According to research by Daniel Kahneman, the Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, quoted in an article in the Washington Post, “being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things and more time doing compulsory things and feeling stressed.”
People who make less than $20,000 a year, for instance, spent more than a third of their time in passive leisure, like kicking back and watching TV. By contrast, those making more than $100,000 a year (I would call them affluent not wealthy), spent less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure. “The richest people spent nearly twice as much time as the poorest people in leisure activitities that were structured and often stressful — shopping, child care and exercise.”
In short, stereotypes about the leisure class no longer hold true. “In reality,” Kahneman and his colleagues wrote in a paper they published in the journal Science, “they should think of spending a lot more time working and commuting and a lot less time engaged in passive leisure.”
Originally from the pit at Tradesports(TM) (RIP 2008) ... on trading, risk, economics, politics, policy, sports, culture, entertainment, and whatever else might increase awareness, interest and liquidity of prediction markets
Monday, June 23, 2008
One way that being poor is better than being rich
Stress vs. leisure:
Labels:
inequality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment