leftyjace
Well-Known Member
I call BS. And Chicken. Both.
I call BS. And Chicken. Both.
I'm not going to post the wall of text, but here's the new york times article. And this scholar study which was written by a famous economist Mathias Binswang, who's father was also a famous and influential economist Hans Christoph Binswanger. Those wiki sites are in German, so get out google translate.
Your move, southpaw.
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
OK, after reading your article and your study, here are my thoughts:
1. You're relating a "problem" that is experienced by the upper echelon of earners in this country to the population as a whole. Those that experience these "treadmill issues", if you will, are those that have the ability to take advantage of technological advances, that have jobs where working harder and for longer hours will actually get them somewhere. I hate to say it, but in a lot of blue-collar (read: middle class) jobs, that's just simply not the case as much as in white-collar occupations.
2. The study raises a good point in that a person's perception of what will make them happy could be mis-aligned if they're only going after greater income and advancement.
3. This does not apply to the unemployed... which is significant, because part of the reason the economy is stagnant is because unemployment is relatively high, and it's hard to get a nation to fire on all cylinders when some of those cylinders are not being fed any fuel.
4. This also does not apply to those in lower income ranks.
Regardless, I stand by my initial point - you're talking about a social phenomena. Both of those items you had me read were coming from the perspective of happiness...but only the Times article takes into account productivity, and even then its results are fairly inconclusive, and have more to do with corporate culture than with an over-arching social phenomena. Again - you're dealing with a limited pool of subjects to study.
Would shiny, happy people working in their jobs being optimally productive help the economy? Sure, it would. But that assumes everyone's working (which they're not) and working in positions where they're able to be optimal (which won't be the case as long as we've got significant undermployment in some sectors, like right now).
I just feel like you're really stretching here, trying to tie unhappiness as a primary reason for our sputtering economy. We've got to get the engine running first before we can fine tune it.
1. You're relating a "problem" that is experienced by the upper echelon of earners in this country to the population as a whole. Those that experience these "treadmill issues", if you will, are those that have the ability to take advantage of technological advances, that have jobs where working harder and for longer hours will actually get them somewhere. I hate to say it, but in a lot of blue-collar (read: middle class) jobs, that's just simply not the case as much as in white-collar occupations.
2. The study raises a good point in that a person's perception of what will make them happy could be mis-aligned if they're only going after greater income and advancement.
3. This does not apply to the unemployed... which is significant, because part of the reason the economy is stagnant is because unemployment is relatively high, and it's hard to get a nation to fire on all cylinders when some of those cylinders are not being fed any fuel.
4. This also does not apply to those in lower income ranks.
Regardless, I stand by my initial point - you're talking about a social phenomena. Both of those items you had me read were coming from the perspective of happiness...but only the Times article takes into account productivity, and even then its results are fairly inconclusive, and have more to do with corporate culture than with an over-arching social phenomena. Again - you're dealing with a limited pool of subjects to study.
Would shiny, happy people working in their jobs being optimally productive help the economy? Sure, it would. But that assumes everyone's working (which they're not) and working in positions where they're able to be optimal (which won't be the case as long as we've got significant undermployment in some sectors, like right now).
I just feel like you're really stretching here, trying to tie unhappiness as a primary reason for our sputtering economy. We've got to get the engine running first before we can fine tune it.
You raise fair points. In fact, I dare say you're accurate on every point you just made. At times it seems I can confuse issues. And sometimes I go so far off topic, I forget where I was going with it.
This is not that case here.
What do you want to be in life? No, really, in the current economy, not adding in the treadmill theory, what do you want to be, and why?
You know, it really doesn't matter what you say. You should want to be happy. Everything else is an add on.
I'm going way too into this. I'll stop dragging this out.
The point: We are a society of consumers. In order to consume, we need to make money. So instead of doing something we dream of doing(like what we wanted when we were a kid), we do something that will "make us the most money". The smart ones end up do making the most money. But at a point they just make money to make money; not because it betters themselves or their surroundings.
You don't see that as a problem?
If we just stopped at a certain point, and focused on making a better society for our childrens, childrens, grand children, we could be start with using our money to creat new jobs for new employees to fill. But instead of creating new jobs, it's keeping the most money.
Also, this:
Oh. And to better tie it all together, there's this
Optimism is a key part of overall happiness. If job makers were more optimistic about creating jobs, we'd have more.
I'm going way too into this. I'll stop dragging this out.
The point: We are a society of consumers. In order to consume, we need to make money. So instead of doing something we dream of doing(like what we wanted when we were a kid), we do something that will "make us the most money". The smart ones end up do making the most money. But at a point they just make money to make money; not because it betters themselves or their surroundings.
You don't see that as a problem?
If we just stopped at a certain point, and focused on making a better society for our childrens, childrens, grand children, we could be start with using our money to creat new jobs for new employees to fill. But instead of creating new jobs, it's keeping the most money.
Also, this:
Oh. And to better tie it all together, there's this
Optimism is a key part of overall happiness. If job makers were more optimistic about creating jobs, we'd have more.
Last edited:
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Roach, I think your approach is idealistic and noble. I applaud you for wanting a better world.
I just think it's a little less about "everyone should be able to do what they want and make good money doing it" and a little more to do with supply and demand.
If everyone were to all of a sudden drop everything and try to fulfill their dreams, there'd be a lot more rock stars, fitness competitors, authors, etc. in this world. If you think it's hard to make it in those professions now, wait until everyone ditches the backbone occupations in this world and tries to pursue their dreams.
In fact, the reason it is so hard to make it in those "dream" occupations is because there are already many more people out there trying to make it than there is demand for. People, recognizing this, weigh their propensity for risk against their need for sustenance. But I don't think that society should be considered inferior or lacking if a system is put in place for them to be able to sustain themselves in some way other than their dreams.
Even if we lived in a Utopian society, where all hunger was eradicated and all needs could easily be met, supply and demand would mean that we'd have 1 artist for every two audience members. Part of being an artist - or anything else - and producing something is gaining happiness when that thing which you've produced is consumed and is seen as being meritable. If there's not enough consumers for everyone's art (or whatever else dream occupation they go for), there will be a lot of unfulfilled artists that would be depressed because not enough people like their stuff. And what affect would that have on productivity?
The key to happiness is to find a way to be happy with the world as it is, and not as you want it to be. Again, this is a social paradigm, and not an economic issue.
But isn't competition ok? Wouldn't we, at that point, have only the absolute best and brightest at the top, and they're only at the top because they love what they do AND are the best at it. Remember; At this point no matter what the "others" are doing, they still realize that no matter what they're doing, they can still be happy. Which in turn, raises production and fresh ideas.
You're forgetting the part that once you become an artist, it doesn't make you any less of an audience member.
Don't change these artists from real people. They're just the same as everyone else. Everyone else, at this stage, has learned they'll be happy no matter what they do. So what if what they're good at, they're not the absolute best at. You're still you, and you're still happy.
The key to happiness is to be happy with yourself, and who you are. Even if who you are changes from time to time. From there, your light brightens the world.
Consumption is the reward of fruitful production, not the other way around. As with most common myths, "We are a society of consumers" is a loaded buzzphrase backed by baseless rhetoric.
If you don't want to earn rewards from producing, then by all means go on doing whatever it is that makes you happy. It makes me happy to do something I don't enjoy to earn the reward. Who is anyone to tell me I should do something they think will make me happy instead of what I know makes me happy?
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
OK, great. Everyone goes after their dreams. So who does the work that nobody wants to do, yet is still necessary to keep the economy going? In my opinion this scenario would do more harm than good.
Good point - but I took that into account.
Roach, have you ever performed before? I do. All the time.
There's a definite difference in my happiness and fulfillment when I'm playing before a packed house versus when I'm playing to tables and chairs.
I'll just say I disagree with you on this point and leave it at that.
OK, great. STILL a social paradigm, and not an economics issue.
I don't know.. yet. That doesn't mean we should close the book on it.
Yes. I was a Tuba player in High School. Laughable, I know. But a well preformed solo of "In the Hall of the Mountain King" is something to behold.
And you don't think starting with something small, inexpensive, and low cost like putting happiness over the need for excess, can have an effect on the economy long term?
leftyjace
Well-Known Member
Forgive me, but isn't it quite common for those, with excess, to devote much of that excess to pursuing dreams?
How many rich people buy jet planes because they've always wanted to fly?
How many rich people put a recording studio in their basement and generate quality music because they finally can afford the tools to do so?
How many rich people retire early to open wineries, write books, go on service trips or missions, travel, etc.?
I would argue that part of the reason people WANT excess is so they can use it to pursue their dreams. It's much easier to try and fail if you have a solid foundation of income than it is to try and fail when all your eggs are in that single basket.
Regardless, I wouldn't say people are working so hard for excess without a purpose. They have something in mind for that money, obviously. You make it sound like "excess" is a bad thing. I don't agree.