I was reading a short article in the Finnish news about a university study that found almost 10% of the population (and 11% of the children) do not earn enough to afford a decent life - which is of course, subjective. However, I think that wellbeing should be the focus of an economy, where the money is a tool to help organize the processes to get there.
The study's researchers explained that a "decent life" refers to more than just having food, clothes and shelter, but also includes the opportunities to socialize and unwind. This could mean enough resources to maintain a hobby, go out socializing from time to time, or take a holiday at least once a year.
Surviving isn't enough.
We are animals, but we are animals that (usually) have higher brain function that is analytical and can imagine the past and the future, to affect our momentary experience. This is important, because this allows us to be more than reactive and plan for future events. Which is also a burden, because it also means that we are able to imagine how things could be and build expectations and therefore, expose ourselves to the possibility of disappointment of unfulfillment.
And, I think a lot of people are feeling unfulfilled these days, because our expectations and sense of entitlement have gone up, driven by a global view of the world through the distribution of information. In the past, we were likely more accepting of our conditions than today, because we had less reference data, comparing ourselves to people in our circles, more than to those from other countries. While we did see the extremes of wealth and poverty, we didn't see the average, how people "like us" lived.
Now with social media and mass global streaming, we are consuming not only the entertainers' lives, but each other's lives too. We see what it looks like to be low, middle or high income earners from the perspective of real people. And, we are more likely to start to demand similar, wanting more from the higher brackets, which then feeds into our local experience too. Even if we aren't consuming from lives abroad, we are seeing it replicated it through those who do, as global fashion trends have become the norm.
This includes things like holidaying, which for example in Finland, used to be having time off in the summer and spending time at a local lake beach or a family summer cottage. Now, people are almost embarrassed if they aren't making an international trip to somewhere that is further away than Estonia or Sweden. The expectations of what a holiday is has changed, but we aren't comparing ourselves to those who may never get out of their city, let alone travel for leisure somewhere exotic.
One of the challenges with all of this is that while we see more of our (cherry-picked) lives, the international economy hasn't changed that much in terms of the global makeup. There are still many exceptionally poor people and the number of poor is increasing relative to that of the increase of the rich, which is escalating in wealth continuously.
And, what I liked seeing mentioned in the article was;
"Of course, that is no consolation for the low-income Finn, that things are worse elsewhere."
Yes - No consolation.
We are told not to compare ourselves to others when they are better off than us, but when we are the ones better off, we are told to compare to those who are worse off. It is inconsistent. Perhaps we shouldn't compare ourselves to others at all or, perhaps we should compare on both sides, trying to improve through learning from those above, but also being grateful to not be in the group below.
Should we want less from life?
Perhaps. However, that doesn't improve our position long term, it just means that more will be taken from us through economic mechanisms so that we will have to want less again, and less again - until we are barely surviving, and then struggling to survive, then not surviving.
What a decent life is for each of us might change, but there is likely a large amount of overlap, so we should look at improving our opportunity on the averages, giving room to expand into the fringes at an individual level. If we want to have a strong society and community, we have to encourage improvement of the "basics of wellbeing" and find ways to increasingly meet the needs, pulling people up into the model, rather than finding ways that force them to reduce their needs.
The obvious solution will look at the heavily skewed top end of the economy, but forced redistribution isn't the answer, nor is relying on charity for it to trickle down. It has to be incentivized, which requires changing what we value. Instead of the most value and investment return coming from passive trade mechanisms and crushing employment through supply chain efficiencies, the highest returning wealth mechanism should be one that is based on its ability to increase wellbeing in society. Currently, the alignment for the highest return generally comes from what harms society.
While everyone should be looking to earn from some passive income, that investment return should come through supporting social improvement in some way, rather than social extraction. It should help the community build, not retract in wellbeing so that some people have far more than they need, while the majority don't have enough.
The funny thing is that for any individual to truly be content in the tribe, it requires others in the tribe to be content too, because their misery affects the entire system. This is not quite the case at an individual level for the globalized economy, but if we look at it from large user groups, we can see that being wealthy doesn't mean a good life, when it means that they aren't able to walk the streets safely without fear of the poor.
Handouts don't work, balancing return on work does. It puts incentive into participating and when value is tied to wellbeing, there is also the value of being part of a community, being part of something larger than oneself that makes our experience better, through helping others improve their experience too.
Idealistic for sure.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
