Our Things That Are Surprising To Exactly Nobody feature never quite took off but just like it's creator and George Carlin, I think it was ahead of it's time. I'm bringing it back, six months later.
A Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist (no really) decided to research how rich people spend their time and compare it to how poor people spend their time. His findings were published in the journal, Science. As it turns out, people that make less than $20,000 annually spend more than a third of their time in passive leisure, such as watching TV or just relaxing. People that make over $100,000 spend less than a fifth of their time in passive leisure but spend more time partaking in activities that are "required."
The conclusion is even more obvious remarkable . Apparently poor people that aspire to be rich people spend too much time dreaming about watching flat screen TVs, bathing in Cristal, and having threesomes with Brazilan supermodels. What they should be doing is...wait for it...
...wait for it...
...working more.
You can not make this stuff up.
"Apparently poor people that aspire to be rich people spend too much time dreaming about watching flat screen TVs, bathing in Cristal, and having threesomes with Brazilan supermodels. What they should be doing is...wait for it...
...wait for it...
...working more. "
No shit? Working more? Please. And here I am reading this at work, dreaming of making it rain at the local strip club (which happens to be a current account of mine. Expense lunch???) when I should be hoofing it out on the street, earning my keep.
Damn it, Vandelay. You wet blanket, you.
Posted by: Dr. Tim Whatley | June 24, 2008 at 02:13 PM
Guess I'm just too damn busy to check and see how rich I am.
Posted by: phil | June 24, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Now that we've established that, it only seems logical to raise taxes. "Dreaming" can get rather expensive.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 24, 2008 at 03:05 PM
Was inherited wealth included in this study?
Posted by: Dr. Strangejazz | June 24, 2008 at 03:09 PM
Was inherited wealth included in this study?
Apparently not. It's a really odd study. Not sure why they determined $100,000 per year as constituting wealth. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be making that but if you're a person whose spouse doesn't work and you have three kids and a $1500 mortgage, I'm not sure that you're looking at insane amounts of disposable income.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | June 24, 2008 at 03:26 PM
Um... I'm not entirely sure I buy the premise of this story.
Consider the average person who makes under $20k a year. They might be very young, have nobody to be responsible for, or have zero debts to pay off. I'm thinking of a 19 year old call center employee living with mom or a retired mom living with her kid. What does that person have to do in their spare time besides chill, drink, try to get laid, watch soaps, etc.
Someone who makes larger coin might be someone who makes that kind of cash because they have more needs. Kids, a home, a mother to take care of, etc.
I mean, when I was a kid making zero cash, I had all kinds of free time. As soon as I got older and made closer to that cutoff figure... there was a mortgage, swimming lessons for kids, etc.
I'd like to see the same study run controlling for age, debt and legal responsibilities (kids). I'm willing to bet that "rich" folks who are young and kidless with disposable income spend as much time on the slack as a young broke guy.
Posted by: Assman | June 24, 2008 at 04:50 PM
"if you're a person whose spouse doesn't work and you have three kids and a $1500 mortgage, I'm not sure that you're looking at insane amounts of disposable income."
That varies greatly. After taxes, a single head-of-household with 4 dependents making 100,000 should have PLENTY of dispoable income (especially with only a $1500 mortgage). Unless he and/or his wife spends money foolishly. Like going on silly Disney vacations, instead of more practical and educational trips like Yellowstone.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 24, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Like going on silly Disney vacations, instead of more practical and educational trips like Yellowstone.
Ahhhh...
I mean, when I was a kid making zero cash, I had all kinds of free time. As soon as I got older and made closer to that cutoff figure... there was a mortgage, swimming lessons for kids, etc.
Exactly. It's a ludicrous study. Maybe the WaPo is just being vague but if not, I can't believe this guy actually won a Nobel.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | June 24, 2008 at 05:29 PM
"It's a ludicrous study."
I disagree. While it certainly doesn't take into account a number of valid variables (especially debt), it does challenge two common perceptions: (1) Happiness is relative to monetary wealth; (2) The "working class" works harder.
"I can't believe this guy actually won a Nobel."
You can't? Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and Al Gore ring a bell?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 24, 2008 at 05:38 PM
Nobody making under $20,000 is part of the "working class". Instead, they are "unemployed".
Posted by: SL22 | June 24, 2008 at 09:55 PM
Happiness is relative to monetary wealth
Really? I didn't see anything about happiness. Are you equating spending more than a third of your time watching TV with happiness?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | June 24, 2008 at 10:27 PM
"After taxes, a single head-of-household with 4 dependents making 100,000 should have PLENTY of dispoable income (especially with only a $1500 mortgage)."
Klompus, you're kidding, right? OK, I live in the OC, so that may skew things a bit.
I did like the shot at Kruger though. That was great.
"Are you equating spending more than a third of your time watching TV with happiness?"
If that's what really makes you happy, so be it. Keeps you out of the way of the rest of us.
Posted by: phil | June 25, 2008 at 12:05 AM
@Vandelay
"Really? I didn't see anything about happiness."
Not even in the first sentence of the article (aka the one you linked)?
"Are you equating spending more than a third of your time watching TV with happiness?"
Of course. But it is relative to work, not to all other leisure activities.
@phil
"Klompus, you're kidding, right? OK, I live in the OC, so that may skew things a bit."
I'm not kidding (on that one). What are the majority of your expenses comprised of?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 25, 2008 at 02:10 AM
"they should think of spending a lot more time working and commuting and a lot less time engaged in passive leisure."
Commuting pays? Where, I'll move there tomorrow. Working: I suspect that would depend on your wages. You could work a lot of jobs 7 days a week and still not be able to pay the bills.
Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman has found, however, that being wealthy is often a powerful predictor that people spend less time doing pleasurable things
Is that a fucking joke?
They left out the one over-riding factor in making more money: education. Though, not that everyone utilizes their education to simply to make money. Some people use it to get into a field they actually enjoy being involved in. Work can definitely be akin to a variant form of pleasure.
But woe to all those rich people out there toiling away in a hellish spiral of self-sacrifice and blind determination. Hell, I've never seen my rich friends watching flat screens and home theaters even though they have one in every room including the bathrooms. Nor do they travel three, four times a year to remote and exotic places. Nor do they spend weekends on the golf course, tennis courts, or lounging by the pool margarita in hand.
The Nobel Prize- congratulations for being an idiot.
Posted by: Mr. Kruger | June 25, 2008 at 08:57 AM
Not even in the first sentence of the article (aka the one you linked)?
Dont you have a baby to deliver or something?
Posted by: Art Vandelay | June 25, 2008 at 09:42 AM
@Kruger
"The Nobel Prize- congratulations for being an idiot."
Just to clarify, he didn't win the Nobel Prize for this study. He won it back in 2002 for something very different.
"Work can definitely be akin to a variant form of pleasure."
Yes. So how is that such a departure from challenging the premise that happiness is relative to monetary wealth?
@Vandelay
"Dont you have a baby to deliver or something?"
Damn. You have kids. Didn't you have to spend hours (or days) in the hospital waiting for shit to happen? Or is that just me?
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 25, 2008 at 12:29 PM
@ Klompus
Expenses? Hell, mortgage, PROPERTY TAXES!! (bastards, I should get limo service to work for what they get), all the usual. Plus, trying to slam the retirement, and I have a 17 yr old giant boy (still don't think he's mine) with college in the fall. When his friends come over, it's kinda like feeding a football team. Not cheap at today's prices.
Posted by: phil | June 25, 2008 at 12:30 PM
"Hell, mortgage, PROPERTY TAXES!!"
Bottom line, if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck (or close to it) making 100K a year, you're living beyond your means (exceptions being unexpected medical, etc.).
'Plus, trying to slam the retirement,"
That should consist mostly/wholly of non-taxable income.
"When his friends come over, it's kinda like feeding a football team. Not cheap at today's prices"
Does your son go to his friends' house to eat? If so, it should even out. If not, you're getting screwed and it's up to you to draw the line somewhere.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 25, 2008 at 01:17 PM
So serious, Klompus.
Everything you say is correct, just bitching. We actually do pretty well, and have the disposable income. But, $100K for 2 adults and 3 kids wouldn't be comfy here. It would be getting by if you're careful.
As far as farming out the kid for food, it's interesting in a group of 5 or 6 kids, each family has a different sense of responsibility. I feel funny if my kid goes to the same friend's house to hang out more than they come here. A couple of them seem to have parents that are fine with that. I don't mind so much; it's cool they all like it here. I may come out on the short end sometimes, but what the heck.
Posted by: phil | June 25, 2008 at 01:34 PM
I know you're not 100% serious, phil. It was just for the sake of argument.
"But, $100K for 2 adults and 3 kids wouldn't be comfy here. It would be getting by if you're careful."
Again for the sake of argument, if by "here" we're still talking about a $1500 mortgage (as Vandelay suggested), there's something wrong if 100K is still a tight squeeze.
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 25, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Klompus, did you turn the italics on again?
My kids actually popped out like toast. My wife would probably describe it differently but relatively speaking, both labors were a walk in the park.
Posted by: Art Vandelay | June 25, 2008 at 02:20 PM
I see your point now. Mine is close to 3K, and others I know are higher, people who bought at the peak of the bubble. And pay property tax at that valuation. By "here", I was talking about the OC.
Posted by: phil | June 25, 2008 at 02:21 PM
"Klompus, did you turn the italics on again?"
Yes. I though it might put a different slant on things (no offense to our Asian readers).
Posted by: Jack Klompus | June 25, 2008 at 02:25 PM