In terms of overall wellbeing, Kentucky was second-last behind West Virginia and worse than Mississippi. (No comment.)
In terms of emotional health, Kentucky ranked last.
President Obama's home state of Hawaii had the greatest wellbeing for the third year in a row. Maybe that explains why he is so maddeningly well-adjusted and even-tempered all the time? (Reminds me of that Onion story: "Poll: Happy, Healthy Obamas Out Of Touch With Miserable Americans.")
Maybe if Obama were a little grumpier and more miserable then more Americans would like him? They just can't, like, identify.
Statistics from all over the world are all well and good, but hey, psychologists, there is a little thing that's proven and it's called American Exceptionalism. Which means the rules for everybody else don't apply to us Yanks.
In America, the pursuit of happiness isn't in building good public transport, education, health care, etc., it's in chasing that one-in-a-million lottery ticket to rich assholedom.
And I don't know about you, but it's gonna happen for me, just you wait! I'm gonna be the exception.
Detractors of Warren Buffett take note: The more a country taxes its richest citizens, the happier everyone in that country will be.
Such are the findings of a new study, led by University of Virginia psychologist Shigehiro Oishi, which compares 54 different countries and finds a correlation between progressive tax policies -- that is, higher tax rates for higher tax brackets -- and overall contentedness.
It may not be the case that a progressive tax system automatically leads to a happier population, however. The report emphasizes that what matters is what governments do with the tax dollars they collect.
"[A] key to a happy society is quality public and common goods," a draft of the report notes. "[E]ven if a society does not adopt a progressive tax, as long as it can afford good public transportation, education system, health care, and so forth, citizens are likely to be happy."
The study observed the highest rates of "life satisfaction" in Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands and a number of Nordic countries, including Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden -- all nations that consistently rank high whenever countries are compared on the basis of happiness.
The study also noted that many of these nations tax their richest citizens at a much higher rate than their poorest. Several other nations displayed a correlation between progressive tax rates and happiness, including Israel, France and the U.K.
A number of organizations have ranked nations by happiness in recent years, and offered a raft of explanations for why certain countries seem more satisfied than others. An extensive Gallup study in 2010 concluded that while rich countries are generally happier, so are societies where interpersonal relationships tend to be strong.
In the study examining the link between happiness and progressive taxes, the U.S. ranked fairly high among nations for happiness, but has only a mildly progressive tax policy. Some two dozen countries have tax policies more progressive than the United States', including Belgium, Mexico, Germany, Pakistan, Vietnam, Japan and Morocco.
The professional movie critic Michael Medved (who has spent his whole adult life watching Hollywood films and then blasting Hollywood for promoting immorality and anti-American values) wants to tell me how I, a liberal, see the world. I give his lame attempt 2 thumbs down.
The ferocious fight over the Obama budget exposes some of the deepest differences between liberals and conservatives, contrasting not only their goals for the country but their desires for themselves.
All human beings feel a drive for power, but leftists and right-wingers express that urge with opposing (and often irreconcilable) strategies. They employ very different means in pursuit of power in part because they seek distinctive ends: at the most basic level, liberals want enhanced control through political authority while conservatives crave greater sway through accumulation of personal wealth. Understanding the true nature of this distinction clarifies the most polarizing political disputes that currently divide the country.
[Right, that's why Republicans don't try like hell to get elected or anything, not using tactics like gerrymandering, voter intimidation, and SC judges' 11th hour decisions. They just concentrate on making money and concede most elections to Democrats. - J]
The liberal preoccupation with governmental control characterizes every major initiative of the Obama administration. The reflexive response to the financial crisis is to blame it on insufficient regulation and to demand an instant expansion of bureaucratic authority to deal with the emergency. The left places its faith in governmental institutions, and even though most leftists will never personally involve themselves in politics or the bureaucracy, they support and trust those who do.
For instance, recent polling shows that big majorities of Americans want government to require more fuel efficient cars. Of course, the countless sincere citizens who demand such regulations could easily purchase high-mileage vehicles without waiting for some new federal policy, but the demand for sweeping regulations shows that many Americans trust bureaucrats more than they trust themselves.
Thoughtful liberals defend this deep-seated yen for government supervision by affirming that they feel no pressing need for Washington to regulate them, but they do want more rules and bureaucracy to rein in the destructive excesses of their greedy, irresponsible, selfish neighbors. In other words, leftists seek greatly enhanced power for those they consider enlightened and generous and broadminded—best exemplified, of course, by President Obama himself. They seek vastly increased funds for these wise, steady, philosopher-kings who guide the federal government, and sharply decreased money for the wealthiest, most productive private citizens (and, for that matter, for private charities). They believe that society will benefit greatly if progressive leaders define new goals in health care, energy, education and every other field, rather than relying on the often benighted impulses and preferences of the public at large. The great unwashed may enjoy "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars," but if the feds pump enough taxpayer money into PBS, maybe the culture commissars can facilitate the appreciation of higher things. In view of the painfully high cost of health insurance, tens of millions of Americans choose not purchase it – though many of them clearly can afford it. In response, progressives want to force them to get government insurance whether they want it or not, and plan to bill them (and everybody else) with increased taxes. In short, liberals seek power and influence over their fellow citizens by means of a more energetic and intrusive government, with the belief that everyone will benefit from more supervision, regulation, and social workers to administer the new agenda of compassion.
[Um, ever heard of voting? It's that thing we do every 2 years. It's when we get to choose gov't representatives who share our "often benighted impulses and preferences." Seriously, Medved would have us believe that the only time the public ever expresses personal preferences is when they buy something. - J]
While liberals seek to advance their values and priorities with more bureaucracy and federal spending, most conservatives yearn for a different sort of power: the control and privilege and security that comes from the accumulation of personal wealth. Right-wingers want above all to take care of themselves and the people closest to them – family, co-workers, friends, and fellow members of churches or other affinity groups. Conservatives generally feel less concerned about the welfare of strangers than they do about the fate of those who are close at hand, though they understand that personal success also brings benefits for the whole society. A flourishing business creates new jobs, and those workers can use their paychecks to stimulate the entire economy. Conservatives distrust bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare programs and redistribution of wealth because such initiatives reward the sort of behavior that right-wingers would never want to encourage personally.
[Naturally, being less concerned about the welfare of strangers jibes perfectly with conservative Christian morals. As Jesus said, "It's tough out there, people, so take care of your own. Let the guy in the next village worry about the next village." Or something like that. - J]
The power that conservatives most fervently desire involves self-sufficiency: the ability to control your own circumstances and your future, without depending on government or charity. Accumulating wealth – or at least putting together some modest savings – insures that you'll be well-treated more effectively than any governmental regulations or guarantees.
The contrast between the liberal and conservative pursuit of power gives the left two big advantages in politics, while providing the right with an even more substantial edge in terms of personal happiness.
In politics, the liberal focus on influencing government and controlling the status of other people allows the left to claim the mantle of superior compassion. Because leftists talk more about the welfare of strangers, they portray themselves as more idealistic and more concerned with humanity at large. By contrast, the conservative emphasis on private institutions – businesses, families, churches – is often derided as selfish and insular.
[I deride these institutions as poverty-fighters because they don't work; they haven't put a dent in poverty, or at least families and churches haven't. Indeed, during the recession people are contriubting less money to charities, despite a greater need. - J]
The left enjoys a second built-in political advantage: because of its emphasis on the importance of public life and governmental activism, the most ambitious and gifted people in the progressive community will often choose politics as a higher calling. Conservatives, with their preoccupation with the private sector, will much more likely choose to emphasize building families, businesses or communities rather than constructing electoral careers.
This means that those observers who perceive superior political ability on the liberal side of the spectrum are probably correct. Moreover, it's a structural imbalance, and not a temporary aberration – a reflection of the fact that the left sees government as a source of enlightenment and accomplishment, while the right views government as a locus of corruption and potential tyranny. It's not surprising that those who look on bureaucracy and political power most favorably will choose disproportionately to involve themselves in those pursuits.
[Wow, what an admission! Finally, Medved hits the target! Yes indeed, when you elect people to gov't who believe that gov't is bound to be cynical, inefficient, ineffective, and even corrupt, well, then... don't be surprised when that's exactly what kind of gov't you get. Just like Coca-Cola wouldn't hire a CEO who drank only tea, or you wouldn't choose a surgeon who recommended pills instead, or you wouldn't send your children to a teacher who hated kids. - J]
Conservatives, meanwhile, enjoy a mirror-image structural advantage when it comes to personal happiness. It is obviously much easier to control your own circumstances than to secure the welfare of society at large. It's inherently more possible and more satisfying to influence yourself and your intimates than to impact millions upon millions of utter strangers.
In other words, it's easier to change yourself than to change the world. [Duh. - J] It's therefore only logical that conservatives would report far higher levels of contentment and personal happiness than liberals, according to Syracuse University's Arthur Brooks (author of "Gross National Happiness"), and everyone else who's studied the subject.
[Is liberals' ennui due to their pre-occupation with the sadness, suffering, and moral complexity of our messed-up world, whereas conservatives' happiness is due to their blissful ignorance, instead spending their time thinking about the accumulation of personal wealth? Perhaps. But if you look at how Americans vote, in fact rich people -- especially the super-rich -- are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican, especially from the richest East and West coast "blue" states. This inconvenient fact kind of shoots Medved's whole theory to hell... unless we allow for the possibility that, despite all their time & effort spent trying to get rich, conservatives are still worse at making money than politically 'distracted' liberals! Can you say 'multi-tasking'? - J]
Both conservatives and liberals pursue power, but the left wants to influence other people and society at large while right-wingers want enhanced control over their personal circumstances. That contrast may give liberals the edge in many political scraps, but conservatives will still have a better and more satisfying time in the process.
It's usually during bad times that we pay attention to thoughts like these. That's too bad.
Now is the time for a less selfish capitalism
By Richard Layard
March 11, 2009 | Financial Times
What is progress? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been asking this question for some time and the current crisis makes it imperative to find an answer. According to the Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment, progress means the reduction of misery and the increase of happiness. It does not mean wealth creation or innovation, which are sometimes useful instruments but never the final goal. So we should stop the worship of money and create a more humane society where the quality of human experience is the criterion. Provided we pay ourselves in line with our productivity, we can choose whatever lifestyle is best for our quality of life.
And what would that involve? The starting point is that, despite massive wealth creation, happiness has not risen since the 1950s in the US or Britain or (over a shorter period) in western Germany. No researcher questions these facts. So accelerated economic growth is not a goal for which we should make large sacrifices. In particular, we should not sacrifice the most important source of happiness, which is the quality of human relationships – at home, at work and in the community. We have sacrificed too many of these in the name of efficiency and productivity growth.
Most of all we have sacrificed our values. In the 1960s, 60 per cent of adults said they believed "most people can be trusted". Today the figure is 30 per cent, in both Britain and the US. The fall in trustworthy behaviour is clear in the banking sector but can also be seen in family life (more break-ups), in the playground (fewer friends you can trust) and in the workplace (growing competition between colleagues).
Increasingly, we treat private interest as the only motivation on which we can rely and competition between individuals as the way to get the most out of them. This is often counterproductive and does not generally produce a happy workplace since competition for status is a zero-sum game. Instead, we need a society based on positive-sum activities. Humans are a mix of selfishness and altruism but generally feel better working to help each other rather than to do each other down.
Our society has become too individualistic, with too much rivalry and not enough common purpose. We idolise success and status and thus undermine our mutual respect. But countries vary in this regard, and the Scandinavians have managed to combine effective economies with much greater equality and mutual respect. They have the greatest levels of trust (and happiness) of any countries in the world.
To build a society based on trust we have to start in school, if not earlier. Children should learn that the noblest life is the one that produces the least misery and the most happiness in the world. This rule should apply also in business and professional life. People should do work that is useful to society and does not just make paper profits. And all professions – including journalism, advertising and business – should have a clear, professional, ethical code that its members are required to observe. It is not for nothing that doctors form the group most respected in our society – they have a code that is enforced and everyone knows it.
So we need a trend away from excessive individualism and towards greater social responsibility. Is it possible to reverse a cultural trend in this way? It has happened before, in the early 19th century. For the next 150 years there was a growth of social responsibility, followed by a decline in the next 50. So a trend can change and it is often in bad times (such as the 1930s in Scandinavia) that people decide to seek a more co-operative lifestyle.
I have written a book about how to do this and there is room here for three points only. First we should use our schools to promote a better value system – the recent Good Childhood report sponsored by the UK Children's Society was full of ideas about how to do this. Second, adults should reappraise their priorities about what is important. Recent events are likely to encourage this and modern happiness research can help find answers. Third, economists should adopt a more realistic model of what makes humans happy and what makes markets function.
Three ideas taught in business schools have much to answer for. One is the theory of "efficient capital markets", now clearly discredited. The second is "principal agent" theory, which says the agents will perform best under high-powered financial incentives to align their interests with those of the principal. This has led to excessive performance-related pay, which has often undermined the motive to work well for the sake of doing a good job and introduced unnecessary tension among colleagues. Finally, there is the macho philosophy of "continuous change", promoted by self-interested consulting companies, which disregards the fundamental human need for stability – in the name of efficiency gains that are often not realised.
We do not want communism – as research shows, the communist countries were the least happy in the world and also inefficient. But we do need a more humane brand of capitalism, based not only on better regulation but on better values.
Values matter and they are affected by our theories. We do not need a society based on Darwinian competition between individuals. Beyond subsistence, the best experience any society can provide is the feeling that other people are on your side. That is the kind of capitalism we want.
Lord Layard is at the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance. He has written 'Happiness' (2005) and co-authored 'A Good Childhood' (2009)
