3 ms·

>someone invents a machine that does some necessary consumer-level work (say, a washing machine) and the result is not increased leisure, something is Very Wron

>someone invents a machine that does some necessary consumer-level work (say, a washing machine) and the result is not increased leisure, something is Very Wrong. Leisure isn’t free though. Increased leisure time is going to create work/spending in other areas. So you save time on household chores due to the cheap machine, that means you probably end up spending more money on your leisure activities. You buy more books, video games, hiking boots, sports gear, etc.

stretchwithme 9y ago
Or sleep. Or studying. Or taking a walk with a loved one. The point is that a lot of the benefit to us of such an innovation is not going to show up in GDP, even if some of that time is used for fun activities. GDP doesn't count increases in fun either.
eropple 9y ago
> You buy more books, video games, hiking boots, sports gear, etc. Why? I have hiking boots. They'll last me twenty years. I have more books and video games than I could ever read and play already. Why should leisure time be considered a vehicle for consumption of stuff in the first place? Self-actualization isn't reflected in GDP, and yet it actually matters.
- abalashov 9y ago
  Because capitalism. Even the mountain you hike keeps business hours, requires vehicular propulsion to get to, and charges a fee for parking. Laws and social conventions alike discourage simply standing around doing nothing in particular in most public places, and loitering ordinances sometimes expressly forbid it. There aren’t that many places to go or things to do, both as a matter of practical exigencies and sociocultural rituals alike, which don’t involve some business to transact.
- Godel_unicode 9y ago
  You're aware that your response here is atypical, and the exact kind of problem that is addressed by behavioural economics, yes? While what you're describing (using new found free time to engage in free leisure activities) is what you see as desirable, it is emphatically not what humans as a population do. When discussing macro things like GDP, the homo-economicus minimax behavior of the few is inconsequential and has no place in a discussion of what would happen. However much we might not wish it so.
  - eropple 9y ago
    OK. So let's keep going. You are correct, what I'm describing is atypical. Why is it atypical? Is it because they need more stuff? Or is it because their brains are under near-constant assault from a barrage of advertising that melts their willpower and creates a link between having a free moment to themselves and consumption, a desperate instillation to keep up with the Joneses? I would contend, and I'd fight about it, that the answer is the latter and that it is an overwhelming, brain-breaking external imposition. And it's in the service of making that particular number that's the topic of that article just a little bigger. We need to stop fucking ourselves up as people and as communities and measures that do not take that into account are bad measures that should not be fetishized. (And they are fetishized. They are drooled over. And yet nobody dies taking pride in how they made GDP bigger.)
    - usaar333 9y ago
      > Is it because they need more stuff? Or is it because their brains are under near-constant assault from a barrage of advertising that melts their willpower and creates a link between having a free moment to themselves and consumption, a desperate instillation to keep up with the Joneses? Generally, increasing incomes in developed countries lead to increased service consumption or at most indirect manufacturing. While some of this is "keeping up with the Joneses", I think a lot of it is just rational time valuing. e.g. I've found that as my income has gone up considerably in the last half-decade (several hundred percent), I am spending more - but not on buying more goods. Generally it is bucketed under: Spending more to save more time (increased value of time): * online grocery shopping * spending more to live close to work * use of more expensive cab-services (lyft/uber) rather than public transit or biking * flying direct rather than multi-stop. * Spending more on childcare to maximize time spent on more intellectually stimulating endeavors (including work) or at times traveling Higher quality: * higher end food and restaurants * more expensive travel options (distance/exotic) * larger housing units to feel less cramped that also offer time-saving amenities (in-unit laundry, gym/pool, 24/7 package delivery) I'm getting more leisure -- and directing a lot into the GDP numbe.
- coliveira 9y ago
  This is the only answer that is possible within the narrow view of capitalism. If you have more time, you should spend more, according to them, otherwise the economy will flounder. It's not a surprise then that capitalism societies strive to have most of their population earning only enough so they don't have the temptation of forgetting to spend all the money they receive.

stretchwithme 9y ago

Or sleep. Or studying. Or taking a walk with a loved one. The point is that a lot of the benefit to us of such an innovation is not going to show up in GDP, even if some of that time is used for fun activities. GDP doesn't count increases in fun either.

eropple 9y ago

> You buy more books, video games, hiking boots, sports gear, etc. Why? I have hiking boots. They'll last me twenty years. I have more books and video games than I could ever read and play already. Why should leisure time be considered a vehicle for consumption of stuff in the first place? Self-actualization isn't reflected in GDP, and yet it actually matters.

abalashov 9y ago
Because capitalism. Even the mountain you hike keeps business hours, requires vehicular propulsion to get to, and charges a fee for parking. Laws and social conventions alike discourage simply standing around doing nothing in particular in most public places, and loitering ordinances sometimes expressly forbid it. There aren’t that many places to go or things to do, both as a matter of practical exigencies and sociocultural rituals alike, which don’t involve some business to transact.
Godel_unicode 9y ago
You're aware that your response here is atypical, and the exact kind of problem that is addressed by behavioural economics, yes? While what you're describing (using new found free time to engage in free leisure activities) is what you see as desirable, it is emphatically not what humans as a population do. When discussing macro things like GDP, the homo-economicus minimax behavior of the few is inconsequential and has no place in a discussion of what would happen. However much we might not wish it so.
- eropple 9y ago
  OK. So let's keep going. You are correct, what I'm describing is atypical. Why is it atypical? Is it because they need more stuff? Or is it because their brains are under near-constant assault from a barrage of advertising that melts their willpower and creates a link between having a free moment to themselves and consumption, a desperate instillation to keep up with the Joneses? I would contend, and I'd fight about it, that the answer is the latter and that it is an overwhelming, brain-breaking external imposition. And it's in the service of making that particular number that's the topic of that article just a little bigger. We need to stop fucking ourselves up as people and as communities and measures that do not take that into account are bad measures that should not be fetishized. (And they are fetishized. They are drooled over. And yet nobody dies taking pride in how they made GDP bigger.)
  - usaar333 9y ago
    > Is it because they need more stuff? Or is it because their brains are under near-constant assault from a barrage of advertising that melts their willpower and creates a link between having a free moment to themselves and consumption, a desperate instillation to keep up with the Joneses? Generally, increasing incomes in developed countries lead to increased service consumption or at most indirect manufacturing. While some of this is "keeping up with the Joneses", I think a lot of it is just rational time valuing. e.g. I've found that as my income has gone up considerably in the last half-decade (several hundred percent), I am spending more - but not on buying more goods. Generally it is bucketed under: Spending more to save more time (increased value of time): * online grocery shopping * spending more to live close to work * use of more expensive cab-services (lyft/uber) rather than public transit or biking * flying direct rather than multi-stop. * Spending more on childcare to maximize time spent on more intellectually stimulating endeavors (including work) or at times traveling Higher quality: * higher end food and restaurants * more expensive travel options (distance/exotic) * larger housing units to feel less cramped that also offer time-saving amenities (in-unit laundry, gym/pool, 24/7 package delivery) I'm getting more leisure -- and directing a lot into the GDP numbe.
coliveira 9y ago
This is the only answer that is possible within the narrow view of capitalism. If you have more time, you should spend more, according to them, otherwise the economy will flounder. It's not a surprise then that capitalism societies strive to have most of their population earning only enough so they don't have the temptation of forgetting to spend all the money they receive.