BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Gross National Happiness

  
 
illmatic
15:00 / 10.03.03
“ Gross National Happiness” is a phrase I came across a few years ago in a new agey/ buddhist publication I can’t remember. Maybe Lord Richard Layard chanced on the same article?

Lord (Richard) Layard, the LSE's director of the centre for economic performance, has this week delivered three startling lectures which question the supremacy of economics. It doesn't work. Economies grow, GDP swells, but once above abject poverty, it makes no difference to citizens' well-being. What is all this extra money for if it is now proved beyond doubt not to deliver greater happiness, nationally or individually? Happiness has not risen in western nations in the last 50 years, despite massive increases in wealth.

So obvious, and seemingly so naive in some ways but bearing in mind where it's coming from could this influence the character of future debate and policy? I hope so.

There’s a positive conception of human nature that resonates with me in lots of ways. (This is why I like the works of Wilhelm Reich).

The seven key factors now scientifically established to affect happiness most are: mental health, satisfying and secure work, a secure and loving private life, a safe community, freedom and moral values.

I found especially interesting what he had to say about wages and rates of pay.

People earning under around £10,000 are measurably, permanently happier when paid more. It matters when people of any income feel a drop from what they have become used to. But above all, money makes people unhappy when they compare their own income with others'. Richer people are happier - but not because of the absolute size of their wealth, but because they have more than other people. But the wider the wealth gap, the worse it harms the rest.

I’ve never had a big enough wage packet to get a huge buzz out of lording it over people. I can say though that the main thing that fucks me off about my wages it the unfairness I perceive. I work in the not-for-profit sector and as a consequence my pay suffers and things are tight every month. I defintely resent the disparity between my income and others of my age/skills, rather than just not being able to buy loads of consumer goods.

I started a thread on consumption and disillusionment a while back. Politics has never seemed more like an open sewer to me (especially with what’s going on on the international stage) so I love to see ideas like this around. Makes me feel a touch bit of optimism, I suppose, I hope they’ll penetrate further. Any comments - simply hopeless, air-headed naivety? Or a sign of something deeper? We could broaden the discussion to ask what would make you happy and is this ever going to be acknowledged by a political party? I wonder also if people share my perception that the disillusionment with capitalist values and (over) consumption is becoming more widespread?

The full transcripts of the lectures can be found here as PDFs: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/
 
 
Persephone
19:06 / 10.03.03
I don't really know what I think about economics and happiness, particularly consumption and happiness. I wanted to post to your other thread on consumption, but the words stuck in my mouth. So let's try this...

We could broaden the discussion to ask what would make you happy and is this ever going to be acknowledged by a political party?

I had never thought of the question of happiness in this way before. Well, I think that no political party *can* solve the question of my happiness. I'm well-provided for beyond the extent that I ought to ask for outside assistance. I think the government could help people who are less provided for. Hm, I can't seem to think beyond money... but the way I think about it is, I think the gov't could have a role in making sure that everyone is provided for at a basic level. And I don't think that enough is being done, even about this. Not with the minimum wage still stuck at $5.15 and housing stock not affordable at this rate. So I really don't think the government should be wasting their time or resources worrying about my happiness.

I wonder also if people share my perception that the disillusionment with capitalist values and (over) consumption is becoming more widespread?

I don't see it, personally. But then overconsumption funds my life, so it's hard for me to see it totally as a bad thing. That there's people who can afford to spend $10,000 to get their bathroom painted means that five artists get to be employed doing art. What's the alternative? Giving the excess money to the government to redistribute? I'm not asking that as a rhetorical question, maybe that is the thing to do...

I'll tell you one thing that I think is positive, in a way. I recently realized that my taste for unclutter and clean design is all about what I can afford. If you look at a Victoria-era room and all the crap everywhere --sorry-- that's very much about having a housekeeping staff to keep everything dusted, you know? It's sort of like how I don't like chocolate, which can be a migraine trigger... so, I don't have a taste for chocolate. So in kind of a dumb way I think that Ikea does a service to society.
 
 
Fist Fun
12:29 / 11.03.03
Well the Kingdom of Bhutan famously measures GNH rather than GNP. Then again they only let in 6,000 ousiders a years so it might not be a transferable model. I think it is widely accepted that money makes a difference up to about the 10,000 dollar level then the happiness effect tails off.

Happiness is an individual thing though. It is difficult to define, varies from person to person and almost impossible to quantify. A government happiness policy could be quite amusing but happiness is something that could only really be delivered at the individual level. The most we can expect is a government that creates a framework in which happiness is possible - freedom, possibility of fulfillment, all the basic needs met.

Perhaps an example of government intervention would be the 35 hours policy in France or the Scandivian social security systems with generous maternity and paternity leave. Even these have come under criticism and can only be sustained by a strong economy. Maybe we should leave government ot look after the big stuff that they are best suited for and leave personal growth up to people.
 
 
Persephone
16:51 / 11.03.03
But if it's true that the monetary baseline for happiness is $10,000 and that happiness does not increase significantly above this mark, then perhaps the government ought to set its sights on encouraging people to not want much in excess of this amount. Just as a wild example, abolishing private schools. Remove the option for spending $30,000 on your child's high school education. There's $30,000 less that you don't have to scrape and struggle for. Maybe some of that will actually go to the public schools to improve education across the board. Or something that really ought to be done, do something to discourage the sale of SUVs. I mean, I know the hundred reasons that this will never fly. It's just interesting to think about... this would be a government initiative to discourage consumption, which is really the opposite of what the gov't is currently doing & has always done. Remember after 911, the way to fight terrorism was to spend money on washing machines? That's what the president said! The gov't can't deal in happiness directly. What the gov't can regulate is consumption. So do you think that the gov't can improve its happiness figures by adjusting consumption patterns?
 
 
No star here laces
20:58 / 11.03.03
Ever since I first read Mill I've wondered about this question.

As to whether it's getting talked about - so far Harvard Business Review, Fast Company and The Economist have all run articles on it, although fairly flippant ones.

I think it is an interesting question for governments to address, and a necessary one, despite (or even because of) issues of poverty.

The goal of eliminating poverty is, ultimately, to make people happy. I think we'd all agree that guaranteeing a level of subsistence necessary to sustain life is pretty pointless if that life is going to be unbearably awful.

But the trouble is that governance purely to maximise economic gain and economic opportunity is horribly reductive. And in fact frequently governments sacrifice things which make people happy in order to save money.

Everyone is aware, for example, of the dissolution of true geographical communities in the UK and US. This makes perfect economic sense - a flexible, mobile workforce is more efficient. We want people to go where the work is, and the work tends to concentrate in certain areas because that is more cost-effective. All well and good. But what about all the old people whose families move miles away? What about the effect on children of not knowing any of their neighbours? What about the crime created when all the jobs leave an area? These are not economic factors as such, but are things that governments ought to weigh up when making decisions on behalf of the electorate...
 
 
eye landed
08:02 / 12.03.03
I read an article recently, though I know not where, which suggested that a good way to boost the GNP is to go out and smash things. Somebody will need to pay for repair or replacement, not to mention installation labour. If you get caught, there's law enforement salaries, court costs, prison spending...all boosts production.

The idea increased my gross happiness, certainly.
 
  
Add Your Reply