UnLtd Blogs - consumption

We Eat Well, Exercise But Die Before We're Thirty

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:21:07 +0000

I came across this cartoon that inspired the title and reminded me of something that I've seen attributed to Terry Pratchett:

You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.

As ever, I fall back onto consideration of Ben Friedman's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Friedman persuasively argues that economic growth is essential to moral, social, political and cultural progress.

I wonder why we are not happier or more satisified. Are we meant to compare ourselves to others or to an idea of what we wanted for ourselves and find our lives lacking? Or has economic growth given us more diverse and intense sources of hedonism but not provided comparable opportunities for engagement or a meaningful life? I find the latter difficult to believe. Yet I meet so many people who are relying upon an external or a change in circumstance (such as a lottery win) before they will be happy. The idea that we can change ourselves and be happy seems to be ridiculous or dangerous.

We Eat Well, Exercise But Die Before 30...

Tue, 23 May 2006 16:31:22 +0000

I came across this cartoon that inspired the title and reminded me of something that I've seen attributed to Terry Pratchett:

You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.

I'm Henry VIII I am...

Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:22:15 +0000

A while ago I ran a workshop with a group of carers who are caring for their spouse/significant other. The participants were mostly in their 60s or older, with a handful of carers in their 40s.

At some point, there was a airing of grievances about benefits and allowances. A number of the older participants vigorously shared their views that some benefits are mis-directed or too generous. It was the familiar inter-generational conflict about whether poverty is absolute or relative. There was a vilification of any claim of poverty from people who had a television, DVD player, mobile phone, carpets,[name a common consumer item] etc.

I'd missed a little bit of the conversation, so I was startled when some of the participants began to sing, I'm Henry the Eighth I am. The conversation had gone beyond "People today, don't know they're born" to an agreement that there was an argument for saying that Henry VIII did not have access to the entertainment options and food choices that we all enjoy today.

I mentioned the Henry VIII reference to a friend who promptly said, "Terry Pratchett wrote something like that". He sent me this quotation in an email - although, sadly, without the source.

You can't make people happy by law. If you said to a bunch of average people two hundred years ago "Would you be happy in a world where medical care is widely available, houses are clean, the world's music and sights and foods can be brought into your home at small cost, travelling even 100 miles is easy, childbirth is generally not fatal to mother or child, you don't have to die of dental abcesses and you don't have to do what the squire tells you" they'd think you were talking about the New Jerusalem and say 'yes'.

As ever, I fall back onto consideration of Ben Friedman's The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Friedman argues that economic growth is essential to moral, social, political and cultural progress. Economic growth means that we change the attributes of what we judge to be poverty or a socially acceptable standard of living. Friedman outlines the comparisons that underlie the influence of income on well-being. For the first, we contrast our present and past circumstances: if we are better off financially that we used to be, and we can buy more with that money, then we feel better off. For the second, we use our present circumstances as a yardstick to compare ourselves to our notional peer group: if we are more prosperous then we feel better; if we are worse off, then we feel worse.

Falling Behind The Joneses

Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:06:10 +0000

Happiness discussions frequently examine the phenomena of jockeying for social status and consumption. The topics range from virtuous consumerism, the freedom to choose, the collateral damage caused by our financial markets and social structures, and the moral consequences of economic growth, to what has been identified as a quiet crisis of unhappiness.

There are vigorous defences on both sides. Some commentators argue that consumerism is damaging our individual well-being and social fabric. Others argue that consumerism drives economic growth and that is essential to improving everybody's well-being and quality of life.

Rick Harbaugh is firmly grounded in the latter camp. He argues for the economic and social upside of chasing status and consumerism in Falling Behind the Joneses: Relative Consumption and the Growth-Savings Paradox.

Consumers in rapidly growing economies should borrow against future earnings to smooth consumption, or at least should save at a lower rate than consumers in countries with stagnant or falling incomes...the pattern in most rapid-growth economies has been for rapid income growth to precede sharp increases in household savings rates...
...Rising incomes would appear to induce excessive consumption as consumers attempt to "keep up with the Joneses"...Rather than increasing consumption, concern for relative consumption can induce a fear of falling behind which raises precautionary savings. As societal income growth increases this fear intensifies, allowing for a positive effect of growth on savings rates and potentially explaining the growth-savings paradox.

Some of the comparisons Harbaugh describes are similar to those discussed by Ben Friedman in The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Friedman details the social and political consequences of economic growth. He argues that economic growth is essential but because it is an investment in a public good (rather than something that is owned by an individual or a group of individuals such as a family) individuals will undervalue it and not allocate appropriate resources to it. Friedman says that the government can redress this imbalance through adjustments to fiscal policy that reward savings and investments. I think that Harbaugh argues that individuals can be relied upon to supply their own motivation because the drive to maintain status and consumption contributes to the apprehension about "falling behind the Joneses" which is the tax/fiscal motivation to stimulate investment in growth.