[roin]

Mr. Stucchio isn't the first one to present this type of argument which is explicit in that people are choosing to be poor. That probably doesn't feel right to most of us, and that's because it's ridiculous. Jamming a complex social problem into a simple economic model may be fun and even valuable at times, but only if you don't buy your own BS wholesale.

I'm admittedly struggling to understand how he's drawing this conclusion, as I think he's equating utility with expenditures? If so, this is completely wrong. Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.

But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility. Is that true? Does a poor person get more marginal value from that last hour of "leisure time" on the streets? What about poor people who go to bed hungry, are they doing that because they're rationally basking in all these extra hours of leisure time?

There are many reasons people are poor, but people choosing to be poor as an economically rational decision sounds crazy, and that's because it is. Just measure the happiness of the non-working poor vs. people making 30k, and I think you can put this one to rest.

[yummyfajitas]

Your first few thousands of dollars are used for things like food, shelter, and basic healthcare, and they generate massive utility. It isn't constant.

This is irrelevant. As long as utility is monotonic (more consumption => more utility), the conclusion holds.

But I also take issue with the first assumption, that each hour of leisure time provides constant utility.

The blog post only assumes utility is monotonic in leisure (i.e., more leisure => more utility).

...measure the happiness...

How do you reliably do that? The only thing I'm aware of which comes remotely close to this is revealed preferences.

[roin]

That is not correct. You are looking for the intersection of marginal utility of the dollars earned through work, and the marginal cost (in utility) of giving up leisure (while hungry and cold, perhaps). You are arguing that the marginal utility of those dollars earned through work are lower than the utility of that final hour of leisure.

But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.), while the negative utility is very modest when you've already used 167 of 168 hours that week on leisure.

[yummyfajitas]

But both of those utility functions have sharp curves, and those first dollars generate huge utility (food, shelter, etc.)...

The first dollars of consumption (which pay for food and shelter) have high utility. The first dollars of earned income do not increase your consumption. Work or don't work, you won't be hungry and cold either way.

Or are you trying to assert that people gain huge utility by working for no material gains?

[bonemachine]

Monotonic, shmonotonic.

You haven't answered any of the main counterpoints people have been raising to your rant so far. Trying to distract us with academic gobbledygook really isn't helping your case.