Is this good or bad for the economy?

[tomdemaine]

It's good for manufacturers of beds sheets and pillows.

[OneForTheMel]

If there is no change in the money spent (all the customers he lost go to another store, pay the exact same amount, and travel the same distance to get there) and the amount of money he loses directly correlates to the work he misses, there is no up or down side. But if this anyway decreased the total amount of money spent by the customers, the economy is being hurt.

[MrMon]

In purely monetary terms, it's a negative, as he has chosen to work less, which is a negative for the economy. But, economic decisions are never purely monetary, he has valued his leasure time more than he values the income, so one could argue in terms of total ecomonic satisfaction that the economy is better off.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
But if this anyway decreased the total amount of money spent by the customers, the economy is being hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say it does.

What should be done?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But if this anyway decreased the total amount of money spent by the customers, the economy is being hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say it does.

What should be done?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think "the economy" should be serving people, not the other way around. So I dont think anyone should be forced to do something for the good of the economy - I think that's backwards. If he wants the day off, he should be free to take it off, regardless of any economic impact.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I think "the economy" should be serving people, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

When he takes his day off, fewer people are being served.

/devil's advocate

[bunny]

I think he may be facing an ethical problem in that he is valuing his day off more than the well-being of others (which I personally think is an ethical thing to do in general). I dont think the economy is relevant though - I dont think there is any inherent moral obligation to act in the economy's interests.

[MidGe]

It is an interesting question.

I have no doubts that in most western countries the income of individuals has increased over, say the last five decades, and so has their purchasing power. From my personal viewpoint, I am also certain that this has been accompanied by a lowering of my, and most people, standard of living, albeit in a somewhat pernicious way. I measn, I realised I was working extra to buy convenience foods that had nowhere near the same taste aa wholesome home cooked fresh ingredients, meaning, I was working hard to be able, to have the time, to work harder/longer!

I am definitely enjoying a perhaps less affluent (altough that is moot, whether a car is 2 or 5 years old makes little difference, etc..) but much more satisfying way of life from my hedonist perspective. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I am somewhat understanding the goals of economic affluence differently nowadays.


I do hardly work at all nowadays. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] But I eat, drink and smoke well! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Praxis101]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think "the economy" should be serving people, not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

When he takes his day off, fewer people are being served.

/devil's advocate

[/ QUOTE ]

If fewer people are being served, the thought process should be similar, but slightly more complicated. If the competitors do a better job quality-wise and are able to add an equal value in terms of the whole economy, it is still a good thing.

It all comes down to value added. We don't have enough information about competitors to give viable, definite answer.