No, I'm not an anarchist. But we're smart enough to know that money and happiness have very limited correlation, so why measure success with an indicator that serves as such a poor proxy for what we really care about?
One nations president is thinking beyond trivial policy shifts to major changes in philosophy. As the article points out, well-being isn't simple to measure, but it seems worth trying, no?
Bring it? Its already BEEN brought.
Sep 15, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 sucka ass fools had something to say:
Links 1 & 2: Money doesn't have a strong correlation with happiness. Well, first of all, no duh. Second of all, I hate when people make conclusions based on surveys because you're not going to get a good measure of happiness by asking people whether they are happy or not. Definitions of happiness vary from culture to culture. For example, in Buddhist cultures, if a person claims they are not happy, people will not feel sorry for the situation the person is in, but rather look at it as a personality flaw ie that person is not able to find peace. Some cultures and sub-cultures (groups within the US, for example) stress the importance of looking at the bright side more than others. Also, people that win the lottery are likely just responding with a backlash against all the people that just assume everything is 100% perfect after they win. And anecdotes about guys that win the lottery and then waste it all away are irrelevant because of course they are going to feel like an asshat after having money and blowing it.
About articles 3 and 4, of course GDP shouldn't be the one and only measuring stick for success of a nation. Does anybody think this is a good measuring stick? We all know that a nation can have a high GDP and have 99% of that GDP belonging to 1% of it's citizens while others might be more balanced. Sarkoszy is doing nothing by pointing this out. Economic prosperity is also very relative as far as individual people go. A man in the ghetto in America has better access to food, clothing, and shelter than a middle class man in Guatemala, but that man is going to look at wealthy people all around him and say "motherfuckers" while the man in Guatemala will be far more thankful. That doesn't mean we should strive for economic equality above all else.
The main takeaway is as you said, happiness is difficult to measure. Should we try to measure it? Sure, but I'm most likely not going to be content with any measure they come up with. At least I can trust that GDP is accurate gauge of something.
I don't think you have to say "no duh" or "obviously" anymore, just point out when you see something that is not.
It is better to focus on imperfect measures of something worthwhile than an accurate measures of something not.
I admit my first two links were chosen arbitrarily. The body of research on the topic of happiness and money is vast and the conclusions are pretty consistent - it matters, but it matters little, and within a limited window.
Using stated preference surveys opens you up to bias of course, but there are many tangible statistics (e.g. suicide rate, life expectancy, health indicators, education) that represent "well being". I'm conflating here with happiness. While these may individually be as poor proxies (for happiness) as money, a broader index seems vastly superior.
For Happiness, cultural differences matter, but the findings fit within cultures as well. Although, I suppose you could split out subcultures endlessly and render any conclusions meaningless.
You're drilling down into the details and making valid
critiques but ignoring the larger point. The main takeaway should not be "happiness is hard to measure" but that policy makers are beginning to listen to social researches and thinking of taking steps towards looking beyond easy-to-measure economic indicators to evaluate prosperity and success.
The linked study focuses on alternative economic indicators, but the broader assertion that Sarkozy makes is that we should be looking beyond money as an indicator of national prosperity. This is obvious to all on a personal level, as we wouldn't equate our happiness with only the size of our investments.
Republicans would say you don't want your country run like you're home. Instead, limit it to what is it can clearly deliver. This approach ignores a great deal and leads to many unintended consequences. More active and involved government does as well, but I consider an attempt at progress to be, well, progress.
The study was on GDP, which according to the article is used to make policy,
great post, lank!
GDP is an awesome indicator of happiness. If I spend money on ski equipment, rent a car to drive to Timberline, and go into massive debt paying for an ambulance + cast after breaking my leg, I have contributed positively to GDP on all three accounts. Hurrah!!!
I said things like "no duh" and "obviously" on purpose. I said them tongue and cheek because I know how you have pointed out that I am known for using them. I was just trying to fall into character. But, I won't use them anymore.
Measuring GDP is worthwhile. It is a good indicator of economic output. It is a very worthwhile way to measure things, but that doesn't mean it should be used to predict whether the Tigers will win the series just like it shouldn't be the sole measurement used to set policy.
But no country is using GDP as the sole measure to set policy. If GDP was the only measure used to set policy we wouldn't have any social programs. In reality, money is used as just one of many factors in all governments when looking at national prosperity. Some weigh it as more important than others. When Obama talks about the number of Americans that don't have health insurance, he's not thinking of our economic bottom line. It's mostly humanitarian concern. So, why is Sarkozy's idea new or profound?
Let me clarify that I'm not saying that pointing this out isn't worthwhile. I enjoyed the post and read all the links. I'm just struggling to understand how this is an original movement on Sarkozy's part and how we're not already looking at social research when so much of the policy we set is not about the economic bottom line.
GDP according to the article is "the most broadly used measure of a nation's economic strength"
"the time is ripe for our measurement system to shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people's well-being."
"Sarkozy did not say how new statistics -– or specifically which ones -- would change that perception. "
So,Sarkozy is saying nothing new or profound. Just like Al Gore.
"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
- Nobel Peace Prize citation committee
I think its a debatable point about how much of our policy is or isnt set by economics. Certainly its not the ONLY consideration.
Sarkozy is just in a prominent position to where his concerns and statements make headlines and raise awareness, thats all.
So...you want "policy makers" to focus on leglislation that makes you happy? This is an incredibly scary thought. By the "hapiness measure" if we just got rid of all fat people, smokers, drug and alchohol abusers...we'd climb way up the charts on life expactancy and infant mortality. The US would rock to #1.
I agree with Jay Gee that hapiness is too subjective to measure. It's varies from individual to individual. GDP is a guess at best, but at least a directional indicator. I don't have any data to support this but I presume that if you plotted GDP growth from 1900 to present for each nation around the world that you would find that the higher GDP growth points to higher literacy rates, life expectancies, etc...all the measures that are supposed to be in the "hapiness index".
Money and hapiness are not that strongly linked; but they also are not mutually exclusive.
Ciao.
woo, i just finished reading that whole 290-page report lank linked to. i'll have commentary later.
JGW is wrong about a middle-class Guatemalan being worse off than a member of the US underclass.
He is also wrong to posit that a one-track fixation on GDP would end social programs. Keynes, duh.
Irate Bolshevik, to the degree that legislators take into account the preferences of their constituents (instead of those of their donors, allies, etc.) every rational legislator is focused on legislation that they think will make us happy. That is how they get elected.
The Adviser is wrong by asserting that a middle-class Guatemalan isn't worse off economically than a lower-class American. Especially without ever clarifying which sub-segment of their respective classes that they fall in. In my point, I was pointing to a person in the middle of the pack in a country with a relatively low GDP and pointing to a person below average in a country with a relatively high GDP and discussing how well off a person feels depends on how they relate it to their surroundings. The specifics of the example is unimportant but I'm sure The Adviser can think of an example of a lower class American that has more food, clothing, and shelter than a middle-class Guatemalan, especially with a loose definition of where the distinction between classes falls.
The Adviser is also wrong to posit that JGW ever posited that a one-track fixation on GDP would end social programs. JGW is well aware that social programs often strengthen the economy. A healthy, happy workforce is a more productive workforce. Right comrades? However, many of them do not and often the correlation between a social program and economic output is weak.
Who needs MvC when we have JGWvJGW?:
"If GDP was the only measure used to set policy we wouldn't have any social programs."
Its "wrong to posit that JGW ever posited that a one-track fixation on GDP would end social programs."
"A man in the ghetto in America has better access to food, clothing, and shelter than a middle class man in Guatemala"
That is, "a person in the middle of the pack in a country with a relatively low GDP and...a person below average in a country with a relatively high GDP."
"Middle class" in Guatemala (urban doctor, teacher, lawyer, bureaucrat, petit bourgeois) is far wealthier than the "middle of the pack" (median wealth owner, probably a peasant or newly arrived urban informal worker).
US ghetto dwellers are WAY below average in wealth and have notoriously irregular and overpriced access to food.
Interesting tidbit at the end of the article:
"'France’s consistently low level of economic growth,'...has driven thousands of French entrepreneurs to Britain and elsewhere
In that context, Gallagher said, "There is a huge whiff of hypocrisy if Sarkozy is suggesting that the French are happier than the people of Britain or the United States."
I dont know if its hypocrisy--as that word gets bandied about as much as nazi accusations--but it does seem to be a case of selection bias. France is happier because the unhappy manqué entrepreneurs have self-selected out of the population.
This guy Stiglitz is a kook.
First he maintained that
MONEY = MONEY
Then he averred that
WAR = MONEY
Now hes saying that
MONEY ≠ HAPPY
I guess if you want people to finally believe common sense, you call Stiglitz and have him dress it up in an econometric tuxedo.
If somebody ever puts all this together, they might finally conclude that
WAR ≠ HAPPY
Doubtful.
"every rational legislator is focused on legislation that they think will make us happy"
Exactly. The government making people happy is not scary at all. It is the ONLY thing they (attempt to) do. What is at issue is how that happiness is reached (and measured.)
When the government seeks to further our "interests" via war, trade policy, etc. they make the assumption that our economic interests are what will further the goal of happiness. This is what I take issue with. The comfortable assumption that economic success equates with happiness.
Anything the government does gets roundly criticized with the exception of pursuits of economic interests. Wealth is viewed as an unassailable goal because we have freedom to spend money and pursue happiness as individuals.)
Yes we are all unique individuals. Some may want to go fishing while others prefer opera. The notion that the government would prescribe directly the source of pleasure is the man made of boogey straws.
Our similarities exceed our differences. None of us like to have bombs coming towards us or fires burning down our houses or garbage dumps opening next to our homes. The government provides these things for us to be happy (or at least avoid unhappiness.)
I'd rather be a bit poorer and live in a country that acts in line with the limited shared morality that it has. Torture, war, and a slew of other actions (and inactions) go against these things. Policies go against what people would support as individuals but are accepted and supported via economic rationale.
The Adviser is ignoring the points I have made in favor of arguing semantics from chunks of words taken out of context.
The Adviser did the same with the IrateBolshevik. I'm pretty sure that IrateBolshevik understands that policy makers do what makes their constituents happy. When referring to "what makes you happy" he was referring to a proposed happiness index that included things like life expectancy.
As for the Guatemalan example, the Adviser can toss it if he fails to see the point. When saying middle class, I was referring to median income. When referring to that man in the ghetto, I was referring to Lawrence Fishburn's character in Boyz in the Hood. As I said, the example is unimportant, but if the Adviser wants to turn this into a lesson about how the middle class in Guatemala is the top 5% so be it.
The Adviser will just have to trust that JGW considered how social programs help the bottom line, but that JGW realizes that most social programs don't affect the bottom line enough for it to matter. Therefore the sweeping statement to make the point, which stands. I should have taken 20 minutes longer on that post to take more care into qualifying every statement.
JGW once said something to the effect of everything that he could do that was good for the economy was stupid for him, or maybe it was everything that was stupid for him was good for the economy. I thought that was both funny and loaded with truth.
There is a great disconnect between what makes us happy as individuals and what our government tries to achieve for us. I think thats far more true for the US than many other nations.
Jeremy hits the nail on the head for why GDP is an inadequate measure of economic strength. To go back to my favorite example, I get in a car accident, I've raised the GDP. I turn on the heater when it's cold instead of putting on a sweatshirt, higher GDP. I import drugs from Columbia to LA, have them delivered to Portland, sell them on the streets of Portland, get busted by police, go through trial, and go to jail, GDP goes way up!
Good timing Lankownia
France is happier because the unhappy manqué entrepreneurs have self-selected out of the population.
France & Happiness: Love it or Leave it
Post a Comment