First let me say this is written with the assumption that you are not wealthy enough to not have to work. I assume that is where the question is coming from.
Time without work is leisure time without money. But working gives you the money to enjoy what leisure time you do have.
I think most people associate money with fun (unfortunately). You don't need money to lounge around the house on a rainy Sunday, but thats because you probably have plenty of things to entertain you (most of which were purchased with money you earned at work). And that is also because you're only doing it for one day. Without any money, all of the things entertaining you would go bye bye sooner or later.
Depending on your brand of entertainment, you may or may not need money. A Buddhist monk would be happy sitting still in the forest for a month with a jug of water and some rice while your average American would become antsier than a three year old at a graduation ceremony if they had to sit in that same spot for just one day without a cappuccino and the internet. It is relative.
Unemployment seems at first glance a wonderful vacation, but some fail to realize just how much they depend on money throughout the day/week. Sitting on the beach for a week sounds great, but when you consider you will have limited food each day and no cash for entertainment, it becomes a rather boring vacation. Without money, your car sits wherever it runs out of gas; then you're walking (lame) and you can only hang out with friends and family for so long without contributing financially before they tire of your company.
It's all relative. Factors include how much money you need to be happy, how long that amount of money can last, and how long you're willing to go without it.
Hyperbole man says, "I would rather be a homeless bum than be a rich person whos job is to lay in a pit of burning coals while being whipped by razor wire. Even if I had three days off each week."
Where to draw the line?
2006-08-14 22:02:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Sir Sandwich Slayer 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Unemployment multiplies the quantity of leisure time while inversely diminishing the quality. Theoretically, a point can be reached where one has 100% leisure and 0% enjoyment. This is when one must choose between becoming an artist and having a nervous breakdown. Or choose between falling in love and becoming a prostitute. Or choose between tourism and catatonia. Between Truth and Dare. Between Coke and Pepsi.
As you can guess from my answer, I've already reached that point.
2006-08-15 04:47:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by beast 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Depends;
If you're spending all your time looking for work then you often don't have very much leisure time at all, and the time you do have you're worrying about when you'll be able to find a job.
If you're just a dole bludger, you have all day as leisure time.
2006-08-15 04:16:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by tgypoi 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Seems like being unemployed would give you all the leisure time you want!
2006-08-15 04:19:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Princess Couture 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If we don't have any work then obviously we do spend our time for searching the work, playing, sleeping, . For those who don't have any work for them all the are leisure.
2014-05-12 10:02:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by Magen 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No work no money to play! Simple!
2006-08-15 04:48:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by A G 4
·
0⤊
0⤋