Monday, September 5, 2011

On Labor (on Labor Day)

In honor of Labor Day, here is my version of the textbook discussion of the labor-leisure tradeoff. The most standard operating assumption is that time at work is a bad while time off work (Leisure) is a good. Why spend time at work? Because getting paid allows you to consume stuff you like, of course! In other words, we can describe the labor-leisure tradeoff by assuming that there are two goods: Consumption and Leisure.

For a guy who makes $10/hour and has 24 hours in a day, the leisure-consumption budget constraint connects the points (24 hours, $0) to (0 hours, $240). A utility-maximizing worker might pick a point like (16, $80). As we see in standard microeconomics, the graph looks like this:



Of course, the world is more complicated than this picture (even for hourly workers who have absolute discretion about how many hours they work per day; an implicit assumption we are making here). A simple modification is to introduce time-and-a-half overtime for workers who work more than 8 hours / day.

In this event, (24 hours, $0) is still affordable; So is (16 hours, $80). But, the budget constraint becomes steeper at (16, $80). The simplest way to see this is to imagine how much consumption the worker could afford if he spent all 24 hours working. The first 8 hours nets $80 (10*8); the next 16 hours nets $240 (15*16). Hence, the new graph would look like this:



For a worker like the one I have depicted in this post (someone who optimally chooses 8 hours of work), time-and-a-half overtime will unambiguously lead the worker to work more. In this example, it is also unambiguous that the worker will have greater utility.

There is a lot more to the labor-leisure tradeoff, but this is a fun starting point and an interesting model.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please feel free to share your ideas about this post in the open forum. Be mindful that comments in this blog are moderated. Please keep your comments respectful and on point.