Why does labor necessarily have a disutility?

Economics Economics Questions
,
1

I’m reading through Human Action at the moment. My introduction to Austrian Econ. So far I think it’s great, most of it seems solid (though I don’t know what significant conclusions it’s leading to, but I’ll find out soon). I especially like that they did away with that silly notion of measuring utility; that didn’t quite sit right with me in econ class. The premise is good, don’t assume anything about the intelligence, or foresight, of individuals. There are a couple places where he seems to contradict this and make some presumptions about how people will act, but I’ll see where that leads.

There is however one major point of contention. It may end up being irrelevant in the end, but I thought I’d bring it up and see what people think. Mises claims, in the chapter “Action Within the World”, a dichotomy between labor that has immediate utility, and labor which has mediate utility, the only exception being that labor which man is willing to pay to perform.

I disagree with this (even setting aside the fact that he is making psychological arguments here, which, again, he said he wouldn’t do). Sometimes, when you take too long of a break from work, you become weary. You don’t like that you’re not accomplishing anything, you feel like you don’t enjoy relaxing unless you’ve done something productive. Not just something physically strenuous, but something actually productive. It’s a psychological need for people.

I think I have a more appropriate, and simpler model. Labor, like anything else, can have a utility or a disutility. It doesn’t matter what the zero line is, or if it even exists. If my job is enjoyable, it doesn’t mean I’m willing to pay money to do it, that’s ridiculous. If I enjoyed my work, and payed money to perform it, I would never have money to eat. I may enjoy performing my work, but before long, the marginal utility of a meal will be higher than that of any amount of this wonderful job. If I had an abundance of money, then yeah I’d probably be willing to pay to do it, just to pass my time productively. Thus, in a usual case, I’m only willing to take on a full time job if I get paid to do it, even if it’s something I enjoy. Likewise for a job with zero or negative net utility. The less utility in the job, the more money I would probably need for that job to be worth my time. This is why people occasionally opt for lower paying jobs.

What do you all think? Am I misunderstandnig Mises?

2

It is generally a disutility compared to the utility that could be gained by doing something else. I would rather play video games than stock shelves. This is made up for by the compensation from the buyer of the labor.

As you increase units of work, the marginal utility of the labor decreases until you have a point where the marginal utility goes to zero (at which point the employee does not want any more work) and eventually becomes negative.

3

Well that helps explain the concept of “zero utility” in my mind. It just means I have another option I’d just as well be happy doing. Thanks.

But again, going by your example. I’d rather play video games than stock shelves, but only for so long. Eventually I’ll get a headache, and want to move around, and maybe stock some shelves. If I can get paid to do it, hey even better.

If I do that for too long, sure, eventually I would come to a point where I’d rather play video games again. But there’s nothing saying that time has to come before 5PM (ie, ever actually happen). And even if it does, at some point I was performing labor that I enjoyed that I was getting paid for, which already contradicts Mises.

4

People prefer recreation to work. If you enjoy programming, for instance, you’d generally prefer to work on what you want to rather than something somebody told you to.

5

May I ask what pages in Human Action these are on? Just for clarification.

6

4th edition (pdf), p 137, “Immediately Gratifying Labor and Mediately Gratifying Labor”

7

Yes, but my point is that I could concievably still get paid to do it.

8

Yes, and in that case you’re a lucky man =0

9

The occupational landscape implies an ‘aggregate’ disutility of the occupations which exist in that occupational landscape. The actions which are “jobs” are the actions which most individuals would not want to do ‘for fun’ but would do if they were payed to do them. However, if your preferences are radically ‘different’ than the preferences of the ‘aggregate’, you may find some one to pay you to do perform and action which you would have done anyway.

Edit: I did not intend to suggest as the answer the above post.

10

The colloquial useage defines “work” or “labour” as an activity of disutility.