improving life despite recession

[lemur]

For how many years has politics been approaching the issue of economic recession, rising fuel prices, etc. in terms of how to raise GDP, create jobs, bring down the price of gas, etc.? But assume for a moment that GDP growth won't increase, that more jobs won't be created, and the price of gas/fuel will keep increasing. If that is the case, what kinds of things would make people happier without costing more money? Are there changes that government and/or private individuals and organizations could make to improve quality of life without running into the brick-wall of the discourse on recession and how to fix it?

[Marat]

Two epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, have published a detailed statistical study in 'The Spirit Level' (London: Penguin, 2010), which shows that when nations reach a certain level of prosperity, which corresponds to that typically found in a developed economy, the quality of life in those countries improves with increasing equality in the distribution of resources, but not with increasing wealth.

 

By comparing the lopsidedness of wealth distribution in various countries and states of the U.S. with data on crime, mental health, physical health, life expectancy, education, violence, etc., Wilkinson and Pickett were able to demonstrate that the best way to improve quality of life on all these measures was by making the distribution of wealth more equal, not by increasing the total wealth in society.

 

So this defeats the essential argument of the Republicans, which is that we must adopt social policies which lower economy equality in order to increase the total amount of economic wealth in order to improve the quality of life in society for everyone. In fact, the opposite is true: By increasing economic inequality we generate so many internal tensions within society that we lose more quality of life than we could ever gain from any economic gains -- that is, as long as we have a developed economy and we are not talking about whether additional economic resources would be beneficial to quality of life in Rwanda, Chad, or Mali.

[lemur]

Two epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, have published a detailed statistical study in 'The Spirit Level' (London: Penguin, 2010), which shows that when nations reach a certain level of prosperity, which corresponds to that typically found in a developed economy, the quality of life in those countries improves with increasing equality in the distribution of resources, but not with increasing wealth.

 

By comparing the lopsidedness of wealth distribution in various countries and states of the U.S. with data on crime, mental health, physical health, life expectancy, education, violence, etc., Wilkinson and Pickett were able to demonstrate that the best way to improve quality of life on all these measures was by making the distribution of wealth more equal, not by increasing the total wealth in society.

 

So this defeats the essential argument of the Republicans, which is that we must adopt social policies which lower economy equality in order to increase the total amount of economic wealth in order to improve the quality of life in society for everyone. In fact, the opposite is true: By increasing economic inequality we generate so many internal tensions within society that we lose more quality of life than we could ever gain from any economic gains -- that is, as long as we have a developed economy and we are not talking about whether additional economic resources would be beneficial to quality of life in Rwanda, Chad, or Mali.

Why do you completely undermine the premise of this thread to make yet another pitch for redistribution. The point of the thread is if redistribution continues to get blocked and GDP growth doesn't increase, etc. what can people do to improve quality of life. If you want to discuss studies about how quality of life goes up by redistributing money, why don't you post a thread about that? Obviously people have been dreaming about redistributing wealth in the US for decades but it simply doesn't gain popularity - so the question is whether there are any other ways to improve quality of life or do we just have to accept poverty as inevitable suffering until we annihilate all opposition to redistribution?

[Marat]

Your question was, assuming GDP won't increase, how do we make people happier with interventions that won't cost more money? Well, 'The Spirit Level' addresses itself precisely to that issue by pointing out that people become happier with a constant GDP as long as the distribution of wealth is improved.

[lemur]

Your question was, assuming GDP won't increase, how do we make people happier with interventions that won't cost more money? Well, 'The Spirit Level' addresses itself precisely to that issue by pointing out that people become happier with a constant GDP as long as the distribution of wealth is improved.

Can that be achieved by people with higher income conserving their spending more? I.e. if everyone would spend and consume at approximately the same level despite income differences, what would the problem be with inequality in (unspent) wealth/savings? After all, if wealth is conserved/saves and thus taken out of circulation, someone has to save it. Imo, the problem with income differences is that bigger spenders set the bar high for what is perceived as a respectable lifestyle. Whereas a poor person who keeps themselves and their things in good condition would not be disdained among people who spend conservatively, among more liberal spenders such people are viewed as quaint, anachronistic, or even pathetic and worthy of pity. This is, imo, the cruelest aspect of social-economic differentiation. When people talk about remedying it by allowing poor people more consumption opportunities, I don't think that would help because I think the market just stratifies people according to different brand-names, etc. There is great dignity in maintaining old things and living well on a very tight budget that deserves more respect/love than it is afforded for the most part in contemporary socio-economic cultures.

Edited May 15, 2011 by lemur