If interpersonal consumption or leisure comparisons affect utility, the labor supply of individuals with equal levels of non-labor income should be more similar when classified by wage rank than by the level of wages. Also, if concern for relative leisure dominates the concern for relative consumption, then at a given wage level, wage rank should be positively related to hours supplied. Evidence of a relationship between hours supplied and wage rank is found, but conflicting evidence exists on the direction of the relationship. The most recent data suggest that concern for relative leisure dominates the concern for relative consumption.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrowneLynn E.“Why Do New Englanders Work So Much?”New England Economic Review (March/April 1990):33–46.
2.
Current Population Survey, March 1988 [machine-readable data file]/conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington: Bureau of the Census [producer and distributor], 1988.
3.
Current Population Survey, March 1988 Tape Technical Documentation/prepared by the Data User Services Division, Data Access and Use Staff, Bureau of the Census. Washington: The Bureau, 1988.
4.
DuesenberryJames. Income, Saving, and the Theory of Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949.
5.
DolanCarrie. “Lazy Days of Summer? No, Year Round”The Wall Street Journal219 (February 7, 1992):A4.
6.
FelderJoseph. “The Supply of Wage Labor, A Subsistence Level of Consumption, and Household Production—The Cobb-Douglas Case.”The American Economist22 (Spring 1988): 10–18.
7.
FrankRobert H.Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. New York: Oxford University Ptess, 1985a.
8.
FrankRobert H.“The Demand for Unobservable and Other Nonpositional Goods.”American Economic Review75 (March 1985b): 101–116.
9.
FreemanRichard B.“The Effect of Unionism on Fringe Benefits.”Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 34 (July 1981).489–501.
10.
HirschFred. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976.
11.
KillingsworthMark R.Labor Supply. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
12.
KinsleyMichael. “You Must Be Very Busy.”Time136 (August 20, 1990):82.
13.
KosickiGeorge. “A Note About Savings as a Nonpositional Good.”Eastern Economic Journal14 (July-September 1988):271–276.
14.
KosickiGeorge. “The Relative Income Hypothesis: A Review of the Cross Section Evidence.”Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics26 (Autumn 1987a): 65–80.
15.
KosickiGeorge. “A Test of the Relative Income Hypothesis.”Southern Economic Journal54 (October 1987b): 422–434.
16.
LayardRichard. “Human Satisfactions and Public Policy.”Economic Journal90 (December 1980): 737–49.
17.
MorganJames N.“Hours of Work by Family Heads: Constraints, Marginal Choices, and Income Goals.”In Five Thousand American Families—Patterns of Economic Progress (Volume VII), pp. 65–99. Edited by GregJ. Duncan and JamesN. Morgan. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1979.
18.
MorganJames N.The Supply of Effort, the Measurement of Well-Being, and the Dynamics of Improvement,”American Economic Review58 (March 1968):31–39.
19.
MorganJames N.SirageldinIsmail and BaerwaldtNancy. Productive Americans. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1966.
20.
PackardVance. The Status Seekers. New York: Pocket Books, 1959.
21.
SeidmanLaurence S.“Relativity and Efficient Taxation.”Southern Economic Journal54 (October 1987):463–74.
22.
SeidmanLaurence S.“The Welfare Cost of a Relativistic Economy.”Journal of Post Keynesian Economics11 (Winter 1988–89):295–304.
23.
United States Bureau of the Census.Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1990 (110th edition) Washington, DC, 1989.
24.
VeblenThorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: The Modem Library, 1899 (reprinted 1934).
25.
WinstonGordon C.“Income and the Aggregate Allocation of Effort.”American Economic Review55 (May 1965):375–85.
