Does Increasing Economy Really Increase Quality of Life?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The Consumer Paradox: Scientists Find that Low Self-Esteem and Materialism Goes Hand in Hand

Researchers have found that low self-esteem and materialism are not just a correlation, but also a causal relationship where low self esteem increases materialism, and materialism can also create low self-esteem. The also found that as self esteem increases, materialism decreases. The study primarily focused on how this relationship affects children and adolescents. Lan Nguyen Chaplin (University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign) and Deborah Roedder John (University of Minnesota) found that even a simple gesture to raise self-esteem dramatically decreased materialism, which provides a way to cope with insecurity.

"By the time children reach early adolescence, and experience a decline in self-esteem, the stage is set for the use of material possessions as a coping strategy for feelings of low self-worth," they write in the study, which will appear in the Journal of Consumer Research.

The paradox that findings such as these bring up, is that consumerism is good for the economy but bad for the individual. In the short run, it’s good for the economy when young people believe they need to buy an entirely new wardrobe every year, for example. But the hidden cost is much higher than the dollar amount. There are costs in happiness when people believe that their value is extrinsic. There are also environmental costs associated with widespread materialism.

So is increasing the economy always a good thing? I have long joked that it everyone became frugal to gain financial security our economy would collapse.

I have heard it argued many times that the best way to increase quality of life is with a strong economy and free market.

But is that really true? This article, and most spiritual and psychological people I meet, hold consumerism in low regard.

IIRC, there was a leader who planned to lead his country on Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product. Which I thought was completely silly.

 

[Tailgater]

Did they use my ex-wife in that study?

 

[Sefarst]

IMO, low self-esteem in the land of plenty beats the hell out of high self-esteem and starving to death.

The reason for low self-esteem is likely just the crushing burden modern societies place on their members. To be considered a "success" by many, you need higher education, a well-paying job, and satisfying relationships. In sub Sahara Africa, however, all you need is a fat cow and you've got it made. Success is measured very differently and many of the most stressful decisions you and I would have to make in our lives are made by other people in different cultures. You don't have the same fear of failure. Spouses are selected for people by their parents, jobs usually focus on taking over whatever job your family all ready does, and life tends to be simpler.

 

[latent aaaack]

To be considered a "success" by many, you need higher education, a well-paying job, and satisfying relationships. In sub Sahara Africa, however, all you need is a fat cow and you've got it made.

I believe the sensitive term is "big beautiful woman" and not "fat cow."

If people want to degrade themselves by being low self esteemed consumer whores and it causes the economy in the country I live in to be better, more power to them. I wouldn't teach children consumerism though anymore than I'd indoctrinate them into a religion (brainwashing).

 

[marksman]

In the developing world, if you are successful, you are happy. If you are unsuccessful or unlucky, you are either dead or grateful not to be dead.

In the developed world, you may or may not be happy, but you're not dead.

If the developing world skews towards happiness, it's because the unhappy people didn't make it. I'd rather have a world with unhappy people in it than have them die.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ditto. 200 years ago 90% of the people in the world lived in what is now considered extreme poverty. Today about 1/6 of the world's population lives in extreme poverty (equivalent to about $1.00 or less a day) and another 1/3 in serious poverty. We've got a long way to go, but it was economic growth that got us this far. I don't believe in consumerism, either as a lifestyle or economic practice (living frugally and saving to buy what you need, put your kids through college, and retire comfortably is not compatible with careless spending). There's no law that says a capitalist society has to be more materialistic than some other economic system. Perhaps if we educated our children differently, they would have healthier values.

 

[Nathyn]

The Consumer Paradox: Scientists Find that Low Self-Esteem and Materialism Goes Hand in Hand



So is increasing the economy always a good thing? I have long joked that it everyone became frugal to gain financial security our economy would collapse.

I have heard it argued many times that the best way to increase quality of life is with a strong economy and free market.

But is that really true? This article, and most spiritual and psychological people I meet, hold consumerism in low regard.

IIRC, there was a leader who planned to lead his country on Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product. Which I thought was completely silly.

I'm skeptical about this study because of the difficulty at measuring "materialism." How do you measure it? You can go by how many luxury goods a person has, but just because a person has such goods doesn't mean they're attached to them. Buddhism teaches that, right? There have been plenty of wealthy Buddhists, historically.

Strong economic growth raises the standard of living, hence in America our "poor" tend to have TVs and automobiles. What it doesn't change is the distribution of income, which many people think is more important. If the economy has a whole makes people wealthier, but you end up with two sharply divided economic classes, some might prefer that we give up some degree of wealth for some degree of equality.

Growing wealth and equality, however, aren't mutual exclusive. And from what I've seen, the evidence suggests that market forces are far more powerful at lifting people out of poverty than wealth distribution. Because the underlying cause of poverty is some kind of market force itself -- some are born with less than others or end up losing what they have, and can't get ahead. When wealth is distributed, it treats the symptom but doesn't address the problem. When economic reforms are made, though, which allow the poor to lift themselves out of poverty and allow people to avoid poverty to begin with, you're treating the problem itself. Those who generally favor wealth distribution to treat poverty rather than economic reform are usually not economists.

For some intriguing data to back up my claims about the miracle of economic growth in the so-called "third world", check out this site:

http://www.gapminder.org/

Also see economist Han Rosling's lecture here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92

And finally, I've seen other studies which suggest gaining wealth up to the poverty level correlates with increasing happiness, but it's once you have enough to sustain yourself that wealth ceases to have anything to do with happiness, and things like "self-esteem" become more critical. This is also supported by Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

 

[corplinx]

I'll let you know after I get done talking with all my hip friends on my iPhone.

 

[Michael Redman]

The wealthy do not experience more happiness when they gain more wealth. The starving do experience more happiness when they get something to eat.

 

[Sefarst]

The wealthy do not experience more happiness when they gain more wealth. The starving do experience more happiness when they get something to eat.

You must not have ever seen me ride my jet ski, I'm like an Ethiopian with a turkey leg.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The Consumer Paradox: Scientists Find that Low Self-Esteem and Materialism Goes Hand in Hand



So is increasing the economy always a good thing? I have long joked that it everyone became frugal to gain financial security our economy would collapse.

I have heard it argued many times that the best way to increase quality of life is with a strong economy and free market.

But is that really true? This article, and most spiritual and psychological people I meet, hold consumerism in low regard.

IIRC, there was a leader who planned to lead his country on Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product. Which I thought was completely silly.

Yes, increasing your country's economy is always good. At least if you have competitors and if said competitors could get agressive if you didn't match or supercede their developments.

 

[Puppycow]

I think this is more a study about adolescent psychology in an affluent country. I went through a materialistic low-self-esteem phase in my adolescence too. In my school, the "cool" kids wore the in-fashion right brands of clothing, and I wanted to acquire those too. Now I'm over it. I still enjoy material things, but don't measure my self-worth by my possessions. I shop for value, not some popular brand. If you think you need to own the prestige brands of this and that to be worthy, and cannot afford to, you will be unhappy. The cure is to grow up and realise how lucky you are to live in a rich country.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I think this is more a study about adolescent psychology in an affluent country. I went through a materialistic low-self-esteem phase in my adolescence too. In my school, the "cool" kids wore the in-fashion right brands of clothing, and I wanted to acquire those too. Now I'm over it. I still enjoy material things, but don't measure my self-worth by my possessions. I shop for value, not some popular brand. If you think you need to own the prestige brands of this and that to be worthy, and cannot afford to, you will be unhappy. The cure is to grow up and realise how lucky you are to live in a rich country.

Agreed.

 

[egslim]

So is increasing the economy always a good thing?

No, because GDP includes expenditure for expensive lawsuits and medical bills for invasive surgery, neither of which makes people happy. Preventative medicine that increases quality of life and lifespan may actually decrease GDP if it is cheaper than the invasive surgery it prevents.

In addition, a decrease in workhours will decrease GDP, but people may be happier with the additional free time.

 

[Michael Redman]

You must not have ever seen me ride my jet ski, I'm like an Ethiopian with a turkey leg.

You only think you're happy.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You only think you're happy.

You only think he only thinks he's happy.

 

[Elind]

I have heard it argued many times that the best way to increase quality of life is with a strong economy and free market.

But is that really true? This article, and most spiritual and psychological people I meet, hold consumerism in low regard.

I tend to very skeptical of these "attitude" surveys. Clearly you don't meet the same spiritual people I do, who only worry about someone working while they are in church, and therefore make more than they do.

I don't know what a psychological person is, other than everyone, but I have a mental image of someone justifying why they are not materially successful by coming up with psychological explanations of how vows of poverty are the ultimate expression of happiness.

Truth is we gain much from materialism, but it also requires complexity in life and complexity requires decisions and potential for mistakes and potential for bouts of unhappiness.

We all have the choice to join a monastery or similar, and simply work hard without material responsibility, but we don't. I think surveys like this are mostly voodoo for getting grants.

 

[kedo1981]

There was a scene from “the Sopranos” that is really the key to explaining this.
Tony is telling his shrink how depressed he was and how feels like such a P(meow)y because
His father, grandfather, great grandfather back in Sicily never worried about being happy.
The Doc says, that’s because they were lucky just to survive, they didn’t have time to worry about the feelings inside them.

 

[Elind]

Bingo!

 

[bruto]

I don't know about the rest of you, but (despite what folks like tokenconservative might think), I make my living as a capitalist, so when the economy gets better, you bet my quality of life gets better. The quality of my life would be tangibly improved by a new bucket loader. So please, go out and buy gasoline and fatty food, dump all your assets into real estate, and if at all possible, develop high cholesterol and erectile dysfunction along the way.