Little did I suspect when I linked to Greg Easterbrook's op-ed in the LA Times this morning that a bunch of other folks would be talking it up as well. Kevin Drum essentially says, "Duh. Ya think?" And I found Matt Yglesias' question is cogent, especially in combination with Kieran Healy's observation:
Meanwhile — sorry, I’m not even going to pretend to link these comments — Matt Yglesias makes the following observation about Greg Easterbrook’s The Progress Paradox:The real progress paradox isn’t “why doesn’t all our stuff make us happy” but rather, given that all our stuff pretty clearly doesn’t make us happy, how do we come to have all this stuff.Which seems about right. An unwillingness to distinguish these two questions — or rather, the decision, for technical purposes, to treat them as if they were the same question — is a hallmark of modern economics. Robert E. Lane has a book that argues this point. Bruno Frey and Alois Stutzer have a solid rejoinder from the economist’s point of view, arguing that money can indeed go a long way towards making you happy — but not as far, surprisingly, as democratic institutions and local political autonomy can.
LATER: Oops. Just noticed Kerim at Keywords has another view:
I would like to argue that this is not such a confusing stance for an American to take, as I discussed before, when Thomas Jefferson demanded the freedom to pursue "happiness" he was really arguing for the freedom to own private property. No, what really bothers me about Easterbrook's Op-Ed isn't his definition of happiness, but his definition of progress. What arguments about "material progress" inevitably overlook a very important issue: inequality.Over the same period that Easterbrook discusses, inequality has been increasing, and social mobility has been decreasing. As Nobel Prize winning economist and philosopher Amartya Sen argues, it doesn't matter if the total bundle of goods received by the poorest is getting larger if, at the same time, social inequality is increasing. That is to say, it is harder to function as a poor person in a rich society than a poor one, even if you have more material possessions. An argument borne out by the fact of lower life expectancies amongst poor and minority populations in industrialized nations when compared with materially poorer populations in developing nations.
Posted by P6 at February 23, 2004 02:17 PM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/540
Comments
> it is harder to function as a poor person in a rich society than a poor one, even if you have more material possessions.
The fact that not many poor Americans are migrating to places like Ethiopia or Bangladesh, where they are supposed to "function better" would seem to contradict this, or at least indicate that their "degree of functionality" isn't much of an issue for these people.
They're too poor to buy a ticket.
I'm sure many Conservatives and Libertarians would be willing to ship them out, though…
Posted by P6 at February 24, 2004 08:11 AM
Actually, my point was that it seems as if doing manual labour for 60+ hours a week and have a caloric intake in the borderline undernourished / almost adequate range appears to be somehow a deterrent for those poor americans interested in "better functioning".
In plainer terms:
to conclude from
"poor people in developing nations have longer life expectancy than poor people in developed nations"
that developed nations must be doing something wrong makes as much sense as concluding from
"black people in the pre-civil war era had a longer life
expectancy than black people living in post civil war america"
that abolishing slavery must have been wrong.
Actually, my point was that it seems as if doing manual labour for 60+ hours a week and have a caloric intake in the borderline undernourished / almost adequate range appears to be somehow a deterrent for those poor americans interested in "better functioning".
See why I don't really engage elliptical comments? There is absolutely no way I could gather that from what you wrote. Anywhoo...
to conclude from"poor people in developing nations have longer life expectancy than poor people in developed nations"
that developed nations must be doing something wrong makes as much sense as concluding from
"black people in the pre-civil war era had a longer life expectancy than black people living in post civil war america"
that abolishing slavery must have been wrong.
Let's assume that really bizzare postulate (which you obviously don't believe and constructed because mentioning slavery tends to draw certain predictable responses from Black folks) is true. The correct conclusion would be that each "after" has side effects one wouldn't expect from the description of this situation.
Posted by P6 at March 10, 2004 11:23 AM