22 Mar 07
Slate.com has a very fascinating article on where the gains in leisure time have occurred -- turns out the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Since the left demands redistribution of income to offset economic inequality, should the wealthy demand that the poor be rounded up and forced to clean their cat litter box, change the oil in their cars, mow their lawns, etc.?
http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/fr/flyout
22 Mar 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe opportunity cost of leisure is one's wage. If this cost goes up, leisure becomes more expensive and therefore, people will work more and spend less leisure time. This is the main reason why higher income people work more hours according to classic theory. It's then no surprise that as the wage gap widens, the better paid spend less leisure time and the worse paid spend more leisure time.
Slate.com has a very fascinating article on where the gains in leisure time have occurred -- turns out the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Since the left demands redistribution of income to offset economic inequality, should the wealthy demand that the poor be rounded up and forced to clean their cat litter box, change the oil in their cars, mow their lawns, etc.?
http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/fr/flyout
An increase in the lower wages would then decrease both the wage gap AND the leisure gap. But maybe that isn't what you wanted to hear...
22 Mar 07
My basic interest in money has always been to buy me the time and freedom to live life on my own terms.
Houses and cars don't interest me much, but having the freedom to choose my own path on a day to day basis has always been paramount.
Money (to me) is meant to be used to that purpose .. to buy me free time.
Time is all we have here on Earth. I've never heard anyone on their deathbed say .. "Gee, I wish i'd spent more time at work."
22 Mar 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedSas, I know how you feel. I gave this stuff some thought for exactly
the same reason, although my girl makes less than me, but she
saves much more agressively.
I don't know if the conclusion I reached after giving it some thought
may be helpful for you, but I concluded that nothing has changed
since the cave ages. The female still has the vision of future and
seeks to 'nest' in the best way possible to secure the survival of the
offspring, while the male is happy with killing the dinosaur, bringing
the meat back to the cave, and then rest for the tremendous effort
of doing it.
Don't know if you agree.
22 Mar 07
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours.
The opportunity cost of leisure is one's wage. If this cost goes up, leisure becomes more expensive and therefore, people will work more and spend less leisure time. This is the main reason why higher income people work more hours according to classic theory. It's then no surprise that as the wage gap widens, the better paid spend less leisure time and the w ...[text shortened]... crease both the wage gap AND the leisure gap. But maybe that isn't what you wanted to hear...
22 Mar 07
Originally posted by AmaurotePerhaps, but wouldn't you agree that people today are much more productive now than they were in 1972, both at work and in their day-to-day chores? If they're more productive, doesn't that mean there is more leisure time?
This is nonsense: vacation time has been declining for years and the average wage is almost the same as it was in 1972 in real terms. For more information on this, I recommend reading Schor's The Overworked American.
22 Mar 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThat only makes sense if everyone works for the same hourly rate.
No, I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours.
You seriously think that the richest people in society are the ones who work the longest hours?
22 Mar 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterObviously the relevant estimations are when he compares employed people. If you look at table 6, the first three columns (men), you'll see that the difference in working time is not even statistically significant for the studied years before 2003.
No, I think the rich are rich because they are in the work force and work more hours. Conversely, the poor are poor becuase many are not in the work force and those that do work do not work as many hours.
And he uses inequality of education as a proxy for inequality of wages, so what you are saying is not only stupid but it also doesn't apply, because the authors assume significant differences in productivity to relate this data with income inequality.