equal. posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--
Politicans and civil servants around the world share the view that voters are always unhappy (and ungrateful)
From Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair to Malaysia's former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, politicians grumble that people are never happy for the good things the government does for them Voters always want more
One explanation is that politicians are often wrong Things are bad The other explanation for this unhappiness is that it all has to do with rising expectations
But there is more, it seems — it also has to do with wanting to be better off than others
Lord Layard, an eminent British economist, explained in a series of lectures in London, in 2003, that we are often more concerned about our income relative to others than about our absolute income
He quotes a Harvard University study that showed that people were happy with less, as long as others were worse off
Students at Harvard were asked if they would prefer a salary of (a) $50,000 a year while others got half that or (b) $100,000 a year while others got twice as much A majority chose option (a)
"Many other studies have come to the conclusion — that people care about other peoples' incomes as well as their own We are all upset when others get a raise but we do not And the only situation where we might happily accept a pay cut is when others suffer the same fate," he says
Our behaviour at bonus or pay-rise time shows that Lord Layard is on to something here
This means that our efforts to make ourselves happier, by working harder so as to earn more and spend more, are often self-defeating because others are also earning and spending more We do not get much happier and neither do others
And working harder in order to be wealthier could make us more unhappy if we do not have enough spare time For, interestingly, rivalry over income does not extend to leisure, as the same Harvard study shows
Students were asked to choose between (c) two weeks' holiday, while others have only one week and (d) four weeks' holiday while others get eight weeks A clear majority preferred (d)
What has all this to do with Singapore?
It may explain why, in good times, with the economy roaring ahead, the bulls charging and property prices setting new records, most Singaporeans were (and are) never happy, always grumbling and moaning
They showed this by voting in greater numbers for the Opposition in General Elections in 1988, 1991, 1997 and this year
This, despite the Government's attempts to put into practice Bentham's utilitarian principles — "The good society is the one where people are happiest And the right action is the one which produces the greatest happiness "
Most Singaporeans have a more or less equal standard of living Yes, there are some very rich people and some very poor people But most Singaporeans live in almost similar HDB flats, take the same form of transport and so on This means most Singaporeans know no one among their peers who is much worse off than they are
At best, the owners of private condominiums can feel better off than their friends in HDB flats, five-room HDB flats can sneer at four-room flat-owners and so on
Worse, because most Singaporeans are working hard so that they can maintain their life-styles, they have less leisure time This may make them even unhappier
Add to that the feeling that most foreigners working here have better standards of living than locals (forgetting that most foreign talents here are maids and labourers), and I'm surprised that Singaporeans are not rioting in unhappiness
Happiness, in Singapore as elsewhere, has come to be defined in materialistic terms — increasing Gross National Product, bigger flats and so on But as Lord Layard has argued, the exercise is self-defeating because other people are also going well
What with the need to adapt to the new economy with creativity and working smart rather than hard, now may be time for us as a society to try to define what we mean by "happiness"
There's been talk, even, of a Gross National Happiness index along the lines practised by Bhutan
Now that things are better for most of us, isn't it time to relook our values? Time for a "Redefining Happiness" committee?
Better still, let's start debating on what we, as a society, define as "happiness" Already, it seems that things may be moving this way
According to a recent Institute of Policy Studies survey of voters, contrary to popular belief, issues such as the cost of living and jobs were not what mattered most to them The efficiency of government and fairness of government policy mattered more
-
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123283.asp
--