On 25 Nov 2010 at 10:22pm MC wrote:
A happiness index? Instigated by the Conservatives?
I've long wondered why western countries concentrate so hard on raising GDP. And since travelling third world countries and being surprised at how happy many of the very poor people seemed to be when measured against my comparatively affluent compatriots I've thought that we needed to strive for something more than simply raising GDP. Happiness seemed to be a much more sensible thing to try to achieve.
It is with some incredulity that I see Conservative prime-minister David Cameron devoting funds to measuring well being and suggesting that we could make this an index with at least as much value as GDP. I'd have never thought that this idea would come from a Tory. But then I'd have never of thought a right wing president such as Regan would be responsible for ending the cold war or that Margaret Thatcher would be responsible for the highest levels of social mobility this century. Strange things do happen.
Really, I can't see this one coming off though. Just how do you measure happiness?
On 25 Nov 2010 at 10:48pm Smiler wrote:
Happiness = P + (5xE) + (3xH)
P stands for Personal Characteristics, including outlook on life, adaptability and resilience.
E stands for Existence and relates to health, financial stability and friendships.
And H represents Higher Order needs, and covers self-esteem, expectations, ambitions and sense of humour.
Simples!
On 26 Nov 2010 at 9:11am MC wrote:
Where does that interesting equation come from Smiler? Maybe you ought to send it to Cameron.
On 26 Nov 2010 at 9:53am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
If Cameron wants to waste public money on calculating a happiness index that's up to him, he's the PM and he's the one most people voted for. In the interests of balance though, I think he should also start a crappiness index, to see how just how utterly awful some people feel about stuff. If he only measures happiness, he won't be aware of anything below zero happiness, we need a measure of how pissed off people are too.
On 26 Nov 2010 at 2:05pm Brixtonbelle wrote:
I'm interested to see how they ask the questions and how they skew the results. I have to complete a form every year about my workplace and invariably the results are always skewed to be positive, depsite all my colleagues giving consistently negative feedback ! I suspect the same will happen with this happiness index.
How about we start our own happiness index for Lewes - five things that make you glad you live here and five things that make you grumpy ?
Here's mine
GLAD
1. The sight of the Downs from every street corner
2. The Lewes Arms
3. Bonfire
4. Good shopping
5. Good schools
(lots more could be added to this list)
GRUMPY (I found this bit very hard!)
1. Nimby-ism/ Lewes smugness and insularity
2. Monocultural-ism
3. Poor driving
4. Overpriced housing stock
5. Poor street cleaning
On 26 Nov 2010 at 8:35pm Clifford wrote:
MC - you know why the obsession with GDP. Capitalism can only survive by constantly growing. The employer steals surplus value from the worker which takes the form of profit, much of which can only be invested to make even more money. The employer can't just spend the profit on Belgian chocolates and Porsches. At the same time, the workers have to be persuaded to keep buying more and more - and as they aren't paid enough to buy everything that's being produced (because the employer steals the difference between what he pays them and what he sells their product for) they have to be persuaded to use credit cards, get overdrawn etc. Capitalism's fulfilment is perpetual shopping.
On 27 Nov 2010 at 2:06am not from around here wrote:
The employer 'steals' surplus value from the employee Clifford? What a strange way of looking at things and curious choice of word. I suppose you could say that a proportion of wealth generated by any business is also 'stolen' by the employees - except they call it wages!
Note to self: must 'steal' less value from people by not employing them in the first place..
On 28 Nov 2010 at 1:39pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Basic Marxist theory, NFAH. Employer buys £5 worth of wood, pays employee £10 to make it into a chair that sells for £50. The employee's labour is worth £45 because that is how much it has increased the value of the wood by. As he/she has only been paid £10, the surplus value of that labour is £35, and it is retained by the employer. Hence, all profit is the surplus value of the worker's labour.
Of course, that is a very simple example but it gives the gist. Next week we may move on to who has the right to own the means of production. If anyone apart from me and Clifford are still awake.
On 28 Nov 2010 at 3:01pm not from around here wrote:
Ok ACT interesting 'lesson' but Clifford using the word 'steals' is what attracted my attention in the first place. Also one could argue that as the employer has created the opportunity for the employee to earn the wage in first place then the right of ownership of production belongs to the employer without whom none of it would have existed?
On 28 Nov 2010 at 6:42pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Most translations use the vewrb "to appropriate", but there is at least one that uses "to steal", so not necessarily Clifford's own words.
According to the theory, the problem with the appropriation of surplus value is that it is not at all conducive to "distributive justice". If the ownership of the means of production is retained by a few, there is no meaningful way of altering that, which is why 13% of people still hold 93% of the wealth, or whatever the current balance is.
On 30 Nov 2010 at 2:31pm not from around here wrote:
What about the idea that downtrodden worker goes out and buys their own wood, makes a chair, and keeps the profit. It's not so hard..