Remix.run Logo
azan_ 5 hours ago

No, I think considering only employed people is dishonest, there’s zero reason to do so. And if graph becomes flat then obviously assumption that high income people have more time is not true

swiftcoder 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If you want to make that argument, then we have to discuss whether those people choose to be underemployed, or are in that state due to fiscal policy that explicitly aims to prevent 100% employment

azan_ 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In the context of this discussion not at all - the comment I was replying to hinted that perhaps benefits from 30 min in sauna might be due to confounding stemming from time availability. Also all I'm saying is that poorest people (bottom 10%) generally have more free time than richest people (top 10%). I'm not discussing why, if it's system failure, their choice or anything else and I don't know why should I? Would this discussion somehow change how much free time each decile has? Of course not.

calf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't get how you have considered all these details yet didn't try to steelman the "hint" better, e.g. 30 minutes of relaxed meditation compared to 30 minutes of sauna usage, as opposed to some vague definition of "do nothing" and whether different social classes effectively have very different baselines of doing nothing, such as their stress levels, does playing golf count as free time, or sunning on the deck of a cruise ship is that "doing nothing", etc. at which point the discussion about confounders really gets in the weeds. Unlike CPUs human in/activity is not like a no-op instruction

azan_ an hour ago | parent [-]

You can read the reports and then you will know what counts as a free time, it's clearly defined. Note that I'm not saying that socioeconomic status might not confound results - I'm just saying that available free time most likely does not and that poorest decile generally has much more free time than richest decile. I don't get why is it so hard to accept?