Comments on: "The key to happiness is freedom not income"

By: Dormouse

Dormouse — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:39:00 +0000

Banner
Perhaps that is the answer.
Average sleep 1/3rd of our lives. More sleep, less activity, less opportunity for unhappiness. Make bigger tea cups.

By: Banner

Banner — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:09:00 +0000

I read one study which concluded that every extra hour of sleep you got was equal to $40000/year of income.

By: Juan

Juan — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:07:00 +0000

FT: Meanwhile democratisation is a one-shot occurrence..

No. Democratisation - and freedom - are not static but processes which can be codeterminant of greater happiness.

Communitas, which Victor Turner studied and wrote of, might be the highest level of social self-organization while what has been practiced at Semco has been a more mundane version that at least should be scalable:

Our "architecture" is really the sum of all the conventional business practices we avoid.

It's our lack of formal structure, our willingness to let workers follow their interests and their instincts when choosing jobs or projects.

It's our insistence that workers seek personal challenges and satisfaction before trying to meet the company's goals.

It's our commitment to encouraging employees to ramble through their day or week so that they will meander into new ideas and new business opportunities.

It's our philosophy of embracing democracy and open communication, and inciting questions and dissent in the workplace.

On-the-job democracy isn't just a lofty concept but a better, more profitable way to do things. We all demand democracy in every other aspect of our lives and culture. People are considered adults in their private lives, at the bank, at their children's schools, with family and among friends - so why are they suddenly treated like adolescents at work? Why can't workers be involved in choosing their own leaders? Why shouldn't they manage themselves? Why can't they speak up - challenge, question, share information openly?
(Semler, The Seven-Day Weekend

Semco 'employees' likely enjoy high levels of happiness.

By: Lord

Lord — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:40:00 +0000

When will China make the change?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 17:02:00 +0000

12:33, most social science research stinks. Crudely speaking, either the data was not collected with sufficient consistency and rigor, or it was, but the sample was too small to be able to generalize from the findings.

My pet peeve is meta-analyses in medical research, but let’s not go there…..

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:33:00 +0000

Hmmm anyone check out the samples and methodologies? Very inconsistent. All over the shop. What about sample years. Well GB are 1981, 1990, 1998
1999 and ??. Anyone hazard a guess as to the happiness factors without needing to look at the data?

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:32:00 +0000

With the magic going out of the market place it does indeed seem to be a ripe subject for discussion as part of the ongoing revival of political economy. The relationship between leisure, happiness and human functioning as discussion topics is for sure a very old one, but related perhaps to virtue and purpose in ways that have become even more unpopular than government’s role in the economy. Aren’t these issues which underlie health care, child care, education at all levels, retirement, the relationship between citizenship and employment, tax policy?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:12:00 +0000

I find it remarkable that whenever Yves brings up anything even slightly political (except bashing the Fed), some readers get up in arms and try to silence Yves by claiming he's somehow incapable of discussing these topics. 10:39, you assert that Yves is "over his head" yet provide not an iota of support for that view. Sounds like you simply don't like the thrust of the post but don't know enough of the subject area to mount a rebuttal.

This piece ran in the FT, which targets the same sort of reader that Yves has. He demonstrated knowledge of the research. Said research has also been widely discussed in the MSM.

This is hardly an esoteric topic. I don't know what your beef is.

There seems to be a persistent effort to shut down even modest political discussion here. Economics was originally "political economy". It's a legitimate theme here. In fact, I'd argue that talking about economics while trying to expunge any political or sociological context is naive and wrongheaded.

By: twoblow

twoblow — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:06:00 +0000

Cassie:

Hah! An excellent point. I used to provide medical treatment for exactly this population, and while I would agree, they have no control over their lives, I would not characterize them as "being under anyone's thumb".

To me, "being under someone's thumb" means someone is telling you what to do, directing your actions, and managing your life. Any wage slave can describe this situation. These folks lead totally undirected lives, no one was telling them to do anything! They had no job, collected welfare, drifted between relationships, drugs, and crime. They did not clean their teeth. I know it's a hackneyed phrase, but they took no responsibility for their lives, they had no sense of agency. Theadore Darlymple writes about this class in "life at the bottom" which I recommend.

So, no control, yes, but also not "being under someone's thumb".

Yves: Now that we've demonstrated money does not bring happiness, will you begin arguing against income redistribution?

By: "Cassandra"

"Cassandra" — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:54:00 +0000

Yves, I recall sociological studies in the UK that examined happiness and health (the latter proxied by longevity) controlling for variables (work type, income, etc.) that reach similar conclusions – but framing it in terms of “control” rather than “freedom”. While the distinction is probably semantical, they conclude that the defining element was “control” rather than those variables equating to income, or wealth. Nothing worse, apparently, than being under someone else’s thumb!