EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beyond the Economic Treadmill and Toward True Well-being
Life Satisfaction for Various Groups
-Forbes magazine's ‘‘richest Americans'' 5.8
-Pennsylvania Amish 5.8
-Inughuit (Inuit people in northern Greenland) 5.8
-African Maasai 5.7
-Swedish probability sample 5.6
-International college-student sample (47 nations in 2000) 4.9
-Illinois Amish 4.9
-Calcutta slum dwellers 4.6
-Fresno, California, homeless 2.9
-Calcutta pavement dwellers (homeless) 2.9
Note. Respondents indicated their agreement with the statement, "You are satisfied with your life'' using a scale from 1 (complete disagreement) to 7 (complete agreement); 4 is a neutral rating.
Source: Diener, Ed & Martin E.P. Seligman, "Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being," Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol 5, Issue 1, 2004
* * * * *
By any conventional logic, the table above makes no sense. How can the Pennsylvania Amish--a group that generally aspires towards a relatively simple lifestyle--have, as a group, attained an average happiness level on par with that of the 400 wealthiest individuals in one of the richest and most technologically advanced nations on the planet? And how can a group of aboriginals in Greenland have managed to accomplish the same thing?
The unstated premise of our society is that all of us are born at some level on a socio-economic ladder. Our prime directive is that we must dedicate a substantial part of our waking hours and efforts to climb to higher and higher steps on that ladder. At any step on the ladder we can look down to the comparatively diminished lives we had on the lower steps. And at the very top we--or our descendants--will have attained that perfect Nirvana, the frictionless existence that comes in tandem with virtually limitless wealth.
Except it ain't so. While America's wealthiest certainly attain a high level of happiness, it can hardly be said to be off the chart. Further, it would appear that very different kinds of groups, such as the Amish and the Inughuit, manage to effortlessly reach the top of our "ladder"---and do so even without our relentless drive toward an ever higher material standard of living. What do they know that we don't?
Manfred Max-Neef, the Chilean ecological economist, reminds us that the spectrum from penury to wealth cannot be reduced to a single dimension. According to his Matrix of Human Needs, there are some nine distinct categories of needs: Subsistence, Protection, Affection, Understanding, Participation, Leisure, Creation, Identity, and Freedom. Unlike Maslow, he did not view his list of basic needs as forming a hierarchy by which the attainment of some level depended on the attainment of all of the previous levels. In his view--once our Subsistence needs have been met--the satisfaction of any particular need is independent of the satisfaction of any of the others.
Poverty, in Max-Neef's view, is not monolithic. Since the realization of our full humanity requires the fulfillment all of these needs, the failure to satisfy any of them constitutes its own particular kind of poverty. And it should be clear that, after our Subsistence needs have been met, the satisfaction of none of these other needs is ultimately circumscribed by the extent of one's material possessions--or by the size of one's bank account.
The trajectory of whole societies reflects this principle. Over 1950-2004, real income in the US tripled (rising from about $12,000 to about $37,000 in constant 2000 dollars) while the percentage of Americans who described themselves as ‘very happy' has remained virtually constant at about 32%. If we look at the nations of the world, after only $10,000-$15,000/year per capita there is little or no relationship between per capita income and quality of life. In their recent book The spirit level: Why greater equality makes society stronger, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett show that, across nations, a wide variety of social dysfunction--including drug abuse, obesity and teenage births--correlate well with a society's degree of inequality, and not--as might be supposed--with its average level of wealth or destitution.
The materialistic treadmill that we are on--both as individuals and as societies--turns out to be a dead end. It makes us no happier, and in the process is laying waste to the natural capital upon which our real well-being ultimately depends. To the extent that civilization has a future it will depend on the transition to another mode of living, one in which our well-being--both as individuals and as societies--is the overriding goal, and not any of its economic proxies.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllRead "Hope for the Flowers"--- a brilliant little allegory that exposes the dogma( it isn't logic) that happiness results from climbing the socioeconomic ladder, but Buddha and Christ told us this a long time ago, didn't they?
Great book! Should be required reading in schools---oops, what am I saying, the schools are there to teach us to be good competitive-all consuming-capitalists.
The operative word in this article is "group". If your group enjoys a certain level of group ownership of resources that are accessible to all the members of this group then you have a happy group. If your group sucks, has no cohesion, is roundly vilified by everyone around you, life begins to suck hard not long after the age of ten.
Good point. Libertarians--who elevate individualism to the summit--do not recognize the social nature of human beings. It is the village, not the individual, that counts. In fact, beyond that, it is the world ecosystem counts most of all. Individuals come and go--the same with families. The community lasts a long time, but Nature (let us hope) continues forever.
I don't buy it, social nature that is. Sure dogs, some cats, but people, we either have a social nature or not. Could be nature or nuture I don't know, as I don't have it. a small group I can enjoy for awile, but a community? too much conformity is implied.
>^^<
I don't buy that. You're engaged in social activity here -- and welcome to it, of course. But it is inconsistent.
You make a very good point.
Rich or poor; it's the social group that makes life bearable.
I imagine growing up among social alphas, who expect everybody to be a competitive social alpha, would be a drag on the spirit. Money would be just worthless paper, that buy a miserable mansion to live an empty life in.
Oh you would vacation to exotic places alright, but you are never really experience social giving and taking. Money did everything for you. You only cared about getting ahead. (yourself & your family) Everybody else be dammed!
In the end I believe the "natives" were happier than the wealthiest!
Look at pictures of poor (smiling) children who are living under repressive third world governments. THEY HAVE TRUE FRIENDS!
If I may expand on your statements, Elisabet,
Group, culture, norms, ... Yes, I agree that the group supports the individual and creates an environment for the "pursuit of happiness", even the attainment thereof, for the individual and the group.
I do question one statement in the article:
"Further, it would appear that very different kinds of groups, such as the Amish and the Inughuit, manage to EFFORTLESSLY reach the top of our "ladder"... " (my emphasis)
I realize that hunter gatherer societies spend less time on basic survival (food, shelter, clothing) than industrial societies, but the time they do spend is not "effortless". As well, agricultural societies spend a lot of time and effort on basic needs. A common trend in ag. societies is large families to share the work load. In closed societies like the Amish there are increasing problems with inter-breeding and genetic diseases. Tackling these problems along with the day to day chores of agriculture is not effortless by any measure.
It is not as if the non-industrial societies mentioned in this article are breezing along in a devil may care, happy-go-lucky, carefree life. I see it more as they have meaningful, reciprocal 'work' where efforts spent by any individual is generally valued by the group and the individual benefits from the contributions of other members of the community. Life for the non-idustrial societies are not always easy. There is work to do and it can be hard, but it is generally satisfying.
The indigenous peoples of central and south America have a variety of names for "living well". Pablo Davalos has written about this
Pachakuti people
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-08/pachakuti-indigenous-perspectives-degrowth-and-ecosocialism
Kechwa people - Sumak Kawsay
http://alainet.org/active/33609&lang=es
With all due respect, these peoples are among our most valuable teachers.
Thanks for the links, old goat.
I recall a teacher of mine who specialized in anthropology. He would never let students get away with catagorizing cultures in the world today as "primative" as opposed to "modern". He would paraphrase, I think Margaret Mead, that all societies in existence today are by definition modern.
He would paraphrase, I think Margaret Mead, that all societies in existence today are by definition modern
Not true, many socities today are primitive, by choice! Look at all the people leaving Africa, and So.America to get away from primitive conditions/socitites.
>^^<
I thought it was MM, a cold has me too lazy to ponder on the net.
I would argue that it depends on your definition of primitive.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primitive
"the heart has a good reason."
if you are angry, there's a good reason for your anger.
if you are happy, there's good reason for your happiness.
when our basic sense of EQUALITY and JUSTICE is violated, we either get angry and unhappy, or
start to rationalize it as "not important" in order to survive the unacceptable reality.
do not buy the tired old line: "material things don't matter" that comes without context. the organized religion has been feeding this opium to the hungry people far too long.
HOW we arrive at the "material reality," HOW the limited "material things" are distributed, matters and should matter.
no justice, no peace, no happiness.
Notice how low on the list the homeless are.
There is one thing that money cannot buy: Poverty.
OK, it's a joke.
Don't be too absolute over your enthusiasm for the group. I seem to remember statements like, "who are you to object to the actions of the Nationalist Socialist Party, mein Schultz? what's good for the party is good for the fatherland, and, therefore, is good for you." Also, remember a little event that happened in Jonestown, Guayana in 1978? People move towards enlightenment one-by-one, and any healthy social group must enable this process.
I like your comment. I complain a lot, but since being retired if I am unhappy it is my own fault.
Sometimes I am unhappy (always been a mild manic-depressive) but nobody bothers me, and if I call a church member or visit a neighbor they act like they are glad to see or hear from me.
People seem to have accepted my idiosyncrasies.
I have seen poor persons struggling down life's road very nearly crushed under a multitude of possessions, while his portionless neighbor finds it a life's work merely to subdue and cultivate a few cubic feet of flesh.-------Thoreau
I despise the tyranny of the majority. I am often thought callous for not joining the group. I don't care. And my neighbors are generous enough to respect my wishes.
Being an introvert, I can empathize with your not joining the group. Majorities are not alway tyrannical. Not joining the group does not mean you do not benefit from the group.
I think what Abrams is talking about is something perhaps most of us intuitively sense but it was driven out of us by the values of our consumerist society, and reinforced through incessant ubiquitous marketing.
I hope not, I have long known I am alway happiest when I am doing interesting work that helps people. I need a certain amount to maintain a reasonable roof, and food for my catz bellies!
Materialism? you can keep it! My mother is my bad example. 2000sqft filled nearly to the brim with things! She dosen't know what or where a 1/3 of them are! Who needs it? Cooking tools, cleaning tools, some gardening and repair irems. should be nore than enough for anyone!
>^^<
MONEY BLINDS..THIS FACT WAS REALIZED SPECTACULARLY BY MADOFF...as he entered prison..plus all those that invested in his pyramid were looking for easy money..money is the slyest trickster on the planet...and its minions are very intelligent narcists...that can't quite get enough substance from its cottoncandy effect..
MONEY BLINDS..THIS FACT WAS REALIZED SPECTACULARLY BY MADOFF...as he entered prison..plus all those that invested in his pyramid were looking for easy money..money is the slyest trickster on the planet...and its minions are very intelligent narcists...that can't quite get enough substance from its cottoncandy effect..
I could almost feel sorry for him... If only he hadn't ruined so may lifes!
>^^<
Mr Abrams writes, "By any conventional logic, the table above makes no sense." If the author isn't just using this statement to set up the rest of the article, but instead truly believes it, then he obviously hasn't been paying much attention to the world around him the entire time he's been on it.
There have been plenty of reputable, peer reviewed studies that show that the wealthy are not any more likely to be "happy" than anyone else is. Not long ago, there was another study which focused on the United States where the authors found that an income of $75K per year is where the level of general happiness peaked. After that, it really didn't matter how much more money, you weren't really any happier.
None of this is really any surprise. In any society, if you are not concerned (and in our society, stressed out) about having your basic needs met (water, food, shelter, clothing), and you are able to "fit in" (or have a place in) the societal group, then you are more likely than not to be happy.
"If we look at the nations of the world, after only $10,000-$15,000/year per capita there is little or no relationship between per capita income and quality of life."
Like several other articles recently, I wish authors wouldn't use statistics like these. Per capita, from Latin meaning "per head", means per person. Each person, regardless of age, including newborns. So a per capita income of $10,000 would be $40,000 for a family of four. $15,000 would be $60,000 for that family of four. And of course that assumes that there is indeed an equal distribution of income (wealth) which, in economics "per capita" does NOT assume. (Example would be two people. 1 makes $100,000 per year and 1 makes nothing. The per capita is $50,000 even though one person got absolutely nothing.)
Then there is the problem of cost of living, which is wildly different depending on where you live. We have many locations here in this country where just the cost of housing exceeds that $15,000 per capita figure. A one bedroom apartment goes for well over $15,000 per year in San Fransisco.
Overall though, I agree with the conclusion that the real indicator of a societies overall health is that of income (or resource) distribution. The more equal a society is, the more likely the members of that society are to be "happy".
Having no opportunities and no group support is wretched. America is a wretched place now for tens of millions. Forget happiness people are fucking being thrown on the curb and under the wheels of this disgusting so called system. If your not part of the elite or your not politically connected your F*CKED.
"The unstated premise of our society is that all of us are born at some level on a socio-economic ladder. Our prime directive is that we must dedicate a substantial part of our waking hours and efforts to climb to higher and higher steps on that ladder."
The first sentence is true. The second one I take issue with. The prime directive is to consume and accept Corporate Big Brother, not to climb higher and higher. The propaganda machine makes it very clear that there is a class of experts and wielders of power who know best, have the lower folks' best interests in mind, and who are the benevolent inhabitants of Olympus where everything really happens. People are supposed to accept class disparity and enjoy the spectacle of power and celebrity. That acceptance is the implicit (sometimes explicit) rule of good citizenship in USA, Inc.
Gross National Happiness:
http://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/
Garbage! you tricked us! Why not the National Mormon Allience!
>^^<
I don't put much weight to this method of information gathering. Would you describe yourself as happy,very happy,or not so happy? Pick one? Ask the question to some number of people then attempt to analize the meaning of the results. If the answer is I'm very happy,then do you ask is your state of happiness constant,or does it very? Are you very happy all of the time? Have you ever known anyone who said oh I'm very happy all the time life is just so great. In greeting someone you ask how are doing? How do they respond,oh I feel very unhappy I'm so glad you asked.Do you mean you have yet to achieve a state of constant high level happiness, you must live in a substandard culture,or economic system. It would seem to me that judging the validity Of a culture,a lifestyle,or an economic system is much more complex then simply asking some number of people to rate their satisfaction level 1-7. Am I satisfied with this article? I give it a 2.1