[dalbasal]

Why unsatisfactory?

Essentially because I think Keynes (and most economists of his era) were right in their basic assumptions. If you made the average person in the 1920 10X richer, they'd have behaved much like the "leisure class" of the time.

If you ask the average person "why don't you work 65% less and chill?" most people would look at you funny. It's not a choice. I have rent, etc. A solution that relies exclusively on choice fails the smell test.

I have my own ideas about the solution, but that's besides the point. My point was that Keynes, not knowing the future, gave a more intellectually honest projection of what the theories predict than any post facto economist would have.

note: no reason to downvote a respectful, on topic comment. Asking "why not" is the whole point of discussions.

[ced]

"why don't you work 65% less and chill?" most people would look at you funny. It's not a choice. I have rent, etc.

I see what you're saying, but at the same time, at what annual revenue level do humans actually start "chilling" more and work less? 500 thousand? I'd be curious to see statistics.

Where I live (Canadian city), a lot of parents are working less, through a variety of arrangements (stay-at-home mom, consulting, part-time work, parental leave). Some of them have pretty low incomes. Society doesn't make it exactly easy, but it's certainly possible, it's just not yet the mainstream option. Social safety nets obviously help.

Wikipedia has this nice chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Heures_t... . Some countries have seen impressive reductions.

Anyway, I definitely agree with that:

A solution that relies exclusively on choice fails the smell test.

Wealth inequality, etc...

[dalbasal]

IDK really. Income correlates to a lot of stuff though, and that makes measuring complicated. A lot of high earning jobs are also intellectually stimulating, high status, high power, etc. Those are the jobs people may do regardless.

For his part, I believe Keynes asked (poor) people at what salary they would work less and also observed the "leisure class" of his day.

For my part, I think the "cost of thriving index" is a good starting point. For most people it's $X plus the amount needed to they buy a house, car, pay tuitions, healthcare, etc.. If you add up all these "basic" expenses, the "cost of thriving" has far outpaced official inflation and even median salary.