GDP? GNH? GPI?
October 4, 2005 8:21 AM Subscribe
How happy are you? Today's NYT has a great article on alternate methods of analyzing the overall well-being of a country, focusing on Bhutan, the largely Buddhist country whose king put forth an alternative to the capitalist-centric Gross Domestic Product: Gross National Happiness. Not only does it fit in with Buddhist ideals, but organizations like the World Values Survey have come to some (not-so) surprising findings regarding the correlation between wealth and happiness. There are similar movements cropping up around the world, such as Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator, which attempts to quantify non-material progress rather than rely on subjective interpretations of happiness. How do you measure your own happiness?
Yes, delmoi, but what would happen to the GDP?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2005
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:33 AM on October 4, 2005
Some salient Cliff's Notes stuff:
The graphics in the article are part of the larger set on the WVS site. But note the position of almost all of Latin America, which scored high on Happiness despite "weak" economies.
From the article:
In the early stages of a climb out of poverty, for a household or a country, incomes and contentment grow in lockstep. But various studies show that beyond certain thresholds, roughly as annual per capita income passes $10,000 or $20,000, happiness does not keep up.
And some countries, studies found, were happier than they should be. In the World Values Survey, a project under way since 1995, Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, found that Latin American countries, for example, registered far more subjective happiness than their economic status would suggest.
In contrast, countries that had experienced communist rule were unhappier than noncommunist countries with similar household incomes - even long after communism had collapsed.
posted by mkultra at 8:40 AM on October 4, 2005
The graphics in the article are part of the larger set on the WVS site. But note the position of almost all of Latin America, which scored high on Happiness despite "weak" economies.
From the article:
In the early stages of a climb out of poverty, for a household or a country, incomes and contentment grow in lockstep. But various studies show that beyond certain thresholds, roughly as annual per capita income passes $10,000 or $20,000, happiness does not keep up.
And some countries, studies found, were happier than they should be. In the World Values Survey, a project under way since 1995, Ronald Inglehart, a political scientist at the University of Michigan, found that Latin American countries, for example, registered far more subjective happiness than their economic status would suggest.
In contrast, countries that had experienced communist rule were unhappier than noncommunist countries with similar household incomes - even long after communism had collapsed.
posted by mkultra at 8:40 AM on October 4, 2005
But various studies show that beyond certain thresholds, roughly as annual per capita income passes $10,000 or $20,000, happiness does not keep up.
There's an awfully big difference between an annual income of $10,000 and one of $20,000.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2005
There's an awfully big difference between an annual income of $10,000 and one of $20,000.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:36 AM on October 4, 2005
That's exactly the point, FoB. From a pure GDP perspective, the delta from 10k to 20k is the same as the delta from 20k to 30k, but a more holistic view of "progress" says that they're just not the same.
posted by mkultra at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2005
posted by mkultra at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2005
When you're happy and you know it
You really ought to show
clap your hands
posted by Postroad at 9:50 AM on October 4, 2005
You really ought to show
clap your hands
posted by Postroad at 9:50 AM on October 4, 2005
I guess Bhutanese 'happiness' doesn't mean low infant mortality rates or living past the age of 55 or being able to read or write (adult literacy rate = 42%).
posted by Jos Bleau at 10:05 AM on October 4, 2005 [1 favorite]
posted by Jos Bleau at 10:05 AM on October 4, 2005 [1 favorite]
And some countries, studies found, were happier than they should be.
Be less happy, damn you! (Of course, there is a good argument that
happiness is overrated)
posted by IndigoJones at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2005
Be less happy, damn you! (Of course, there is a good argument that
happiness is overrated)
posted by IndigoJones at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2005
The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens. There is no happiness until you get within that group and a large percentage of Americans actually believe they have a shot at that happiness when in reality an infinitesimally small amount of them do. The top 1% of this country has changed very little in the last 100 years, but there is always a .0002% chance you can become the next Bill Gates or Jay Zee so people keep killing themselves and living in misery because their goals are set too high.
posted by any major dude at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2005
posted by any major dude at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2005
An Israeli, an Iraqi and a Venezuelan were arguing about the location of the garden of Eden.
The Venezuelan argued, "It must have been in Venezuela - they had no clothes, no shoes on their feet, but they thought they were in paradise!"
posted by anthill at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2005
The Venezuelan argued, "It must have been in Venezuela - they had no clothes, no shoes on their feet, but they thought they were in paradise!"
posted by anthill at 10:23 AM on October 4, 2005
To any major dude:
Why would you want in the top 1% anyway?
posted by DuffStone at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2005
Why would you want in the top 1% anyway?
posted by DuffStone at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2005
the delta from 10k to 20k is the same as the delta from 20k to 30k, but a more holistic view of "progress" says that they're just not the same.
Well, sure - the change from 10k to 20k feels twice as big as the change from 20k to 30k, because one's income doubles over that span instead of just growing by half again. From 20k, you'd have to jump up to 40k to get the same feeling of progress.
</snark>
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2005
Well, sure - the change from 10k to 20k feels twice as big as the change from 20k to 30k, because one's income doubles over that span instead of just growing by half again. From 20k, you'd have to jump up to 40k to get the same feeling of progress.
</snark>
posted by Mars Saxman at 10:25 AM on October 4, 2005
The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens.
No, the US isn't concerned with the genuine happiness of any of its citizens. The government cannot make people happy. That isn't the role of the government.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2005
No, the US isn't concerned with the genuine happiness of any of its citizens. The government cannot make people happy. That isn't the role of the government.
posted by me & my monkey at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2005
I have often wondered why there isn't more focus on happiness as sign of success. What good does money do you if you can't enjoy it. And many people will never get to the point where they can even find that out for themselves as they will work hard until the day they die and never make it either to or past a moderate level of income.
In school, I was taught to get good grades so I could get a good job and make lots of money to be happy. At nearly 30, I've only just figured out that the real key to happiness is doing something you enjoy regardless of money; and chances are you'll make all the money you need to be happy, as well as excelling in that field. Unfortunately, I'm also a little old and in debt to make any major career change. But what if that's what I was taught? I'd certainly be in a different field right now. What if that is what everyone was taught? Maybe one out of five of the people I worked with at my last job wouldn't have been on antidepressants?
And happiness isn't necessarily slacking at the beach all day either. I find the most progressive companies realize that if their employees are happy, they'll be more productive and more loyal. But the majority of companies don't see this for some reason. I'm not sure why, either. Perhaps, again, because its so hard to quantify happiness. Its just easier to say an employee that works more hours is logically going to produce more. It just so happens its also not that simple.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:44 AM on October 4, 2005
In school, I was taught to get good grades so I could get a good job and make lots of money to be happy. At nearly 30, I've only just figured out that the real key to happiness is doing something you enjoy regardless of money; and chances are you'll make all the money you need to be happy, as well as excelling in that field. Unfortunately, I'm also a little old and in debt to make any major career change. But what if that's what I was taught? I'd certainly be in a different field right now. What if that is what everyone was taught? Maybe one out of five of the people I worked with at my last job wouldn't have been on antidepressants?
And happiness isn't necessarily slacking at the beach all day either. I find the most progressive companies realize that if their employees are happy, they'll be more productive and more loyal. But the majority of companies don't see this for some reason. I'm not sure why, either. Perhaps, again, because its so hard to quantify happiness. Its just easier to say an employee that works more hours is logically going to produce more. It just so happens its also not that simple.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:44 AM on October 4, 2005
I guess Bhutanese 'happiness' doesn't mean low infant mortality rates or living past the age of 55 or being able to read or write (adult literacy rate = 42%).
Well, yes, and it says two things:
- GNH is inherently problematic because of the subjective definition of "happiness".
- Just because they don't share your criteria of happiness doesn't make them inferior to you. Welcome to the world of moral relativism.
clap your hands
In Bhutan, I believe the refrain is "clap one hand".
/zen
posted by mkultra at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2005
Well, yes, and it says two things:
- GNH is inherently problematic because of the subjective definition of "happiness".
- Just because they don't share your criteria of happiness doesn't make them inferior to you. Welcome to the world of moral relativism.
clap your hands
In Bhutan, I believe the refrain is "clap one hand".
/zen
posted by mkultra at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2005
Everyone has a base happiness thermostat setting, a level of happiness that is not a linear function, as one might expect, of wealth.
Ref Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Money will satisfy the first couple levels and allow one to reside at ones base happiness level.
Beyond that, money will not buy love, esteem, or self-actualization. Unless you count going shopping and the love of sales clerks, the esteem of fellow shoppers, and the sense of having accomplished something meaningful by exchanging cash for the products of someone elses ingenuity, education, and labor.
posted by scheptech at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2005
Ref Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Money will satisfy the first couple levels and allow one to reside at ones base happiness level.
Beyond that, money will not buy love, esteem, or self-actualization. Unless you count going shopping and the love of sales clerks, the esteem of fellow shoppers, and the sense of having accomplished something meaningful by exchanging cash for the products of someone elses ingenuity, education, and labor.
posted by scheptech at 10:47 AM on October 4, 2005
Good point, scheptech.
This made me giggle: In Bhutan, I believe the refrain is "clap one hand".
posted by Specklet at 10:56 AM on October 4, 2005
This made me giggle: In Bhutan, I believe the refrain is "clap one hand".
posted by Specklet at 10:56 AM on October 4, 2005
"How happy are you?" Not so much. Thanks for asking.
posted by AllesKlar at 11:26 AM on October 4, 2005
posted by AllesKlar at 11:26 AM on October 4, 2005
I guess Bhutanese 'happiness' doesn't mean low infant mortality rates or living past the age of 55 or being able to read or write (adult literacy rate = 42%).
Just because they don't share your criteria of happiness doesn't make them inferior to you. Welcome to the world of moral relativism
I'm pretty sure that having your baby die due to inadaquate medical care will make you unhappy no matter what your culture.
posted by unreason at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2005
Just because they don't share your criteria of happiness doesn't make them inferior to you. Welcome to the world of moral relativism
I'm pretty sure that having your baby die due to inadaquate medical care will make you unhappy no matter what your culture.
posted by unreason at 11:33 AM on October 4, 2005
I'm pretty pissed off most of the day. I get home and see my wife and I'm happy.
I think that's about it. Without her I'd've checked out a long time ago.
Fodder, flax, fire and frigg. S'about it.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:34 AM on October 4, 2005
I think that's about it. Without her I'd've checked out a long time ago.
Fodder, flax, fire and frigg. S'about it.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:34 AM on October 4, 2005
I have often wondered why there isn't more focus on happiness as sign of success. What good does money do you if you can't enjoy it.
As you mention within your own response, happiness is simply harder to measure than wealth. And again, the job of a functioning government is not to make people happy - there's a reason that the Declaration of Independence lists the "pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right, rather than happiness itself.
I'm pretty sure that having your baby die due to inadaquate medical care will make you unhappy no matter what your culture.
While the science of medicine has improved drastically, I don't know that this has made people happier. I think that if you're used to "inadequate" medical care, and you don't know that medical care could be much better, you're not going to be especially unhappy about it.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2005
As you mention within your own response, happiness is simply harder to measure than wealth. And again, the job of a functioning government is not to make people happy - there's a reason that the Declaration of Independence lists the "pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right, rather than happiness itself.
I'm pretty sure that having your baby die due to inadaquate medical care will make you unhappy no matter what your culture.
While the science of medicine has improved drastically, I don't know that this has made people happier. I think that if you're used to "inadequate" medical care, and you don't know that medical care could be much better, you're not going to be especially unhappy about it.
posted by me & my monkey at 11:38 AM on October 4, 2005
and you don't know that medical care could be much better, you're not going to be especially unhappy about it.
If your baby's dead, I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy regardless of whether or not you know that there are medical treatments that could've saved it. I think it's more likely that people who have dying family members are too depressed to fill out surveys on their happiness level. It also occurs to me that different cultures may have different points of view on whether or not it is acceptable to tell a stranger doing a survey if you are unhappy.
posted by unreason at 12:15 PM on October 4, 2005
If your baby's dead, I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy regardless of whether or not you know that there are medical treatments that could've saved it. I think it's more likely that people who have dying family members are too depressed to fill out surveys on their happiness level. It also occurs to me that different cultures may have different points of view on whether or not it is acceptable to tell a stranger doing a survey if you are unhappy.
posted by unreason at 12:15 PM on October 4, 2005
Here's a previous post on Bhutan and GNH.
Here's a Buddhist perspective: What Is True Happiness?
posted by homunculus at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2005
Here's a Buddhist perspective: What Is True Happiness?
posted by homunculus at 12:29 PM on October 4, 2005
Duffstone: I'm not interested in being in the top 1% but our entire culture seems obsessed with it and I believe it's the source of most of the unhappiness and violence in our society.
Me and my monkey: Who was talking about the government?
posted by any major dude at 12:35 PM on October 4, 2005
Me and my monkey: Who was talking about the government?
posted by any major dude at 12:35 PM on October 4, 2005
If your baby's dead, I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy regardless of whether or not you know that there are medical treatments that could've saved it.
Not every culture sees death as something to be avoided at all costs.
posted by mkultra at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2005
Not every culture sees death as something to be avoided at all costs.
posted by mkultra at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2005
C'mon get happy
The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens.
Well, no. Its citizens get to vote on whether their goals, including happiness, are being attained successfully. Some people may indeed be voting more for the shot at joining the 1%, but others may be voting for the overall happiness, or not voting for happiness at all. In fact, there's strong evidence that people do not vote on the basis of future happiness at all, but on present unhappiness. It's rarely measured as such by political scientists or polls, but I don't see why it isn't a presumptive part of the system.
Incidentally, some of the unhappiest people I've known are in the highest cohort of wealth, and vice versa.
posted by dhartung at 1:09 PM on October 4, 2005
The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens.
Well, no. Its citizens get to vote on whether their goals, including happiness, are being attained successfully. Some people may indeed be voting more for the shot at joining the 1%, but others may be voting for the overall happiness, or not voting for happiness at all. In fact, there's strong evidence that people do not vote on the basis of future happiness at all, but on present unhappiness. It's rarely measured as such by political scientists or polls, but I don't see why it isn't a presumptive part of the system.
Incidentally, some of the unhappiest people I've known are in the highest cohort of wealth, and vice versa.
posted by dhartung at 1:09 PM on October 4, 2005
If your baby's dead, I'm pretty sure you're going to be unhappy regardless of whether or not you know that there are medical treatments that could've saved it.
Yes, you'll probably be unhappy. You would probably be more unhappy if you thought the death could have been avoided, but for the lack of medical care. That's what I meant by being "especially" unhappy.
It also occurs to me that different cultures may have different points of view on whether or not it is acceptable to tell a stranger doing a survey if you are unhappy.
Yes, I think that measuring happiness is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
Who was talking about the government?
You?
"The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens."
In the context of your sentence, I interpret "United States" as the US government, because of what it means to be a citizen.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2005
Yes, you'll probably be unhappy. You would probably be more unhappy if you thought the death could have been avoided, but for the lack of medical care. That's what I meant by being "especially" unhappy.
It also occurs to me that different cultures may have different points of view on whether or not it is acceptable to tell a stranger doing a survey if you are unhappy.
Yes, I think that measuring happiness is a difficult, if not impossible, task.
Who was talking about the government?
You?
"The United States is really only concerned with the genuine happiness of 1% of its citizens."
In the context of your sentence, I interpret "United States" as the US government, because of what it means to be a citizen.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2005
Jos Bleau - I guess Bhutanese 'happiness' doesn't mean low infant mortality rates or living past the age of 55 or being able to read or write (adult literacy rate = 42%)
Ignorance is bliss?
any major dude - but our entire culture seems obsessed with it
Oh my, yes. The movie "Shark Tale" walloped me on that point with sledghammer force and severely depressed me. Then I went shopping.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:18 PM on October 4, 2005
Ignorance is bliss?
any major dude - but our entire culture seems obsessed with it
Oh my, yes. The movie "Shark Tale" walloped me on that point with sledghammer force and severely depressed me. Then I went shopping.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 1:18 PM on October 4, 2005
I am surprised that no one has yet brought up the effect advertising has on us in this western culture. I think this dovetails nicely with our tendency to equate money and happiness. Much of the advertising we see first attempts to convince us we have a problem- b.o.; unsightly blotches, hips, etc.; wrong car; and so on- then presents us with the solution for the low low price or not. Being free of this bombardment is bound to improve your life. Like leaving the SO who is always telling you your faults.
How long do you hold on to a tragedy, and what constitutes one? I knew a man who's week would be ruined by a zit on his chin. Some of us are pissed when we pay a few dollars more for something. Most of the people I see around me have no clue as to what will make them happy. Unhappiness they can find in a heartbeat.
As to the top 1%- most of them are caught in the same b.s the rest of us are they simply substitute fear of trivialities for what is on one end life or death and in the middle quality of life issues.
posted by pointilist at 1:45 PM on October 4, 2005
How long do you hold on to a tragedy, and what constitutes one? I knew a man who's week would be ruined by a zit on his chin. Some of us are pissed when we pay a few dollars more for something. Most of the people I see around me have no clue as to what will make them happy. Unhappiness they can find in a heartbeat.
As to the top 1%- most of them are caught in the same b.s the rest of us are they simply substitute fear of trivialities for what is on one end life or death and in the middle quality of life issues.
posted by pointilist at 1:45 PM on October 4, 2005
Like leaving the SO who is always telling you your faults.
Hmm, exactly. This is why the mute button is the greatest invention since TV itself. Talk about quality of life issue.
posted by scheptech at 1:52 PM on October 4, 2005
Hmm, exactly. This is why the mute button is the greatest invention since TV itself. Talk about quality of life issue.
posted by scheptech at 1:52 PM on October 4, 2005
In societies like America national happiness and GNP are, more often than not, inseparable.
posted by clevershark at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2005
posted by clevershark at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2005
Jos Bleau writes "I guess Bhutanese 'happiness' doesn't mean low infant mortality rates"
Bhutan's infant mortality rate is indeed much higher than anywhere in the western world (by orders of magnitude), but let's have a look at the rates of several Western nations in deaths per 1000 live births:
USA: 6.5
Canada: 4.75
Spain: 4.42
France: 4.26
Germany: 4.16
Sweden: 2.77
Interesting.
posted by clevershark at 2:41 PM on October 4, 2005
Bhutan's infant mortality rate is indeed much higher than anywhere in the western world (by orders of magnitude), but let's have a look at the rates of several Western nations in deaths per 1000 live births:
USA: 6.5
Canada: 4.75
Spain: 4.42
France: 4.26
Germany: 4.16
Sweden: 2.77
Interesting.
posted by clevershark at 2:41 PM on October 4, 2005
I should probably add -- my source for these numbers is the CIA World Fact Book, which can be perused online.
posted by clevershark at 2:42 PM on October 4, 2005
posted by clevershark at 2:42 PM on October 4, 2005
In societies like America national happiness and GNP are, more often than not, inseparable.
"National happiness?" I had no idea that nations had feelings.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:33 PM on October 4, 2005
"National happiness?" I had no idea that nations had feelings.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:33 PM on October 4, 2005
Interesting.
[pedant mode=killjoy]
The only thing interesting about that is that someone would find it surprising or interesting, instead of a truism. You didn't know that the US had high infant mortality until you checked? Likewise, the primary reasons for this are well-known: the US doesn't do a very good job with health insurance for poor people, and what's there tends not to focus on preventative care, which results in high infant mortality. It's sad, sure, but what on earth is interesting about it?
Also, Bhutan's infant mortality rate is only one order of magnitude higher than anywhere in the western world. An order of magnitude isn't just some random bunch, it's a tenfold increase. So "orders of magnitude" means at least a hundred times greater, which Bhutan's infant-mortality rate doesn't remotely approach.
[/pedant]
Why the hell is Italy's infant mortality nearly as high as the US?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:38 PM on October 4, 2005
[pedant mode=killjoy]
The only thing interesting about that is that someone would find it surprising or interesting, instead of a truism. You didn't know that the US had high infant mortality until you checked? Likewise, the primary reasons for this are well-known: the US doesn't do a very good job with health insurance for poor people, and what's there tends not to focus on preventative care, which results in high infant mortality. It's sad, sure, but what on earth is interesting about it?
Also, Bhutan's infant mortality rate is only one order of magnitude higher than anywhere in the western world. An order of magnitude isn't just some random bunch, it's a tenfold increase. So "orders of magnitude" means at least a hundred times greater, which Bhutan's infant-mortality rate doesn't remotely approach.
[/pedant]
Why the hell is Italy's infant mortality nearly as high as the US?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:38 PM on October 4, 2005
me & my monkey you can take it that way if you want but it wasn't my intention. I think of the United States as an idea more than a country since its hegemony spans the world. In the context of a Bush dictated society that works just fine. I can't think of one decision he's made since he's been President that hasn't in some way added to the fortunes of the top 1%, and you can't either.
posted by any major dude at 4:31 PM on October 4, 2005
posted by any major dude at 4:31 PM on October 4, 2005
Commentators generally, and economists in particular, seem to forget that happiness is the ultimate good, it's what we're all striving for. Money has no value beyond what it can do for your happiness, and it's now being proven that it's very limited in that regard as well.
Of course, buddhists realised this a long time ago. As did (it seems) the scandinavian countries. Rationally, it points towards economic policies that tax everyone transparently but heavily beyond a certain income. The Gini coefficient appears to be a reasonable correlate with broad societal happiness.
One of the most interesting books in this vein that I've read is Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. He delves deep into statistics to try to measure and compare stocks of "social capital". His findings are profound. He puts a large measure of the decline in social capital (which is directly related to happiness) at the feet of television and adverising, and the creation of mass consumer culture and individualism.
posted by wilful at 6:37 PM on October 4, 2005
Of course, buddhists realised this a long time ago. As did (it seems) the scandinavian countries. Rationally, it points towards economic policies that tax everyone transparently but heavily beyond a certain income. The Gini coefficient appears to be a reasonable correlate with broad societal happiness.
One of the most interesting books in this vein that I've read is Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam. He delves deep into statistics to try to measure and compare stocks of "social capital". His findings are profound. He puts a large measure of the decline in social capital (which is directly related to happiness) at the feet of television and adverising, and the creation of mass consumer culture and individualism.
posted by wilful at 6:37 PM on October 4, 2005
People comparing Bhutan to the US is a joke - it indicates that you don't have a clue about the country. It really can only be compared to Tibet or Burma or Nepal.
If you've visited any of those places (I've not been to Burma) you'd understand that there is absolutely no value in making a comparison on most metrics between developing countries and developed, they have little to teach each other.
Now, if you start comparing happiness, literacy, poverty, life expectancy and freedom of the press versus GDP of some developed countries (see Human Development Indices) you might get some more interesting results. And in my opinion, the evidence is clear - neo-liberal approaches to the economy work well in generating $$, but poorly in generating the stuff that matters. Economics is ruling society, when it should be the other way around.
posted by wilful at 6:48 PM on October 4, 2005
If you've visited any of those places (I've not been to Burma) you'd understand that there is absolutely no value in making a comparison on most metrics between developing countries and developed, they have little to teach each other.
Now, if you start comparing happiness, literacy, poverty, life expectancy and freedom of the press versus GDP of some developed countries (see Human Development Indices) you might get some more interesting results. And in my opinion, the evidence is clear - neo-liberal approaches to the economy work well in generating $$, but poorly in generating the stuff that matters. Economics is ruling society, when it should be the other way around.
posted by wilful at 6:48 PM on October 4, 2005
you can take it that way if you want but it wasn't my intention. I think of the United States as an idea more than a country since its hegemony spans the world. In the context of a Bush dictated society that works just fine. I can't think of one decision he's made since he's been President that hasn't in some way added to the fortunes of the top 1%, and you can't either.
If you're not talking about the government, why bring up Bush or hegemony?
As for what adds to (or detracts from) the fortunes of the top 1%, I don't know of any decision made by any president in US history that would clearly fall one way or another. The war in Iraq, being bad for the economy, is certainly going to cost the top 1% something, one way or another.
Commentators generally, and economists in particular, seem to forget that happiness is the ultimate good, it's what we're all striving for. Money has no value beyond what it can do for your happiness, and it's now being proven that it's very limited in that regard as well.
Sez you. I might even agree, but there are plenty of people who would disagree, and as this is purely a matter of opinion, who's to say you're right or wrong? In any case, what exactly is happiness? Is it the same for everybody? Some people derive happiness from striving for money, I'm sure, beyond the point where they need or even want the money itself.
He puts a large measure of the decline in social capital (which is directly related to happiness) ...
Again, I don't think we can say anything concrete enough about what happiness is, to say that it's directly related to social capital. Plenty of people were unhappy in the tight, insular communities of the past, I'm sure.
And in my opinion, the evidence is clear - neo-liberal approaches to the economy work well in generating $$, but poorly in generating the stuff that matters. Economics is ruling society, when it should be the other way around.
Unless we can derive a clear consensus about what "the stuff that matters" is, I simply don't see how this is possible. I'm not really sure that this is something that can be entrusted to the government.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:00 PM on October 4, 2005
If you're not talking about the government, why bring up Bush or hegemony?
As for what adds to (or detracts from) the fortunes of the top 1%, I don't know of any decision made by any president in US history that would clearly fall one way or another. The war in Iraq, being bad for the economy, is certainly going to cost the top 1% something, one way or another.
Commentators generally, and economists in particular, seem to forget that happiness is the ultimate good, it's what we're all striving for. Money has no value beyond what it can do for your happiness, and it's now being proven that it's very limited in that regard as well.
Sez you. I might even agree, but there are plenty of people who would disagree, and as this is purely a matter of opinion, who's to say you're right or wrong? In any case, what exactly is happiness? Is it the same for everybody? Some people derive happiness from striving for money, I'm sure, beyond the point where they need or even want the money itself.
He puts a large measure of the decline in social capital (which is directly related to happiness) ...
Again, I don't think we can say anything concrete enough about what happiness is, to say that it's directly related to social capital. Plenty of people were unhappy in the tight, insular communities of the past, I'm sure.
And in my opinion, the evidence is clear - neo-liberal approaches to the economy work well in generating $$, but poorly in generating the stuff that matters. Economics is ruling society, when it should be the other way around.
Unless we can derive a clear consensus about what "the stuff that matters" is, I simply don't see how this is possible. I'm not really sure that this is something that can be entrusted to the government.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:00 PM on October 4, 2005
Some people derive happiness from striving for money, I'm sure, beyond the point where they need or even want the money itself.
I wont pass myself off as an expert on psychology, but I would say those people are seeking status through money, they're looking for ways to prove that they're better. This might be an evolutionary hangover, it's a genetic trait to be 'fitter' for breeding (though quite disconnected now). But do they achieve happiness? Rich people are happier than poor people. But the reason for that isn't because of material goods, it's because they know they're richer (and get all these goods just to prove it). It's entirely a zero sum game, while the only loser is the environment, which quite simply cannot afford needless wanton consumption. The net happiness through consumption cannot increase, once a society has bet it's basic needs (at or about ~$20 000 per capita). It's a disease, it's Affluenza.
Regarding defining "the stuff that matters", I don't know anything about calvinism, but stoicism is dead and buried, and the protestant work ethic isn't contradictory. You can be a dedidated worker, take pride in your work and gain great happiness from that. But your happiness isn't measured in how many bucks you pull down a year, that's got nothing to do with the protestant work ethic as I understand it. Are there any extant worldviews that really reject happiness, apart from the morbidly destructive fundamentalist religions (who all say that heaven is a happy place)?
I'm not really sure that this is something that can be entrusted to the government. Let me guess, you're an American, right? Only Americans have this enormous fear of government as 'the other'. Most of the rest of us realise it's just an organising tool for society. We together and collectively decide on the society we want, then we elect governments to interpret that (sometimes poorlyu, it is true). Finns and danes are unarguably happier than us (Australians, Anericans, Canadians), and they keep voting for governments that ensure a relatively equal society, in the knowledge that they are their brothers keepers, and that a cohesive society has happy citizens and reduced inequality.
posted by wilful at 10:24 PM on October 4, 2005
I wont pass myself off as an expert on psychology, but I would say those people are seeking status through money, they're looking for ways to prove that they're better. This might be an evolutionary hangover, it's a genetic trait to be 'fitter' for breeding (though quite disconnected now). But do they achieve happiness? Rich people are happier than poor people. But the reason for that isn't because of material goods, it's because they know they're richer (and get all these goods just to prove it). It's entirely a zero sum game, while the only loser is the environment, which quite simply cannot afford needless wanton consumption. The net happiness through consumption cannot increase, once a society has bet it's basic needs (at or about ~$20 000 per capita). It's a disease, it's Affluenza.
Regarding defining "the stuff that matters", I don't know anything about calvinism, but stoicism is dead and buried, and the protestant work ethic isn't contradictory. You can be a dedidated worker, take pride in your work and gain great happiness from that. But your happiness isn't measured in how many bucks you pull down a year, that's got nothing to do with the protestant work ethic as I understand it. Are there any extant worldviews that really reject happiness, apart from the morbidly destructive fundamentalist religions (who all say that heaven is a happy place)?
I'm not really sure that this is something that can be entrusted to the government. Let me guess, you're an American, right? Only Americans have this enormous fear of government as 'the other'. Most of the rest of us realise it's just an organising tool for society. We together and collectively decide on the society we want, then we elect governments to interpret that (sometimes poorlyu, it is true). Finns and danes are unarguably happier than us (Australians, Anericans, Canadians), and they keep voting for governments that ensure a relatively equal society, in the knowledge that they are their brothers keepers, and that a cohesive society has happy citizens and reduced inequality.
posted by wilful at 10:24 PM on October 4, 2005
Regarding defining "the stuff that matters" ...
No, not too many people reject happiness, but there's very little agreement about how to achieve it. Since what will make one person happy may vary quite wildly from what will make another happy, I simply don't see how it's helpful to use happiness as a guide of any sort.
Let me guess, you're an American, right? Only Americans have this enormous fear of government as 'the other'. Most of the rest of us realise it's just an organising tool for society. We together and collectively decide on the society we want, then we elect governments to interpret that (sometimes poorlyu, it is true).
It's not an enormous fear of government, simply a recognition that government isn't the answer to every problem, and that government is essentially a necessary evil. This recognition is justified by a cursory perusal of the historical record. Let me guess, you're a European, right? Only Europeans have this enormous (and unwarranted) trust in government to solve all the ills of society. Of course, it took a long time for them to get where they are today, and a lot of blood. Many Europeans had the same faith in government that you do now, fifty or sixty years ago. Of course, those governments were quite different, and I doubt you'd say that their citizens' faith was well-placed at the time.
Finns and danes are unarguably happier than us (Australians, Anericans, Canadians), and they keep voting for governments that ensure a relatively equal society, in the knowledge that they are their brothers keepers, and that a cohesive society has happy citizens and reduced inequality.
I don't know any Finns. I have known plenty of Danes, and I would have a hard time calling them "unarguably happier" than anyone. In any case, they have cohesive societies regardless of their respective governments, because they are less diverse.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:10 AM on October 5, 2005
No, not too many people reject happiness, but there's very little agreement about how to achieve it. Since what will make one person happy may vary quite wildly from what will make another happy, I simply don't see how it's helpful to use happiness as a guide of any sort.
Let me guess, you're an American, right? Only Americans have this enormous fear of government as 'the other'. Most of the rest of us realise it's just an organising tool for society. We together and collectively decide on the society we want, then we elect governments to interpret that (sometimes poorlyu, it is true).
It's not an enormous fear of government, simply a recognition that government isn't the answer to every problem, and that government is essentially a necessary evil. This recognition is justified by a cursory perusal of the historical record. Let me guess, you're a European, right? Only Europeans have this enormous (and unwarranted) trust in government to solve all the ills of society. Of course, it took a long time for them to get where they are today, and a lot of blood. Many Europeans had the same faith in government that you do now, fifty or sixty years ago. Of course, those governments were quite different, and I doubt you'd say that their citizens' faith was well-placed at the time.
Finns and danes are unarguably happier than us (Australians, Anericans, Canadians), and they keep voting for governments that ensure a relatively equal society, in the knowledge that they are their brothers keepers, and that a cohesive society has happy citizens and reduced inequality.
I don't know any Finns. I have known plenty of Danes, and I would have a hard time calling them "unarguably happier" than anyone. In any case, they have cohesive societies regardless of their respective governments, because they are less diverse.
posted by me & my monkey at 12:10 AM on October 5, 2005
Actually I'm an Australian (so virtually no blood ever shed there), but you missed my point about Government. Government is irrelevant to the argument, I didn't raise it. Society agreeing to equality is what's important, because the statistical correlation between equality and happiness is high. Government is merely the mechanism.
Regarding Danes, I'm not talking anecdotes, I'm talking surveyed measurements.
It's certainly true that we don't necessarily know what motivates an individual to be happy, in a way that can be replicated, but we can measure happiness across generations and populations. So it's still worth talking about in a meaningful way. And we see that when you compare happiness to income, there are some very interesting things. Rich people are happy, compared to poor people. But this is entirely relative, not at all absolute (beyond, as previously stated, a certain level), and hasn't gone anywhere intergenerationally in a long time. So all of this pursuit of wealth is pointless, it's a status race that everyone eventually loses.
A simple question. The US is the richest country in the world. Why are its inhabitants generally much less happy than other wealthy coutnries? Why is it less happy that it was a few generations ago?
Don't say "we're more diverse" that's bollocks, you're not the only country in the world to have a big immigration program, Canada and Australia are equally diverse, moreso in fact due to multiculturalism policies instead of integration.
I think (and I'm not 100% committed to this answer, but the facts seem to bear it out) that it's because, more than any other country, the US has pursued materialism and individualism, and measures the value of a man according to his paycheck. (Of course, this is really only a matter of degrees compared to Australia, we're very similar and going down exactly the same path).
posted by wilful at 12:45 AM on October 5, 2005
Regarding Danes, I'm not talking anecdotes, I'm talking surveyed measurements.
It's certainly true that we don't necessarily know what motivates an individual to be happy, in a way that can be replicated, but we can measure happiness across generations and populations. So it's still worth talking about in a meaningful way. And we see that when you compare happiness to income, there are some very interesting things. Rich people are happy, compared to poor people. But this is entirely relative, not at all absolute (beyond, as previously stated, a certain level), and hasn't gone anywhere intergenerationally in a long time. So all of this pursuit of wealth is pointless, it's a status race that everyone eventually loses.
A simple question. The US is the richest country in the world. Why are its inhabitants generally much less happy than other wealthy coutnries? Why is it less happy that it was a few generations ago?
Don't say "we're more diverse" that's bollocks, you're not the only country in the world to have a big immigration program, Canada and Australia are equally diverse, moreso in fact due to multiculturalism policies instead of integration.
I think (and I'm not 100% committed to this answer, but the facts seem to bear it out) that it's because, more than any other country, the US has pursued materialism and individualism, and measures the value of a man according to his paycheck. (Of course, this is really only a matter of degrees compared to Australia, we're very similar and going down exactly the same path).
posted by wilful at 12:45 AM on October 5, 2005
The Sunday Times carried an interesting article about happiness this weekend: So what do you have to do to find happiness?
posted by flameproof at 3:02 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by flameproof at 3:02 AM on October 5, 2005
Society agreeing to equality is what's important, because the statistical correlation between equality and happiness is high.
OK, would everyone be happier if we made everyone equal by making them all poor and wretched? I suspect they might, but for obvious reasons I don't think that's a good thing to do.
Government is merely the mechanism.
The word "merely" is quite out of place in that sentence. The mechanism is what does the work.
Regarding Danes, I'm not talking anecdotes, I'm talking surveyed measurements.
From your "surveyed measurements" link:
"The Danes are the happiest people in the world"
and on the sidebar of that page:
"Denmark the 5th richest country in the world"
Doesn't that undermine your argument somewhat?
In any case, I'm not convinced that "surveyed measurements" of happiness are accurate, because happiness is such a vague thing to measure.
A simple question. The US is the richest country in the world. Why are its inhabitants generally much less happy than other wealthy coutnries? Why is it less happy that it was a few generations ago?
I disagree with your assertion that this is a simple question. Again, happiness isn't the kind of thing that's easily or reliably measured. So, I don't really know that its inhabitants are much less happy than those of other countries, or their forefathers - and neither do you.
Don't say "we're more diverse" that's bollocks, you're not the only country in the world to have a big immigration program, Canada and Australia are equally diverse, moreso in fact due to multiculturalism policies instead of integration.
Compared to Finland and Denmark, the US (and Canada and Australia) are much more diverse. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that's the only comparison I made.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:32 AM on October 5, 2005
OK, would everyone be happier if we made everyone equal by making them all poor and wretched? I suspect they might, but for obvious reasons I don't think that's a good thing to do.
Government is merely the mechanism.
The word "merely" is quite out of place in that sentence. The mechanism is what does the work.
Regarding Danes, I'm not talking anecdotes, I'm talking surveyed measurements.
From your "surveyed measurements" link:
"The Danes are the happiest people in the world"
and on the sidebar of that page:
"Denmark the 5th richest country in the world"
Doesn't that undermine your argument somewhat?
In any case, I'm not convinced that "surveyed measurements" of happiness are accurate, because happiness is such a vague thing to measure.
A simple question. The US is the richest country in the world. Why are its inhabitants generally much less happy than other wealthy coutnries? Why is it less happy that it was a few generations ago?
I disagree with your assertion that this is a simple question. Again, happiness isn't the kind of thing that's easily or reliably measured. So, I don't really know that its inhabitants are much less happy than those of other countries, or their forefathers - and neither do you.
Don't say "we're more diverse" that's bollocks, you're not the only country in the world to have a big immigration program, Canada and Australia are equally diverse, moreso in fact due to multiculturalism policies instead of integration.
Compared to Finland and Denmark, the US (and Canada and Australia) are much more diverse. If you read what I wrote, you'll see that's the only comparison I made.
posted by me & my monkey at 3:32 AM on October 5, 2005
Happiness occurs when one is able to satisfy one's particular motivations. Some are motivated to seek tranquility or beauty. Others are motivated to gain mastery or dominance. Unfortunately, differing motivations require societies in which not everyone's motivations can be satisfied. Perhaps we'd all be happiest in segregated enclaves of people having similar motivations.
posted by gregor-e at 5:38 AM on October 5, 2005
posted by gregor-e at 5:38 AM on October 5, 2005
There's some miscommunication goin on here...
would everyone be happier if we made everyone equal by making them all poor and wretched? Yes to the first part, no to the second. Who says poor and wretched is happy? No one. And the fact that Denmark is 5th richest is again irrelevant. Any one of the 20 or so developed countries has as much chance as any other to be happy. Actual cash wealth has nothing to do with it once they're in that group (as I've said a few times).
Happiness is measured quite simply by asking lots and lots of people the same quetion, over a long period of time: are you happy? The data appears to be internally validated and consistent. It's a worthwhile question, it's valid data. Yes we do know that Americans are currently less happy than their grandparents, and probably about as happy as their great great grandparents. The rise was explicable - material wealth. The decline is what's interesting, since it's not exhibited in some other countries.
Ignore government. Not relevant at all. Talk about society. Governments only raise and lower taxes because that is what they're told they can do. Not just at the abllot box, but in all of the opinion pages and talkback radio and lobbying etc. Society exists and has some generalisable views. US society states quite clearly that "enterprise culture" or individualism is to be preferred and promoted. Scandinavian culture says something else. Both are seeking happiness, no more, no lesss. But if they want to go about it rationally they should look at the data rather than relying on cherished myths.
posted by wilful at 5:40 PM on October 5, 2005
would everyone be happier if we made everyone equal by making them all poor and wretched? Yes to the first part, no to the second. Who says poor and wretched is happy? No one. And the fact that Denmark is 5th richest is again irrelevant. Any one of the 20 or so developed countries has as much chance as any other to be happy. Actual cash wealth has nothing to do with it once they're in that group (as I've said a few times).
Happiness is measured quite simply by asking lots and lots of people the same quetion, over a long period of time: are you happy? The data appears to be internally validated and consistent. It's a worthwhile question, it's valid data. Yes we do know that Americans are currently less happy than their grandparents, and probably about as happy as their great great grandparents. The rise was explicable - material wealth. The decline is what's interesting, since it's not exhibited in some other countries.
Ignore government. Not relevant at all. Talk about society. Governments only raise and lower taxes because that is what they're told they can do. Not just at the abllot box, but in all of the opinion pages and talkback radio and lobbying etc. Society exists and has some generalisable views. US society states quite clearly that "enterprise culture" or individualism is to be preferred and promoted. Scandinavian culture says something else. Both are seeking happiness, no more, no lesss. But if they want to go about it rationally they should look at the data rather than relying on cherished myths.
posted by wilful at 5:40 PM on October 5, 2005
« Older Rocket Racing League Scheduled to start in 2006 | something completely different Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jmccorm at 8:23 AM on October 4, 2005