How the Rich Experience Leisure vs the Poor

Is Leisure a Right or a Privilege? How Leisure Time Affects the Rich vs. the Poor
Introduction
The concept of leisure is on that has been used to measure the equity within the masses and the degree to which different classes, genders or groups share the same amount of “free” time. One of the problems with examining leisure, however, is that it is a rather subjective experience—and what constitutes leisure for one may be vastly different from how another sees it. This paper examines the issue of leisure from the standpoint of class by looking at how leisure time is experience among the rich and the poor. Ultimately it shows that leisure is not a universal concept that means the same to all people or is even experienced in the same way, so it is superficial to draw comparisons between groups or classes based on how much leisure time they have or how they experience leisure.
Equity in Leisure?
Equity in leisure is a rather fanciful concept because it is simply unrealistic to expect that all classes, all groups of people, all cultures, and all nations will view leisure in the same way. In a society that values work over leisure, people are not going to see this issue in the same light as people who come from a culture that values leisure more highly than work. As Hofstede (1998) shows, these differences are real. But it is not even an issue just on a cultural level. Even the genders experience leisure and engage in leisure differently (Codina & Pestana, 2019). From the standpoint of the rich vs. poor dichotomy, however, there are a few points that must be made before exploring this paradigm.
The first point is that class differences exist but that they reflect cultural differences at root (Hogan, 2017). How leisure is perceived by those who experience it is not going to be the same as how it is examined by those who are studying it from the outside looking in. Leisure is different for everyone: it is not a universal.
The second point is that historical shifts in culture, economy, politics, class, and so on, have impacted the way people experience leisure. As The Economist (2014) explained, the rich used to have abundant time for leisure. From Downtown Abbey to the books of P.G. Wodehouse, examples of this fact are not wanting. However, in more recent times, the tendency to work a great deal has shifted from the poorer classes to the upper classes. The work ethic has transferred from the poor to the rich in a sense, and so now it is not uncommon to find the richest people working through the weekend while the poorest indulge themselves at a more leisurely pace (Economist, 2014).
Moreover, because of cultural shifts, working hours have declined in the modern era for the working classes. The 40 hour workweek is now taken for granted, but it was never the norm prior to the 20th century. People who are rich in the 21st century—especially if they have worked their way up from nothing—all tell the same story about how they never stop working (Economist, 2014). For them, leisure is not on their radar. At least, it is not on their radar in the same sense that it was for Bertie Wooster in any one of Wodehouse’s novels. But that is a difference in culture—not class. Equity in leisure is determined not by the amount of money one has but by the frame of mind one possesses.
Is Leisure a Right or Privilege?
The question of whether leisure is a right or a privilege is a rather loaded one. The notion of human rights is still a relatively novel one in the wider scope of human history. It stems mainly from Enlightenment philosophy—i.e., Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine. They created their philosophical framework by breaking with the Old World definitions of human nature (that human nature was fallen). Rousseau and Paine put forward the idea that human nature is not fallen, that nature is good in and of itself, that all people are born free and that all people are equal. The fact that the tenets of their philosophy have been so difficult to achieve in real life suggests that the Old World had a better handle on the reality of human nature than the Enlightenment Age. Paine could not get the Founding Fathers in America to reject slavery, and for all his talk of freedom and naturalism Rousseau was unable to show that the rights of man were anything more than a novel attempt to justify his own actions in life. To this day there is no fundamental premise upon which the rights of man exist outside of the Old World framework. Thus, leisure cannot be said to be a right anymore than any other so-called “right,” which is typically just an excuse for asserting one’s will.
The fact is—and any cursory examination of human history can bear this out—that leisure is a privilege. Leisure is also in the eye of the beholder and for some it is going to be different than it is for others. Human beings have the capacity to find time for leisure in snatches—it is not necessarily something one must plan out like a two week vacation. Anyone who has been on a vacation knows the common feeling that they always need a vacation after a vacation because it really is not that relaxing considering all the work that goes into planning it, getting to the destination, taking care of everything, and so on. The same way LeBron James finds time to rest during a game even when he is on the court and thus conserves his energy for the moments when it is needed most, real people in the real world find times to take moments of leisure here and there throughout their day so that they are not burned out 24/7 (Goldman & Rao, 2011). Thus, it is not even appropriate to define leisure as a privilege because that term carries connotative meaning that suggests only the wealthy can afford leisure. Again, leisure is not going to be experienced the same universally. Hofstede (1998) shows that there are cultural dimensions to nations throughout the world and each is unique; and even among the genders, leisure is experienced differently (Codina & Pestana, 2019). Some classes or groups of people may have more time for leisure than others. Some cultures may value leisure time more highly than others as well, as Hofstede (1998) shows. But by no means are leisure experiences the same, and to argue that they should be is to suggest that class, culture, ethnicity, nationality, work, gender and sex differences be relegated to the dust bin so that all people can be the same. For a society that values diversity, progressive America has a rather peculiar fascination with insisting on equality.
Leisure’s Potential to Enable Equality in Society
At a cultural level, leisure can be a way for equality among the classes and the genders to be experienced. For instance, national holidays or celebrations in which all classes and genders partake of leisure time based around a cultural event—these are instances in which leisure and equality correlate. But to suggest that leisure can bring about equality in society across the board on a day to day level by ensuring that all people are given the same amount of leisure time is to misread the complexity of the human experience. For human beings, regardless of whether they are rich or poor in America, leisure is not the ultimate aim but rather a time for regeneration so that they can return to work with renewed vigor. Not all people are going to require the same amount of time for leisure. Some, who are devoted to work, do not even seek it.
Groups Marginalized through Leisure and Why
Nonetheless, leisure can be a significant help to people who lack it. There are groups among the poor who do not have much leisure time, including the working migrants, such as Hispanics who come to America seeking a better life. They take every opportunity they can get to work and earn money for their families and leisure is not a goal but rather survival is their main goal. This is vastly different from the rich, who view work not as a means of survival but rather as a means of adding to their wealth. For them leisure can be a distraction. For others who are rich, and who grow up rich, leisure is a way of life. These distinctions need to be made in order to see how some groups are marginalized through leisure and why.
Leisure can be seen as both a status symbol and as a lifestyle for some who are rich. For others who are wealthy it is not even on their radar. They do not vacation or take long holidays. They are dedicated to their work, sort of the way Elon Musk is at Tesla. Musk is working either on Tesla or SolarCity or SpaceX. The man does not take holidays—yet he is one of the richest men in America. On the other hand, there are some poor who work very little and their lives could be considered very leisurely even though they do not go on extended holidays either. Then there are some poor, and they can be Hispanic, white or black, who work hard just to get by. They will never be considered part of the leisurely class because they could not vacation even if they wanted to.
Conclusion
Leisure is a phenomenon that means different things to different people, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. The point is that there is no one way to examine leisure, whether it is for different classes, genders or individuals. Leisure is going to be pursued and experienced differently by all. It has always been that way and, furthermore, it will always be that way in spite of cultural changes over time. More leisure time does not necessarily make people more or less happy.
Discussion Post
Introduction
My paper discusses leisure from the standpoint of the rich vs. the poor and how leisure impacts both. The research shows that leisure is not experienced in the same way by anyone but rather that some people pursue whereas others do not. This is true regardless of class. Even gender distinctions play a part in terms of how leisure is thought of. Ultimately leisure is an outcome of culture rather than a stipulation of equality in society.
Sources
Sources of information chosen for this research include the article by Codina and Pestana (2019) which shows that leisure is not a universal and the article by the Economist (2014) which shows that the poor have more leisure time than the rich in many cases but that it does not necessarily lead to more happiness.
Methodology
The method used for finding information was to search Google and Google Scholar for articles.
Major Findings
Major findings were that there is no one way that the rich and the poor experience leisure. Leisure is not something that gives happiness across the board. People determine their own leisure and pursue it according to their parameters and culture.
References
Codina, N., & Pestana, J. V. (2019). Time Matters Differently in Leisure Experience for Men and Women: Leisure Dedication and Time Perspective. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(14), 2513.
The Economist. (2014). Why The Rich Now Have Less Leisure Time Than The Poor. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rich-now-have-less-leisure-time-than-the-poor-2014-4
Goldman, M., & Rao, J. M. (2011, March). Allocative and dynamic efficiency in Nba decision making. In In Proceedings of the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference (pp. 4-5).
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture: Disentangling the concepts. Organization studies, 19(3), 477-493.
Hogan, D. (2017). Education and class formation:: the peculiarities of the Americans. In Cultural and economic reproduction in education (pp. 32-78). Routledge.