5 ms·

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even

I'm not sure that this little nugget of wisdom has withstood the test of time. The average number of hours worked has fallen dramatically since the 30s[0] even as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed. [0]https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/ https://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

perfunctory 6y ago
> as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.
- logarhythmic 6y ago
  Why do you think so?
  - perfunctory 6y ago
    I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years 1897 - 18 1930 - 218 1970 - 1174 2000 - 17813 2019 - 30234 https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participation https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat... Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.
    - steakknife 6y ago
      Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event. Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.
josho 6y ago
The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.
- goldenkey 6y ago
  Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    A better economy... Please define "better".
    - goldenkey 6y ago
      Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash. The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.
      - brokenmachine 6y ago
        Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears. Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
isaachawley 6y ago
Leisure != time outside of work. If you're commuting, if you're too exhausted to get off the couch, if you're on-call and worrying about interruptions, then you're not truly at leisure.

perfunctory 6y ago

> as interest in passive entertainment has skyrocketed I would like to see some data on this. It may seem like it but I would say it's quite the opposite.

logarhythmic 6y ago
Why do you think so?
- perfunctory 6y ago
  I dunno. Here is just one random stat that came to mind. Boston marathon participation throughout the years 1897 - 18 1930 - 218 1970 - 1174 2000 - 17813 2019 - 30234 https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participation https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/results/participat... Still, would be interesting to see some comprehensive study on active leisure.
  - steakknife 6y ago
    Meh. I would bet that has way more to do with the cost of travelling to Boston for the average person around the world and the growth in prestige of that particular event. Also, athleisure is "active" in the literal sense, but is it contributing anything back to society? I guess one could argue it collectively reduces the cost of our growing passiveness. But I would argue, as someone who loves exercising, that exercise is just a video game that makes you feel progressively better the longer you play it instead of worse. It doesn't serve a broader purpose beyond a certain point of basic health, unless you are so good that other people derive satisfaction from your accomplishments (pro athlete) or you are doing it to form social connections (golf, intramural sports leagues, etc.) or like break a world record or something.

josho 6y ago

The core of it stands that 'urban populations have become mainly passive'. Perhaps I'd consider revising to replace passive with consumers. So, we've been taught and continually urged to spend our idle hours consuming. So, it isn't a surprise to me that most folks don't know any other way to spend their time.

goldenkey 6y ago
Consumption usually costs money and increases money velocity, which leads to a better economy. So it's a bit different than "idleness."
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  A better economy... Please define "better".
  - goldenkey 6y ago
    Money is worse when its velocity is low. This is associated with hoarding of cash. The world could have 10000T in cash but if no exchange happens, everyone is poor.
    - brokenmachine 6y ago
      Endless consumption is a delusion, regardless of how much "better" the economy appears. Idleness doesn't necessitate consumption, and it's interesting that that conclusion was jumped to.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

isaachawley 6y ago

Leisure != time outside of work. If you're commuting, if you're too exhausted to get off the couch, if you're on-call and worrying about interruptions, then you're not truly at leisure.