25
If you run the numbers, it's a good time
Justin Wolfers
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
Justin Wolfers finishes the 2008 Stockholm Marathon.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Tess Vigeland: Today we're continuing our series Econ Fun-01, about what economists do with their free time. You know, how they have fun, or try to, if only their big money brains would turn off. Commentator Justin Wolfers takes exercise to a competitive level. What's economics got to do with it? For Justin, just about everything.
JUSTIN WOLFERS: I'm not just an economist, I'm also a runner, training for the Marine Corps Marathon.
Runners World magazine recently argued that marathon running is an incredibly cheap sport. All you need is a pair of shoes, and you're off and running. But they're wrong.
You see, they were emphasizing the out-of-pocket cost, which is small. But the foundation of all economics is something called opportunity cost. It says that the true cost of something is the alternative you have to give up.
So each hour that I spend running is an hour that I don't spend hanging out, working, or sleeping. How do I choose? Following economic theory, I keep doing an activity only as long as it yields greater benefits than the alternative.
And as I spend my hours slugging out the miles, I'm forced to confront my choices. Instead of sweating it out on the trails, I could take on extra teaching and earn a few extra bucks. And so going running costs me good money.
The same logic applies to you. Each hour you spend on your hobby is an hour you don't spend working harder to get a promotion, studying for a degree, or shopping around for the cheapest groceries.
By my calculations my 16-week training program comes at an opportunity cost of several thousand dollars. A quicker runner would have a smaller opportunity cost. It's only because I'm both slow and an economist that I fret that the world's cheapest sport is actually incredibly expensive.
But to an economist, the choice is still a no-brainer. We think you should only do what you love, and pay for it by doing what you are good at.
By sticking to economics, I make time for running. Rather than spend hundreds of dollars worth of time cleaning my house each Sunday, I hire a cleaner, who does a better job, at a better price.
When a friend asks me to help them move, I write them a check to pay professional movers instead. It's just more efficient.
And while it can be hard to forgo extra income for a long run, it is even harder to justify wasting that time on Facebook. And with the time that saves, I'm pulling on my shoes to head out for another run.
VIGELAND: Justin Wolfers teaches business and public policy at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.
Pages
As I get older I am acutely aware of these opportunity costs or trade offs. Writing this comment is costing me. Dr. Wolfers is right that running is not cheap in terms of trade offs. Training for a marathon requires time, money, and engery- the new shoes, the aspirin, the elecrolyte enhanced water, the high tech clothing, and extra carbs- not to mention travel and hotel costs. I guess it is cheap relative to yachting however.
I believe most of us try to strike a balance in how we to spend time with our friends, family, doing our job, or focusing on our health. I think most of us strive to be well rounded, and are not consciously deciding whether this action will benefit me more. I know that I could be doing investment research for my 401K every Sunday, but I would prefer to mow my own lawn and clean my own house. I take pride in my own handywork. If a friend wants to move something with me, it is more about spending time with that friend.
If I worked all day, I would burn out. If I trained athletically all day, I would suffer injury, lose my wife and my job.
I think you can really only be successful at two of the four- friends usually go first when you have a kid and mortgage. That really leaves you struggling to balance health, work, and family. Something has to give sometimes.
Your opportunity-cost assumptions don't square. I am both an avid runner and a cheapskate, and I can tell you that I, were I to quit running, would not spend all of that extra time making money. You simply can't work 24 hours a day. My running occupies free recreational time I otherwise would use for some other form of nonremunerative recreation. Ditto cleaning. If you wouldn't really spend your cleaning time pursuing paid employment, then your cleaning time is worth exactly nothing. By not paying a maid to do it, you've saved money - not lost it.
While I agree with you that everything has an opportunity cost, there are other aspects to the discussion. These are personal to me but I believe other people can relate. Yes, maybe these hours we spend running are fewer hours dedicated to our jobs and the almighty dollar. What about the aspect that maybe these are hours we spend releasing stress of the daily grind? For many runners, this is a time to recharge. To be frank, some of the best ideas I've had for work came to me while pounding out long runs. I would also argue that the time I spend running is providing a positive influence on my children. It demonstrates that I can put myself first occasionally and that my health is important. Running also allows me to eat a balanced diet; including treats. I will not give my children a legacy of food obsession (either over or under eating). I'm not offended that you think running is a hobby. For most runners, the sport is not a hobby and it's not about training for a marathon to check the bucket list. Running is a healthy lifestyle that should be celebrated in our country; a country that is defined by fast food, fad diets and an overindulgent waistline.
I understand and agree that with every choice we make, there is something that we are usually giving up as well. I will say that I do not particularly agree with your analysis of this... I do my running in the morning before work, when I otherwise would be in bed. I also run on weekend mornings with my wife. We are both spending quality time together, as well as improving our health. Both of which wuld usually cost more money to do, in most any other method. We could be spending this time bonding together by going to the movies, or out to breakfast, both costing more money. Or we could be going to the gym, also more expensive. For the most part, we are filling in time that we would otherwise be spending lounging around watching t.v., not earning money. Nothing lost, but alot gained... Thanks for your story either way. Life is all about choices.
Someone should explain "opportunity costs" as well as hidden cost due to suspicious accounting to the collectivist academics, economists, politicians, bureaucrats and media. If policy makers were obligated to do cost/benefit analysis, analyzed by independent analysts, our debt would, in all probability, would be close to zero. It wouldn't be a bad idea for most households to adhere to this discipline.
Prof. Wolfers took running for fitness, a topic I am fond of as a runner myself (though not a marathoner) and turned it into a bit of a twisted celebration of his discretionary income. I am a middle-class English professor at a state college. When friends ask me to help move, I show up with my pickup truck and when my house gets dirty, especially when we're having company, my wife and kids and I clean it. Had Prof. Wolfers been just a wee bit less self satisfied, or had Tess taken the opportunity to let some of that pressure off with a joke about throwing money at friends and housekeepers, perhaps I would not have been so bothered. If Marketplace, my favorite NPR show for decades now, is the business show "for the rest of us" then please don't assume your listeners are all down with a fellow, however well positioned, toasting his own smug accounts.
Pages
