I am not sure there is an institutional or global solution. But I am also not convinced it is an institutional or global problem. There are certainly individual solutions—accepting a different standard of living in exchange for fewer working hours, selecting careers which have better working hours—but I have trouble envisioning a global change (short of a cultural attitude shift) which would "solve" this "problem".
back
1 comments
Sorry, tragedies of the commons don't have individual solutions. If everyone else is overfishing the common supply, you overfish as well, or go out of business. If everyone else is using performance enhancing drugs, you use them as well, or drop out. If everyone else is working 80 hour weeks and thus bidding up the price of houses, you do the same, or you can't buy a house. These things are very well studied in game theory, and I wasn't kidding when I said the only solution is centrally enforced precommitment.
You are equating basic competition with the tragedy of the commons. Even if it were a zero sum game (which it is not) it still would not be an example of the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy of the commons is when individuals have the option to consume, but do not have to bear the cost. They then choose to over-consume because they have no incentive not to. In your example the people who work 80 hours to afford a house, have to work 80, thus bearing the cost themselves.
Individual liberty may be a resource being depleted by an emergently enforced necessity to work.
Is this issue really a tragedy of the commons though? What resource is being depleted?
The market value of labor, relative to other goods.
Also see the book "Two-Income Trap", it basically describes how households didn't become better off from making both partners work, because that just bid down the price of labor relative to housing and education. Everyone ended up in the same position as before, but now they work 2x more and cannot opt out. Also the non-working partner in the family provided a safety net because they could start working if things got rough, and now that safety net is gone.
> Everyone ended up in the same position as before, but now they work 2x more
Surely the extra people working produced more output (e.g. ~twice as many bugs fixed/year or ~twice as many new anti-cancer drugs/year). Supply of some things would remain constraint and their prices would be bidden up, but many others would have their supply increased and prices could even fall (e.g. due to capital costs spread over a larger number of units). We definitely have not ended up in the same position as before.
Sure, it's not the same position. Smartphones are getting cheaper. But how much do you spend on smartphones? The main argument is about things like housing and education, which don't seem to be getting cheaper.