[kjshsh123]

I don't really. It smells to me like the lump of labor fallacy. Labor participation results from supply and demand and it going down does not necessarily indicate less demand, but can also indicate less supply. That's what you'd expect as countries and the world become wealthier. Leisure is a normal good.

[Wilsoniumite]

That's fair, they seem similar at first glance.

The difference is that we are asking the economy to create jobs even when it doesn't "want" to. It still will, the lump of labor fallacy is indeed a fallacy, but that doesn't mean this isn't causing a lot of harm.

We aren't draining the earth's oceans (yet) because its supply is more than the earth needs right now. One day we might, but how much we draw is decided by the economy.

But for labor supply is forced, capital flows there when it shouldn't, politics chases it. The economy, ever adaptable, provides jobs where it can.

[Wilsoniumite]

I have a better response now.

The ability to take leisure is still conditioned on labor. To take time off, you have to save up. To save up, you have to work. Labor is distorting the real value of leisure if the production of that leisure needs less labor (leisure time still requires you to be fed, housed, and more if you go on holiday, travel, or consume to keep yourself entertained or educated).

[kjshsh123]

That's not a distortion, that's just what the choice is.

When a new gaming console comes out and someone works extra shifts to afford it sooner, that's not a distortion.

I think your mistake, based on how you're talking about the "real value of leisure" is thinking there is a single value of x. That's labor theory of value era thinking. There is only marginal utility and marginal rates of substitution.

Trading leisure for consumption via labor is the choice, not a distortion.