Here are a few sentences from Mike M.'s recent post: >For the neo-classicals, the "supply of labor" is for the most part a result >of the need to "bribe" workers to "substitute" work (ugh!) for leisure >(hooray!). I had an interesting experience in my class: I asked them if >they thought that leisure was always valuable --- I asked them to imagine >NEVER HAVING TO WORK and whether that would be a much better situation than >having to work and taking leisure as a break from work. Most of them argued >that if there wasn't work, leisure --- doing "nothing" --- could get pretty >boring. That "leisure" is only valuable in the context of a life involving >work. Amazing that the neo-classical textbook writers never thought of that >.. or did I miss something? I have Robert Lane's book "The Market Experience" on my shelves, but have yet to find time to read it... The blurb suggests that it deals with the issues Mike has identified... Any comments, from those on the list, about this (or other) work of Lane's? Thanks. C.N.Gomersall Luther College [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/nick/nick.html
