Yet many women, and some men – particularly those in low-paid and unsatisfying jobs – go out to work only reluctantly
This always amuses. Work is a cost, not a benefit. The income derived from it is the benefit, the work itself the cost that must be carried to gain the income. People are entirely rational in not particularly wanting to go to work. The lower the income resulting from it the more this is so.
It’s a nice example of how people are economically rational in fact…..and the general political discourse about economics is not. For how many politicians do stand up and insist that their plans will create many more jobs? When that’s not what we want at all, is it, the creation of more costs?
Everyday is take your kids to workday if your poor in china
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1267794/Tethered-safe-Chinese-workers-forced-tie-youngsters-work-afford-child-care.html
HB – nice related link.
And why can’t they afford basic childcare in the first place?
Because of the state, as always.
Tim,
You know that, I know that but are we being fair with that representation? Is it not just a short-hand / journalist /politician speak for “we will create more incomes”? Good economic discussion needs subtle thinking and the consideration of higher order effects but are you deliberately missing the point?
The distinction of course is crucial if the jobs are make-work schemes that destroy value or distort incentives and arguably these are usually the type of jobs politicians get pulled in to support. Is it better to high-light that difference.
“What little money the boy’s father earns goes on rent, food and health care, which is expensive despite the hospitals being state-owned in Communist China.
Unlike the state-owned NHS which is, as we all know, free.
If you would still trail into work every day without the prospect of a paycheque then it’s a hobby, not a job.