Wealth By Means Of Boredom

Marx's claim that wealth is not based on surplus labor time, but on "disposable time outside that needed in direct production, for every individual and the whole society" (285), is a claim that I can understand, but I also see potential contradictions for such a measurement of wealth. To say that wealth is measured by the amount of time we do not have to spend working seems a largely subjective definition. The means by which I live could be satisfactory, and I could work only 6 hours a day and feel no need to work in excess. However, someone could also work the same amount and live in the same circumstances and feel the need to grow 'wealthier' (in this case, potentially only work 5 hours a day, or 4, or 3, etc).

Here, it seems that Marx's definition of wealth hinges not only on subjective opinion of social contentment, but on the lack of inequality within such circumstances. If Person A works 5 hours a day but is unhappy with their job, and Person B works 5 hours day but is extremely pleased with their job, can we say that they are both equally wealthy merely because they have 19 hours to spend doing whatever they wish? Likewise (and perhaps a better example), if Person A's 19 disposable hours are of objectively (or subjectively) greater value that Person B's 19 disposable hours, how can we say that they are equally wealthy when one clearly finds more value in their free time than the other?

At first glance, this is the major problem I have with Marx's theories on wealth: that of subjectivity. Granted, there could be an objective standard in which disposable hours equate to wealth (and in fact, I believe Marx to have such an objective form of measurement in mind), but I do not believe that this theory could function if put into practice. Wealth in general seems based on personal fulfillment of desire (of money, of commodities, of social interaction, etc) and not a systematic means of calculating wealth via time available to pursue one's own interests.