I don't see an answer to my question.
Probably because I wasn't sure how your question applied to the argument. Let me try again.
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?
Honestly? Since we're headed down the social argument path and not the economic path, I'm going to say that your question is not logical, and here's why.
I believe that the opportunity is there for people to pursue things that will bring them the most happiness. I believe that if there's anyplace where being temporarily set back or financially dormant (due to trying hard to achieve ones dreams) is something that can be recovered from, it's here. I don't think that all of these "unhappy" people are not pursuing their dreams and aspirations because of a lack of opportunity.
People choose to be where they are. They either choose it because they actively pursued the path they're on, or they passively avoided the discomfort and risk from pursuing another path.
But regardless... I'm just not sure I agree with your premise. I tried to say that in my response. Let me see if I can explain it another way.
I don't believe people just simply work for "excess". I believe they ARE pursuing happiness as they see it by doing so. I think that there are some limited cases where people are doing it simply to increase the score (read: net worth), yes. But I think the vast majority of the time, people are working their butts off, trying to generate excess so they can use that excess to pursue the very dreams that you believe they're abandoning by working hard to get excess.
So in my mind, your question is circular.
Regarding your vision of the entire world being able to only do those things that will bring them the most joy and happiness... I still say that would be extremely damaging to the economy at this stage of our societal development. Maybe later on, that would be cool, especially if we're able to increase automation to the point where all want and hunger is eliminated from the world, and people have no concerns about the lower levels of Maslow's heirarchy of needs. But right now, vacating people that see themselves as "unhappy" or "unfulfilled" from millions of jobs that are basically the backbone of our economy would have a devastating affect. And it would be a temporary affect... because after all of these people get frustrated with pursuing those dreams and not having it pan out financially enough to sustain themselves (again, supply and demand - an overabundance of supply creates a relative lack of demand, and a lack of opportunity for people to actually be able to subsist on an income derived from that activity), they would find themselves migrating back to those very jobs they vacated - because demand would then have increased for people to fill those essential roles, and those roles would allow them to subsist and meet those basic needs according to Maslow's heirarchy.
I'll say it again. I think you're argument is noble. But it's also incredibly overly-idealistic, and doesn't take into account the way the world works. There is no economic structure on the planet that would allow all people to do what it is you're espousing all at once. And I honestly don't see what the problem is. If people wanted to pursue their dreams hard enough, they would. If there's anyplace that can be done it's here. The problem is a lot less one of opportunity and more one of the basic need of human beings to avoid pain and seek pleasure or comfort. While pursuing those dreams may bring many some pleasure or comfort, it's not enough to override the pleasure or comfort derived from continuing on their current path of work.
Nor did I ever, at any given point, say there should be a hard cap on what any one person makes. Just that happiness with ones self can increase productivity and optimism. Which are both exceedingly good for the economy.
Agreed.
So adding a general better understanding of what happiness is, and at what point you can be happy and content without more money, is good for the economy. And there's a cheap, non-invasive way to do it; instill it into our children. The basics, along with a sense of security, I feel would make a better community as a whole. But that's just a byproduct of the root, which is the understanding that money != happiness.
I'm mostly OK with this. I guess where we differ is our polarized beliefs on the effect it can have on the economy. I think this happens much, much more than you're recognizing, especially in this day and age of "enablement". More kids are pursuing their dreams now than they ever have. And I believe more adults are doing so as well, even if doing so on a somewhat delayed schedule.
For what it's worth dude, we're the same person. First I wanted to be a doctor. Then I realized I cringe when hearing someone cry out in pain. Then I wanted to be a marine biologist, but realized there's no money in that unless you're in the top .2%. Then a cook, but same thing. Then a mortician, because it's a steady business.
On my way to one of these, I paid for myself by working as a phone jockey for a call center. Sharpened my skills, got promotions, jumped to better companies until I landed with the one I'm at now. Got promoted off the HelpDesk and into Medical Records Software analysis. Now, I've come as close to full circle as I can. I manage decision support, which consists of the alerts that come up for a providers when s/he's doing something potentially dangerous for the patient, and managing physician training and understanding of why those alerts exist. There's more to it than that, but knowing I had a hand in caring for the patient, and in some cases preventing death from physician ignorance, is overwhelmingly satsifying.
How interesting! People's stories about how they got to where they are can be so fascinating. That's cool that you got to where you were still involved in the medical field and making a difference. Kudos.
