Wealth is Relative

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that is exactly the problem which appears to have no solution. The state will grow unconstrained and the richest people who have the most power within the state will keep accumulating more and more of the total share of wealth and power. What mechanisms do you see that would restrain this growth?

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting rid of the state?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that is exactly the problem which appears to have no solution. The state will grow unconstrained and the richest people who have the most power within the state will keep accumulating more and more of the total share of wealth and power. What mechanisms do you see that would restrain this growth?

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting rid of the state?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read it, that's what he was asking how to do.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Your subjective feeling of happiness. There's good reason to believe that people measure happiness on a fixed scale, rather than an unlimited one. So, if you're asked how happy you are, you'll consider your current level of satisfaction compared with how satisfied you could possibly be. If the ratio is very high, then you're happy. If it's low, sad. A corollary is that the same objective level of satisfaction produces less happiness if technology makes greater levels of satisfaction possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have mentioned that there's a second, very relevant possible interpretation. This is that people actually do feel happier today than they did fifty years ago, but they report it differently. 1950s person says, "I have this tiny grain black & white television. It's state of the art, I can't imagine anything better, and therefore I am as happy as it's possible to be with it." Move to the present day, and the same consumer reports the same feelings about his 80" LCD HDTV. This is true even if 1950s man's subjective happiness was lower because he was watching a crappy TV. He couldn't realize it, and therefore report it, because he didn't know what TV-related happiness is.

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to reliably decide which of these interpretations is true. Daniel Gilbert's amazing Stumbling on Happiness addresses the issue in some depth.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that is exactly the problem which appears to have no solution. The state will grow unconstrained and the richest people who have the most power within the state will keep accumulating more and more of the total share of wealth and power. What mechanisms do you see that would restrain this growth?

[/ QUOTE ]
Getting rid of the state?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I read it, that's what he was asking how to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, I read it more as how to stop the rich from exploiting the state for their own ends. If it's what you said, here are some.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Your subjective feeling of happiness. There's good reason to believe that people measure happiness on a fixed scale, rather than an unlimited one. So, if you're asked how happy you are, you'll consider your current level of satisfaction compared with how satisfied you could possibly be. If the ratio is very high, then you're happy. If it's low, sad. A corollary is that the same objective level of satisfaction produces less happiness if technology makes greater levels of satisfaction possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I should have mentioned that there's a second, very relevant possible interpretation. This is that people actually do feel happier today than they did fifty years ago, but they report it differently. 1950s person says, "I have this tiny grain black & white television. It's state of the art, I can't imagine anything better, and therefore I am as happy as it's possible to be with it." Move to the present day, and the same consumer reports the same feelings about his 80" LCD HDTV. This is true even if 1950s man's subjective happiness was lower because he was watching a crappy TV. He couldn't realize it, and therefore report it, because he didn't know what TV-related happiness is.

I'm pretty sure it's impossible to reliably decide which of these interpretations is true. Daniel Gilbert's amazing Stumbling on Happiness addresses the issue in some depth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent point. A lot of what consumers are actually seeking in their purchases is status. Having something that no one else has is very, very cool. I remember being the first kid in my class to get a Sony Playstation, which quickly made me a lot of friends (until everyone else got one). That happens with everything. New technology is always expensive as hell when it first comes on the market, then rapidly plummets when it becomes "obsolete." Having an iPhone (or whatever the spankin' new gadget may be) isn't just about having a convenient, touch-sensitive phone, mp3 player and web browser, it's about being the only guy with an iPhone. (I can understand, and even sympathize with leftist psychologists who claim that limiting our consumer options might actually have positive psychic effects; unfortunately the macroeconomic repurcussions of what they advocate are terrifying.)

This is pretty deeply rooted in our culture, and I think that's sad; if you're able to overcome this kind of consumer fetishism, living comfortably is really affordable. Watching your shows on a 720p HDTV isn't that much better than watching them on a good old fashioned CRT.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]

So the fact that a janitor today lives longer and healthier than a 15th century king, and doesn't have to contend with flea and lice on his person, and has a minor problem rather than a major problem if he gets a toothache - all these things are irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument is that the people of the 15th century were no less happy than people today.

I'm also arguing that if you lived in the dark ages, and had 12 teeth, while most people had 6, you were perfectly happy with your teeth.

On the other hand, if you were somehow transported to the 21st C, your 12 teeth become a source of embarassment, perhaps even misery.

[ QUOTE ]
Which would you rather be:

1. a rich 15th century nobleman with poor health, and fleas and lice, and a wife that hardly bathes, and both of you have permanently bad breath; and often your food is spoiled or spoiling -

or

2. a janitor today with plenty of healthy food and a clean reasonably healthy lifestyle and enough money to pay the bills and have a modest decent apartment or small house?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've lived my whole life with healthy food and air conditioning. I would not voluntarily give them up.

Nevertheless, I'd argue all things being equal (which they never are) a dark age king is happier than a janitor today. (Or to put it differently, an average king is happier than an average janitor.)

A while ago a read about a survey, where they asked what were the "necessities"?

Fifty years ago it might have been electric lights, or maybe a telephone.

Twenty years ago it included air conditioning.

Today, some people think an Ipod is a "necessity of life."


[ QUOTE ]
Do you suppose toothaches aren't a source of dissatisfaction as long as everybody walks around with a toothache most of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone in constant pain is obviously unhappy.

I'd even be willing to concede there are some material conditions that are absolutely necessary. Freedom from constant pain is certainly one of them.


[ QUOTE ]
I agree that people do compare their positions to those of others, but they [/i]also[/i] compare their positions with where they would like to be solely for themselves. If I want a toothache treated, that has nothing to do with how many opther people are walking around with toothaches. If I want a comfortable retirement income, I don't much care if someone else can retire with 10 times as much, as long as I have enough to satisfy my reasonable wants and needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "comfortable" retirement income is purely a relative measure. At one time, a roof, a fire, and bowl of meal (plus maybe a bit of meat on Sundays) would have been considered comfortable.

Today, you need a lot more than that.

In fifty years, who knows what'll be necessary to be comfortable - but I'm guessing it'll include things today that we don't even know about.

[ QUOTE ]
If I don't have enough for that, that is a problem; but if I do, and if The Donald has 1,000 times that, I don't really care.

It sounds like you are pretty fixated on the notion of inequality and that you may someone who evaluates your happiness almost entirely by comparing your situation with others. May I suggest that that is a skewed outlook if it is all that you weigh when deciding what you want or need or will be happy with. Sure it is part of your outlook, but if it is by far the principal part of your outlook, then that suggests to me some sort of psychological fixation that prevents you from being happy with your own good fortune or things if some others happen to have more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I'd comment on the personal nature of this attack, which has nothing to do with the argument. But really, why bother?

Instead, let reply like this: I believe that disregarding one's competitive instincts, and rejecting the significance of material possessions, in the tradition of great men like the Budha, and Jesus, is noble. It is perhaps, even the only real route to happiness.

Unfortunately, most people (the vast majority) are incapable of following their teachings in practice, and are generally satisfied paying lip service. (And it's a good thing - for capitalism - that they are the way they are.)

[ QUOTE ]
If I have a delicious, absolutely delicious roast beef Sunday dinner once a week, I'm not upset or dissatisfied if my neighbor has Chateaubriand every night. It isn't really that important. If you have enough, someone else having more may be slightly irritating at times, but if you are basically well-off, it doesn't matter much. If on the other hand you are actually needy it is a different story. Yet even then the main focus should be how to become not needy, not how to become as rich as the richest in the world else you can't be happy. Something is wrong with the psychological outlook you seem to be affirming.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interestingly, I've never argued for becoming "as rich as the richest in the world," nor have I ever argued that only the richest person in the world is happy.

Do you actually believe I've said either thing, or is this just a lame rhetorical attempt to misrepresent what I've said?

Either way, I find it both hypocritical and typical that a supporter of capitalism would argue against envy and greed - and argue that someone who's arguing against those unfortunate human characteristics is actually arguing for them.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is that the people of the 15th century were no less happy than people today.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wow.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm also arguing that if you lived in the dark ages, and had 12 teeth, while most people had 6, you were perfectly happy with your teeth.

On the other hand, if you were somehow transported to the 21st C, your 12 teeth become a source of embarassment, perhaps even misery.

[/ QUOTE ]
So we need laws against anyone being better then the other just because of the other guys envy and misery? How far do you take this, UBV?
[ QUOTE ]
A while ago a read about a survey, where they asked what were the "necessities"?

Fifty years ago it might have been electric lights, or maybe a telephone.

Twenty years ago it included air conditioning.

Today, some people think an Ipod is a "necessity of life."


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure where you'rer going with this. I don't care what others say their necessities are as long as they don't demand others provide those things for them.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical implications of this are abhorrent. They include: We shouldn't work to erradicate diseases like AIDS, cancer, heart disease, because since they affect everyone equally, no one will be better off without these diseases as they won't be getting one-up on their neighbors.

If everyone woke up tomorrow with no left hand, no eyesight, they would not be worse off since everyone else was similarly crippled.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never argued that people are better off with AIDS, or crippled, or with missing limbs.

What thread are you reading?

[ QUOTE ]
Moorobot made a post on the point you should be making (relative inequality matters) about how if you can't afford a microwave, it sucks when all the store sells are TV dinners, or when most everyone could afford cars, public transportation suffered. But the point you ARE making (ONLY relative inequality matters, absolute wealth does not) is patently absurd, illogical, and ruinous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Moorobot that relative inequality matters.

I disagree with the concept of absolute wealth, however.

I suspect you're mistaking "absolute wealth" with having more or less wealth than you used to have.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Linus: I think I know what you are getting at, but you might want to craft your argument around subject wellbeing and happiness being a relatively fixed quantity that wealth distribution has an effect on.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a very good way of stating it. Thank you.

It's not a particularly easy point to get across, either because it's subtle, or because I'm not particularly articulate. But it is an important one.

Another way of saying it is to say that one's satisfaction from being rich depends on other people being poorer than you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I like arguing with you on the internet. It makes me feel even smarter.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol tenements.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe it depends on that for YOU but it doesn't for me. I'm 99%+ interested in how good my own life is - not how it compares to the lives of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the only way you - or anyone - can gauge how good your life is in relation to someone, or something else.

[ QUOTE ]
I must also say I'm pretty much baffled by anyone who derives more sastisfaction from being "above" others than by merely seeing a substantial improvement in their own life.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me please emphasize this: Improvement in one's own circumstance is something that generally makes people (at least temporarily) happy.

This is not, however, an example of "absolute" wealth. It's an example of a relative improvement - a comparison between how you used to live, and how you live now.