Work And Leisure For The Rich And Poor

Free time is much less attainable for a poor person than for a rich person who has not voluntarily put themselves in a position to give it up.  The latter has many more resources they could rely on to sustain them and whatever estate and other belongings they have during a prolonged time of rest.  The poor have more limited options.  They can take whatever likely meager job opportunities they can find, passively allow an also poor family member or friend to take care of them, or just give up and wait to die.  Free time is attainable for the poor, but not without a far greater cost--in a literal economic sense and in a figurative one. 

Rich people who make themselves busy often do not have to be so devoted to a full schedule; they choose it because of personal preference or social pressures.  They are often not in danger of losing access to food or electricity or medicine or water if they choose to not work.  Without the need to be working conventionally or to be worried about their financial status or health as much as the poor, they could enjoy a much more relaxed life, for the most part, unless they choose to keep themselves occupied with certain pastimes, business ventures, or social events.  If they are truly financially independent, they could retire from professional work, retreat from a great deal of social appearances, and enjoy the kind of rest that can only come about from the absence of hard labor.

The poor, however, have little to nothing to fall back on.  Their opportunities to work or escape the cycle of professional labor that consumes America (or certain other countries) is far more limited, and so not only do they need to work in order to just maintain their less secure status quo, but they also might have to work more hours for lesser compensation.  This can so easily lead to exhaustion from the work itself, take time away from tending to health conditions that further complicate work (which can also require immense monetary amounts to take care of), and make them want to use their scarce free time for things other than finding better jobs.

They are in all likelihood already giving more effort for lower returns, and if circumstances far beyond their control, like a sudden sickness or a random vehicular accident, intrude into their lives, any financial progress they have made might be reset to a great degree.  There are much more pressing, constant stakes for them than there are for a rich man or woman who could casually decide to move on from one endeavor to another or to halt any outward activity that threatens relaxation altogether.  There is nothing irrational or otherwise immoral about simply having the wealth that makes this possible, and to relax, to be rich, or to be rich and relax are not errors, but to make assumptions about wealth or poverty and to discriminate against someone illicitly are.

Someone who believes that the rich and poor have the same opportunities even in free time, supposedly reserved for enjoyable hobbies and rejuvenation, would be holding to an assumption.  A rich person can have someone else make their meals ahead of time as they attend to matters of work or leisure, while a poor person might have to rush home from work to cook before sleeping ahead of more work unless they pay money, of which they have relatively little, for the convenience of restaurant food.  A poor person has greater financial need to worry during free time because it would be far easier for them to lose what they have with minimal warning.  To not work on even one regular workday could keep them from getting ahead economically.  The rich and poor live in the same duration of metaphysical time, but only one of the groups can truly make the most of their leisure one way or another.