Pros and cons of hitting the gym


Tags: ,

  • Danyelle55

    By your definition of “transfers of wealth”, doesn’t every free-market transaction apply?

    • http://twitter.com/Nudgeblog Nudge blog

      There isn’t a definition up there, but your point is well taken. You’re using a textbook definition, I think. The diagram’s original usage was more colloquial. Cross-subsidy is the best word. How many people pay $100 a month and visit a gym six times a year? Since cross-subsidy is an ugly work, redistribution will probably do. See revision.

  • Bnels

    The post is labeled “Pros and cons of hitting the gym” which implies that you are actually going to the gym. If you are going to the gym then there would be no redistribution of wealth. You would simply be making a transaction.

    • http://twitter.com/Nudgeblog Nudge blog

      If you and everyone else are actually going to the gym as often as they tell themselves they want to, then yes, you are correct. But lots and lots of people are paying for gym memberships that they aren’t using as much as they want to be (for whatever reason). The pro of hitting the gym is the cross-subsidy you’re getting if you actually are someone who goes. You’re benefiting from the redistribution. The con is, of course, all the germs on the machines.

  • http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/ Cheryl Rofer

    New York Magazine uses Venn diagrams like this – incorrectly.

    It appears witty at first – an overlap between subjects that seem disjoint. It’s not clear whether the arrow here is pointing to the entire overlap area, which is incorrect, or just one point therein.

    I’m objecting because this is another of those situations where something that has a precise meaning is used incorrectly, frequently, and in a popular context. So we eventually can’t use the precise meaning without confusion. That’s a nudge phenomenon, particularly giving people the feeling that they’re using something technical and therefore are smarter than they really are.