourselves if the people around us are becoming relatively wealthier, even if our absolute living standards have not diminished at all.
The great post-war promise of the leisure society could easily be realised if we maintained post-war standards of living. It's not very expensive to live in a small house without central heating or A/C, to eat fairly humble food and rarely eat out, to replace clothes and household goods only when they wear out etc. I know of a great many hackers and artists who have made that choice, but they are very much in a minority. Most people would far rather work >~40hrs a week and benefit from the increased purchasing power. Frankly, I think that most people wouldn't gain any real life satisfaction from extra leisure time - fully half of the average American's leisure is taken up with television viewing.
Now, with the benefits, like social flexibility, life expectance, and, sure, better medicine (that comes with a cost), we all live longer, entering decades we have no idea what is going to be of us. So, uncertainty, make we work harder.
Ps: as a non-native english speaker, it was very hard to deal with all those different verb tenses. I hope people can understand it...
I find myself fighting between that happy/relaxing fantasy world, and the other side which is a goal/dream to go big with a project. Though I guess there is a 3rd side which is work your ass for a company making a good salary to support yourself later, should you be injured or retired.
Anyway, I've always believed in work smart over working hard, but I think the 'work hard' mentality will take a while to shake off... but eventually robots/machines WILL do most everything and we just won't need to be employed (or everyone will have to know engineering?).
Yeah, even now I'd say working is essentially about making more money than the government will give to you through welfare programs. When/if welfare payouts increase or a basic universal income is implemented there will be less demand for jobs and people from all classes will actually begin choosing whether to work or not. I think it will be a long time before basic incomes are implemented or welfare is increased in the US though.
I think the main factor is that we both do more (waste time and push paper/design etc) than in the past thanks to computers. Also, many jobs are simply a function of population size, more people = more emails to send, calls to take etc.
I think if you want part time work in the UK it is easy enough to come by (engineers at many companies I know can go part time until management level if they wish) but there is a growing trend of only part time positions becoming available in some sectors and you either have to like it or lump it sadly.
Note that this holds even though (or in addition) the cost of healthcare per person in the US seems to be slightly higher than on average in the western world.
Try "considerably higher than on average in the rest of the world": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_heal...
I also think it is deeply engrained in our instincts that idleness is bad. If we don't keep reasonably busy in ways that result in feelings of accomplishment, we eventually become unhappy and depressed. We as a species are driven to work, as it has always been necessary for our survival.