Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As Rumsfeld once said,
It is a fascinating approach. It's where you take something and turn it upside down and look at it...

I am sure he enjoyed that approach often enough.

 There must be this approach employed somewhere in this example. They surely talk about other leisure class theory than Veblen.

The Theory of the Leisure Class

An economic mystery: Why do the poor seem to have more free time than the rich?

[...]

In 1965, leisure was pretty much equally distributed across classes. People of the same age, sex, and family size tended to have about the same amount of leisure, regardless of their socioeconomic status. But since then, two things have happened. First, leisure (like income) has increased dramatically across the board. Second, though everyone's a winner, the biggest winners are at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.

by das monde on Sat Mar 17th, 2007 at 04:48:09 AM EST
Please understand, Veblen had nothing against time off from work.  His Leisure Class was a group of people who got their social status from putting their uselessness on display.

For a further explanation:
http://www.elegant-technology.com/TVAcnlei.html

"Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"

by techno (reply@elegant-technology.com) on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 02:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I try to be a "compassionate liberal" and see appeal in that argument
[A] certain class of pundits and politicians are quick to see any increase in income inequality as a problem that needs fixing -- usually through some form of redistributive taxation. Applying the same philosophy to leisure, you could conclude that something must be done to reverse the trends of the past 40 years -- say, by rounding up all those folks with extra time on their hands and putting them to (unpaid) work in the kitchens of their "less fortunate" neighbors. If you think it's OK to redistribute income but repellent to redistribute leisure, you might want to ask yourself what -- if anything -- is the fundamental difference.

The suggestion by analogy is clearly faulty: they would take away leisure hours from the "lucky" poor people, but they would not add any leisure hours to the "poor" Leisure Class. Do they really envy leisure hours?

I have to imagine that they consider working, or rather, making money, as the essential requirement for living on this Earth. If you do not devote more time for making money, you have less rights to breath, or something.

But taken literally, can people get a high status "by putting their uselessness on display"? What is usefullness/uselessness? A lawer defending a serial killer may be worse than useless to the public, but he is extremely useful to one person (or a few). In a sense, Leisure Class members are pretty useful to each other, exchanging financial, legal, recrational and other services intensively. They do screw a pool of others to do that, but you could almost envy their level of "communal partnership".

by das monde on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 03:45:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Will score points here:

http://www.trivia-library.com/c/excesses-of-the-rich-and-wealthy-bradley-martin-hall.htm

Before sailing to England, they launched a defense in the society pages:

The soiree was actually about putting money in circulation and helping the poor, said they.

I prefer to see them as misunderstood capitalist visionaries.

"When the abyss stares at me, it wets its pants." Brian Hopkins

by EricC on Mon Mar 19th, 2007 at 02:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series