The nations mentioned are some of the most advanced in the world, and their lower-than-world-average GDP growth is being used to show that "it's not all about wealth". I don't think this article makes a very good point.
Exactly. This is a classic case of a confounding variable. The happiest nations are also the richest ones. The richest ones have lower growth than developing nations precisely because they are the richest: developing nations can achieve growth by increasing their literacy rates, building infrastructure, and making other capital expenditures (e.g. farming equipment, high-tech machines for factories). The richest ones already have all of that, so their growth needs to come from elsewhere.
I really don't think that this article makes a very good case for nations to focus on happiness over economic growth. It is apparent that the nations that the article states are the happiest are highly developed nations which have had decades of growth which has given them the means to keep their population happy. With regard to the point about China's growth, I believe that given how rapidly China is growing, there will be a significant lag between the rate at which GDP grows and the time when the Chinese people begin receiving the benefits of this growth.
Of course, general well-being is a better metric of whether the incumbent gets voted in than economic growth in developed countries because well-being is far more tangible to the common man than the abstract concept of economic growth. OTOH, in a developing country, I'd argue growth is a better indicator of the probability that the incumbent will win since developing countries have growth rates which are in general far higher than developed, and since these high growth rates result in visible, tangible changes: bridges get built, schools are opened, and people get jobs.
Perhaps, the new thesis of the article should be that developing nations should focus on economic growth, while developed ones should focus on the happiness of their people.
I read a similar things a few weeks ago. They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth. I'm guessing it was saying this is the cause of crazy inequality and "the jobless recovery."
I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be dismissing that and other gains if it was their whole premise), but like this article, something to think about.
> They were saying that the U.S. (government through laws and legal system) centered on "fairness" up until recently. Sometime after WWII the focus changed to Economics and growth.
I absolutely agree with this. Considering the history and how we used to run public schools, it seems almost obvious.
American nationalism was at an all-time high during World War 2 and we rode that straight into the Cold War... 50 years of anti-soviet propaganda and public discourse, riding the post-WW2 American economic boom and global "anti-communist" imperialism. For an entire generation community-oriented principles, egalitarianism, collectivist ideas, and far-left leaders were demonized as Soviet sympathizers, replaced with rah rah unregulated capitalism, Ayn Rand-ian individualist, and military might.
If you've ever wondered why many modern American Christians blatantly disregard the liberal social aspects of Jesus/the Bible, look no further. WW2's morale-boosting propaganda morphed into a cancer of civil discourse, deeply coupling nationalism with the perceived indisputable success of American capitalism.
American society takes time to change because our 2-party system is dominated by unengaged voters, the uneducated electorate that votes without thinking about it... heavily influenced by the world they grew up in, and what they were taught from k-12. When many election results are +/- 5%, moving the average 10% in one direction has long-term consequences.
It's worth thinking about how our 17 year-old "War on Terror" will continue to change society...
That's somewhat misleading in 1800 the US population hit ~5.24 million vs England's ~9.2 million, it had more than doubled over the prior 30 years. Economically and Militarily England was much further ahead. But, unlike Europe the US's wars of conquest and genocide where mostly vs the Native Americans. Consider, Ohio only joined the Union in 1803.
What use is power if it doesn't make you or your descendants happy?
How is being a world power a gain, if, by doing it, you sacrifice the very tenets that your country was founded on?
What use is power if it begins the process of curtailing freedoms and privacy for the minorities and majority (respectively), all the while aggravating the problem by funding problematic groups (causing a feedback loop)?
I very strongly recommend reading literature on the Industrial Revolution(s) generally, and on relating energy and economic growth. There's still a fair bit I've yet to read, but:
* Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History (1994). Highly technical, short, dense, but quite readable. Focus is on energy and technology primarily, economics and politics only remotely.
* Manfred Weissenbacher, Sources of Power (2009). Also technical, long, rambles, somewhat, and unevenly edited, but still recommended. Draws heavily on Smil as well as numerous other sources, and includes more politics (particularly recent) and economics.
* Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth (2016). A good technical history, a middling economics text. Really hammers home the transformation in the United States, 1870 - 2015.
* Daniel Yergin, The Prize (1992). A history of oil, which is to say, the last (and largest) segments of Weissenbacher and Smil's histories (Weissenbacher continues to a forecast / scenario), and much of Gordon's work. Focus is on energy.
Gordon's book is part of a series edited by Joel Mokyr on modern industrial history and development, there are several other good books within it.
I've yet to read, but still recommend, Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation.
And yes, the obsession with economic growth was a post-WWII thing. Mostly, people didn't want to see a return of the Great Depression and pre-war crisis.
Although I'd have to poke around for the specific sources, I've read papers that showed that, in fact, subjective well-being increases continuously with wealth (per capita GDP). However, the increase is not linear, but rather logistic--which makes intuitive sense, since a $5,000 pay raise for an employee making $25,000 a year isn't the same as for one making $100,000. On the other hand, I've also read that the increase in wealth past the much-referenced $75,000 level doesn't significantly increase emotional well-being (unconscious positive/negative feelings).
Sounds like this would depend a lot on what kind of social safety net is provided by the society. You need a lot more income to feel secure in the US than Sweden, where healthcare/education/pensions are more or less collectively provided.
There is a gigantic cultural bias. In many cultures people say that they are happy because they are expected to say that they are happy. Itd just a facade. In some others people just dont like to talk about self happiness or they have negative connotations when they talk about it.
I have lived in 5 countries from that list and I find it really hard to say that people from those countries are happier than other countries I've lived in and are not listed.....
"Happiness" as a gauge for the "quality" of a country doesn't make much sense to begin with.
A person can be unhappy even in literal paradise. Personal issues, strained/failed relationships, or inability to fit in with your peers can make one miserable even in the best of countries, while on the other hand, people can find happiness even in an economic backwater that has virtually no modern amenities.
Are there any rankings that consider the multiple factors which govern and represent the potential for happiness, such as the degree of personal liberty, environmental quality, crime, and the unique goods, art and research produced by a country?
>There's plenty of wealth, that goal is already achieved. Good policy is a matter of directing it toward the determinants of happiness.
This reminds me of this quote:
"It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution"
-John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848, book IV, chap. VI)
One day we'll look back at the levels of wealth people today possess the same way that today we look back at the level of material prosperity people enjoyed in 1848, as being at the level of extreme poverty.
To prioritize ephemeral happiness over substantive gains in the people's capabilities is shortsighted.
but what if growth is required for certain scientific and medical investment, funding, and advancement even if it depresses the average happiness of a population?
If that is true, how much of suffering of individuals are we able to tolerate to keep the average of a whole up a few notches? (re: all the issues with utilitarianism)
[+] [-] Oddstrider|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opportune|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] YokoZar|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcamacho84|8 years ago|reply
So we are consuming useless things to keep useless jobs and maintain a growth that doesn't make us more happy.
[+] [-] chickenmonkey|8 years ago|reply
Of course, general well-being is a better metric of whether the incumbent gets voted in than economic growth in developed countries because well-being is far more tangible to the common man than the abstract concept of economic growth. OTOH, in a developing country, I'd argue growth is a better indicator of the probability that the incumbent will win since developing countries have growth rates which are in general far higher than developed, and since these high growth rates result in visible, tangible changes: bridges get built, schools are opened, and people get jobs.
Perhaps, the new thesis of the article should be that developing nations should focus on economic growth, while developed ones should focus on the happiness of their people.
[+] [-] pfranz|8 years ago|reply
I'm not sure I buy all of it (the U.S. wasn't really a world power prior to the world wars, so they'd be dismissing that and other gains if it was their whole premise), but like this article, something to think about.
[+] [-] losteric|8 years ago|reply
I absolutely agree with this. Considering the history and how we used to run public schools, it seems almost obvious.
American nationalism was at an all-time high during World War 2 and we rode that straight into the Cold War... 50 years of anti-soviet propaganda and public discourse, riding the post-WW2 American economic boom and global "anti-communist" imperialism. For an entire generation community-oriented principles, egalitarianism, collectivist ideas, and far-left leaders were demonized as Soviet sympathizers, replaced with rah rah unregulated capitalism, Ayn Rand-ian individualist, and military might.
If you've ever wondered why many modern American Christians blatantly disregard the liberal social aspects of Jesus/the Bible, look no further. WW2's morale-boosting propaganda morphed into a cancer of civil discourse, deeply coupling nationalism with the perceived indisputable success of American capitalism.
Consider these two points: * The Cold War started 70 years ago, and formally ended 26 years ago * 2016 Trump / Sanders popularity, bucketed by age: http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/age_of_voting_groups_...
American society takes time to change because our 2-party system is dominated by unengaged voters, the uneducated electorate that votes without thinking about it... heavily influenced by the world they grew up in, and what they were taught from k-12. When many election results are +/- 5%, moving the average 10% in one direction has long-term consequences.
It's worth thinking about how our 17 year-old "War on Terror" will continue to change society...
[+] [-] Retric|8 years ago|reply
By 1870 the US GDP PPP(98,374) was at near parity with the UK (100,180). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(P... and had a slightly larger population.
Around the mid 1800's the US was clearly a world power, but in the way Germany is today. Big enough to have real impact, but not a super power.
[+] [-] fao_|8 years ago|reply
How is being a world power a gain, if, by doing it, you sacrifice the very tenets that your country was founded on?
What use is power if it begins the process of curtailing freedoms and privacy for the minorities and majority (respectively), all the while aggravating the problem by funding problematic groups (causing a feedback loop)?
[+] [-] dredmorbius|8 years ago|reply
* Vaclav Smil, Energy in World History (1994). Highly technical, short, dense, but quite readable. Focus is on energy and technology primarily, economics and politics only remotely.
* Manfred Weissenbacher, Sources of Power (2009). Also technical, long, rambles, somewhat, and unevenly edited, but still recommended. Draws heavily on Smil as well as numerous other sources, and includes more politics (particularly recent) and economics.
* Robert J. Gordon, The Rise and Fall of American Growth (2016). A good technical history, a middling economics text. Really hammers home the transformation in the United States, 1870 - 2015.
* Daniel Yergin, The Prize (1992). A history of oil, which is to say, the last (and largest) segments of Weissenbacher and Smil's histories (Weissenbacher continues to a forecast / scenario), and much of Gordon's work. Focus is on energy.
Gordon's book is part of a series edited by Joel Mokyr on modern industrial history and development, there are several other good books within it.
I've yet to read, but still recommend, Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation.
And yes, the obsession with economic growth was a post-WWII thing. Mostly, people didn't want to see a return of the Great Depression and pre-war crisis.
[+] [-] throwaway91111|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wordsarewind|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|8 years ago|reply
Not true. It actually goes much higher. Admittly quite slow. I think until $150,000.
[+] [-] victornomad|8 years ago|reply
basically asking people, "are you happy?"
There is a gigantic cultural bias. In many cultures people say that they are happy because they are expected to say that they are happy. Itd just a facade. In some others people just dont like to talk about self happiness or they have negative connotations when they talk about it.
I have lived in 5 countries from that list and I find it really hard to say that people from those countries are happier than other countries I've lived in and are not listed.....
anyway lets keep living in hackernews bubble...
[+] [-] Razengan|8 years ago|reply
A person can be unhappy even in literal paradise. Personal issues, strained/failed relationships, or inability to fit in with your peers can make one miserable even in the best of countries, while on the other hand, people can find happiness even in an economic backwater that has virtually no modern amenities.
Are there any rankings that consider the multiple factors which govern and represent the potential for happiness, such as the degree of personal liberty, environmental quality, crime, and the unique goods, art and research produced by a country?
[+] [-] petra|8 years ago|reply
BTW, i'm from Israel, an we're number 2 on the happiness scale! hooray!
[+] [-] candeira|8 years ago|reply
Maybe poor people wanting to make more money need to rethink their strategies?
[+] [-] ThomPete|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] campground|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jabanga|8 years ago|reply
This reminds me of this quote:
"It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution"
-John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848, book IV, chap. VI)
One day we'll look back at the levels of wealth people today possess the same way that today we look back at the level of material prosperity people enjoyed in 1848, as being at the level of extreme poverty.
To prioritize ephemeral happiness over substantive gains in the people's capabilities is shortsighted.
[+] [-] easytiger|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __m|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] faragon|8 years ago|reply
Edit: I found a BBC article saying just the opposite [1], may be Finns are happy, after all? :-)
[1] http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20110622-travelwise-why-are-...
[+] [-] xux|8 years ago|reply
Big surprise
[+] [-] spodek|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] platz|8 years ago|reply
If that is true, how much of suffering of individuals are we able to tolerate to keep the average of a whole up a few notches? (re: all the issues with utilitarianism)
[+] [-] lngnmn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tn135|8 years ago|reply
I am pretty sure 10 years ago Greece would have featured as a happiest nation and Venezuela not as much as a miserable nation that it is today.
Contrary to all this India WAS super miserable 10 years and go and much more happier today though comparatively might not be as happy as the Italian.
[+] [-] 20delta|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hhh000|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Proven|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xorfish|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gys|8 years ago|reply
Policymakers are probably very concerned with happiness. Their own ;-)
[+] [-] maxxxxx|8 years ago|reply