|
|
Post by MattCollister on Aug 26, 2009 16:53:35 GMT -5
This is by Justin Wolfers, economist at Wharton School of Biz and a frequent contributor to the Freakonomics blog. tinyurl.com/lmtdd9 |
|
|
|
Post by MarkD on Aug 26, 2009 20:48:52 GMT -5
Believe me, the average jagg-off ain't gonna be out working instead of running. They're gonna be sluggin' in front of the T.V.
You could shoot 10,000 holes in his narrow economic view of running. Poor analysis with a good message at the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooks Modie on Aug 27, 2009 8:48:15 GMT -5
As a current MBA student I thank you for pointing this piece out as it is fairly entertaining but sadly lacking in a well rounded argument. As Durno stated the vision is very narrow; I found myself listing similar things as those commented on by readers (mental/physical health, social benefit). Without taking away from the Runners World argument that running is a relatively cheap sport, I would also add that the sport increases the economic bottom line through tourism and travel as evidenced by the author's finishers photo at the Stocholm Marathon. Furthermore I have found that when I'm actively training, my ability to handle a given work load is increased thereby giving me an absolute advantage over myself when I haven't been training for a period of time. These are just a few benefits that I think Mr. Wolfers missed out on.
|
|
|
|
Post by MattCollister on Aug 27, 2009 15:08:36 GMT -5
I think you're reading too literally. Freakonomics is generally just brain candy, not scholarship.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brooks Modie on Aug 27, 2009 16:54:23 GMT -5
Wait...you mean drug dealers really don't live with their moms?
|
|
