Skip to main content

Leisure Economics

This graph regularly comes up in introductory Economics textbooks.
source: Wikipedia
The idea is to divide the economic agent's 24 hour day into time spent on leisure and time spent on work.

The assumption that most textbooks make here is that leisure is simply "achieved". This is true for some forms of leisure, such as sitting. But sometimes, it takes hard work to play hard.

Fencing, chess, music, snowboarding . . . all the best forms of leisure require introductory lessons and hours of practice. Of course, it could be argued that preparation is an entertainment in its own right. But hardly anyone will not feel disappointed when they do not get to take part in an activity after all the preparation. Thus preparation is fundamentally different from leisure. Neither is it labor, for it does not generate income.

The most rudimentary forms of leisure (such as sitting on the floor) are simply achieved without preparation. Higher forms of leisure require preparation time, but this type of leisure is likely to get the economic agent on a higher indifference curve.

This theory on leisure can help explain why people choose different hobbies. It also explains why some people choose to stay single (instead of spending time pursuing a relationship), why some people never bother to learn new hobbies, and why some people choose not to go to parties, even if they would enjoy it. This detail is omitted in Microeconomic theory; adding it would do much to explain all the choices that people make. It would also show how much people are willing (or unwilling) to dedicate their time in pursuit of leisure.

Comments

  1. Hajong LeeMay 13, 2017 at 9:58 AM

    Last paragraph. Korean society, again and again. And as for the graph, I would place Koreans on the y-axis.

    Fencing doesn't seem so exciting. But like real swords and all that game of thrones arya's sword dancing and stuff. That I'd learn. Inside all of us, we want to know how to yield swords. Just think about all those times we swung broom sticks and rolled up newspaper.

    Chess. Love it. Wish I was better.

    Music. Music is just. Music.

    Snowboarding. Why hadn't I discovered this sooner.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Breaking Rules

Rules are great. They provide justice, order, and stability. But must they always be followed? If not (and one would think not), which  rules can be broken, and when? The Sufficient Conditions for Rule Breaking But what about rules that do make sense—ones that serve a good, clear purpose? When can they be broken? It is not possible to consider every possible scenario regarding each rule, so here is a "Rule for Breaking Rules": When the purpose of the rule is understood, and when breaking that rule does not go against its purpose, the rule can be broken . Here are some examples worth considering. Jaywalking The main purpose of traffic lights and other traffic laws is safety. Jaywalking is morally acceptable when a pedestrian, on an empty street, for instance, correctly judges that it is safe enough to cross. In undeveloped Chinese cities, traffic lights are ignored, so attention must be paid more to oncoming vehicles than to the traffic lights. Waiting ...
3 comments
Read more

Rationally Gifting

Mainstream economists have argued that because people know their own preferences, gift giving is irrational. Behavioral economists have countered by claiming that gift exchanges can strengthen social bonds as well as make both members of the exchange feel better than they would have, had they purchased items on their own. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler added to this argument stating that because people mentally divide their budget up into categories, such as 10% for clothing, a nice shirt that exceeds that mental budget is of immense utility. Behavioral economists give quite convincing arguments. But would there be reasons for exchanging gifts even if everyone was perfectly rational? There would be if information was incomplete. Specialization makes gift giving rational. Because it is impossible to know about every market in expert detail, people often make choices that are suboptimal. When a sommelier gives a bottle of wine, the receiver is not only given a gift; he is given pr...
Post a Comment
Read more

Getting Economists to Vote

The Freakonomics guys summed it up well: "... voting exacts a cost -- in time, effort, lost productivity -- with no discernible payoff except perhaps some vague sense of having done your 'civic duty.' As the economist Patricia Funk wrote in a recent paper, 'A rational individual should abstain from voting.'" -excerpt from a New York Times article This is unsettling, because many people consider the economic policies of candidates to be of the utmost importance. (According to the Chosun Ilbo article written on May 4th, 2017, polls revealed that economic growth policy was the most important factor of the 2017 Korean elections, at a rate of 28.5%. Policies regarding job creation came in second place, at 18.8%.) What to do, when the people who allegedly know the most about the economy take no part in shaping it? Surely, this major problem is difficult to remove without hurting democracy. Perhaps, then, hurting democracy is the best way to solve thi...
1 comment
Read more