[extropy-chat] The end of work, the leisure society, and automation

[Robin Hanson]

On 12/14/2003, Spike wrote:
> > ... it turned out that people didn't want to use their higher
> > income for more leisure time. Rather they wanted more stuff.
> > So they kept working
>
>Good thing too, eh?  The profitability of a worker goes up
>as that worker spends more time at the office, for a lot of
>reasons.  Much of the overhead associated with a worker, such
>as the health care benefits, only need to be paid once regardless
>of the amount of time spent.  Furthermore, a worker who is always
>at the office tends to get more involved in the program, since
>that becomes her life.
>If everyone started slacking off, our cool stuff would be
>much more expensive too, so not only would we have less money
>but it would buy less, and lots of businesses would go under.  So:
>Work is gooood, friends!  Its goooood for you, its good for
>all of us. ...

This is a confused description of labor economics.  There is probably
an innovation externality - the more you innovate, the better off we
all are because you cannot appropriate the full value of your innovation.
But your arguments about spreading overheads out and being more involved
are bogus - in a competitive labor market you should get all of those
benefits for yourself; they don't help the rest of us.








Robin Hanson  rhanson at gmu.edu  http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326  FAX: 703-993-2323