I'm reading some note of Eric Sims on extensions to RBCs and he writes «In any balanced growth path, feasibility requires that hours do not grow». The author then explains that this is so, because if it decreased than working hours would eventually decrease to zero, and if they were increasing, then they would reach the max which is 1.

Honestly, I don't get what he means by feasibility here. Is it a mathematical term, or should I read it as plain english?

Any help would be appreciated

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hours worked cannot grow by a constant fixed percentage per unit of time as they would eventually exceed 24 hours in a day. Similarly hours of leisure cannot grow by a constant fixed percentage per unit of time. The same argument does not apply to reductions in hours worked or of non-sleeping leisure (e.g. if they fell 1% a year then they would never fall to zero in a finite time). $\endgroup$ – Henry Dec 8 '16 at 22:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Henry Thanks. Sometimes, I just don't get the english. lol ;) $\endgroup$ – An old man in the sea. Dec 9 '16 at 20:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.