Running head: LEISURELY LABOR 1

Leisurely Labor:

The Value of Time Spent at Work

Kenneth Alan DeJohn

LEISURELY LABOR 2

Leisurely Labor: The Value of Time Spent at Work

The wealth and socioeconomic status of individuals has historically predicted the amount

of time they spend on leisure, relative to that on work; poor folks worked lengthy days, while

rich persons enjoyed everlasting exploit. Presently, however, titans of industry lavish in their

labor, and substitute time-off with overtime to effectuate championship in (ostensibly) zero-sum

market competition. Similar to the increasing trend of bringing work home, some find their

office to be more acquainting, involving, and exciting than typical places of leisure. In addition,

the effect a high income is satisfaction with work-product, and hence achievement of a work-life

balance, which positions agents to require relatively less downtime—thereby substituting work

for leisure. The income effect, too, applies to lower-wage earners; for example, factory workers’

labor is neither emotionally nor psychologically satisfying, so they still desire enough income to

sustain adequate time for leisure. But, when workers feel connected and valued in their work,

they gravitate toward feelings of satisfaction, as though they do not require as much time for

leisure. When wealthy individuals have finite numbers of hours within which to balance work

and leisure, and choose the former, they recapitulate traditional notions of affluent agents

shirking professional obligations and choosing to vacation ad infinitum. The occasion of labor

thus elevates to an experience in the arts, science, humanities, and other disciplines.

Cassar and Meier (2018) identify sources of meaning from work, such that a competitive

market may serve as the representative framework for agents’ intrinsic motivating factors of

meaning in life, blurring the lines between work and leisure, especially in the context of

nonmonetary incentives (p. 216). The nexus question of spending time on leisure versus labor is

grounded in rational decision-making and cost-benefit analysis. Mapira, Gerald and Enerst

(2017) analyze differentials, such as unemployment, legislation limiting numbers of hours that
LEISURELY LABOR 3

can be spent at work, and harsh occupational dangers, which influence agents’ choices on their

use of time to achieve optimal utility in balancing leisure and labor (pp. 1, 2, 4). Agents with

high income and therefore highly particularized skill sets, relish a broadened scope of leisurely

activity. Wealthy individuals suffer employment not merely for income or extravagant vacations,

but for purposes more typically fostered in leisure: agency, autonomy, and meaning—purposes

contextualized to self-determination theory (Cassar & Meier, 2018, p. 216). Time spent fulfilling

these purposes offsets time forsaken for substitution of leisure with rewarding, esteemed, and

cerebral modalities of labor. Hence, the income effect and substitution effect have canceled each

other out over the past century, when conditions have been such that leisure has not borne any

statistically significant increase (10%) compared to wages (820%) per capita (Ramey & Francis,

2009, pp. 215, 189). The twenty-first century is likely to witness further maturations of this

phenomenon, which portends a blending of leisure and labor into a new paradigm of utility.

Labor has so become leisurely: Exploits of twentieth-century leisure now are reflected in

modern vocational requirements. Today’s business tycoons do not merely take their work home;

they live, labor, and love, at the office. Scholarship on this subject is likely to evolve toward

consideration of leisurely labor in upper-middle class households in addition to individuals, a

nuanced development to labor-leisure time measurement (Ramey & Francis, 2009, p. 215). It is

no wonder that Ramey and Francis (2009) observed so few conclusive data on trends of

categorical time usage relative to work hours—given the extent that demarcations between work

and leisure have become imbricated, obfuscated, and obviated in economics research (pp. 189,

190; Mapira et al., pp. 3–4). Such represents a limitation to the current matter under study as well

as an area for further research, such as a meta-analysis on the aforementioned categories of time

expenditure.
LEISURELY LABOR 4

References

Cassar, L., & Meier, S. (2018). Nonmonetary incentives and the implications of work as a

source of meaning. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 215–238.

doi=10.1257/jep.32.3.215

Mapira D, Gerald G, Enerst MC. (2017). Factors affecting labour and leisure time decision:

evidence from small and medium enterprises in Masvingo Urban. Journal of Business &

Financial Affairs, 6(253), 1–4. doi: 10.4172/2167-0234.1000253

Ramey, V. A., & Francis, N. (2009). A century of work and leisure. American Economic

Journal: Macroeconomics, 1(2), 189–224. doi: 10.1257/mac.1.2.189