By FERNANDO NOGUEIRA DA COSTA*
Material desires would be satisfied with increasing wealth, according to John Maynard Keynes' belief, but experience has shown that the search for goods and consumption is, to a large extent, infinite.
Co-authors Robert and Edward Skidelsky, father and son respectively, of the book “How much is enough? The love of money and the economy of the good life”, published in 2011, examine John Maynard Keynes’ prophecy about the reduction of the working day in the face of increased productivity. In his essay “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren”, published in 1930, Keynes predicted that technological advancement would lead to a society where people would work only 15 hours a week, enjoying more free time and material abundance.
The Skidelskys acknowledge the soundness of John Maynard Keynes's prediction of economic growth in the coming decades. Indeed, per capita income quadrupled in rich countries between 1930 and 2000, in line with his projections.
However, the reduction in working hours did not materialize. Instead of a drastic reduction, the average working week fell by only one fifth, remaining at around 44 hours.
The Skidelskys point to several reasons for this discrepancy. They fall into three main categories: the joys of work; pressure to work; and insatiability.
As to the first reason, some argue that modern work has become more pleasurable and rewarding, providing intrinsic satisfaction and a sense of identity rather than the former alienation from the product of labor. However, they dispute this view because most jobs remain poorly paid and alienating. Research suggests, on the contrary, that most workers prefer shorter hours, even with reduced pay.
In the case of the second reason – pressure to work – income inequality has increased significantly since the 1980s, concentrating wealth in the hands of a minority. This intensifies competition for better positions and salaries, leading people to work longer hours to climb the social ladder. In addition, precarious work and job insecurity force many workers to accept long hours to ensure their livelihood.
Material desires would be satisfied by increasing wealth, according to John Maynard Keynes' belief, but experience has shown that the pursuit of goods and consumption is largely infinite. The logic of conspicuous consumption (snobbish luxury) and positional competition leads people to constantly seek more, driving endless work and economic growth.
O marketing and advertising exploit this insatiability. It creates new artificial desires and needs, perpetuating the cycle of work and consumption.
The Skidelskys conclude by stating that John Maynard Keynes's prophecy failed because he underestimated the strength of human insatiability and the impact of power relations in the labor market. Capitalism, instead of leading to a society of abundance and leisure, as Keynes had hoped, has intensified competition and the relentless pursuit of wealth.
In contrast, the economics of the good life, a new area of economic science, distinguishes itself from the economics of happiness and questions the direct relationship between wealth and well-being. It criticizes John Maynard Keynes' optimistic vision of the future of capitalism.
Humans should question whether the relentless pursuit of income and wealth growth is really the path to a good life. In a world where material abundance is already a reality for many, it is time to rethink priorities and seek a more just model of society, with more time for leisure, culture and personal development.
The economics of the good life, as presented by Robert and Edward Skidelsky in How Much is Enough?, proposes a paradigm shift in relation to the objectives of economic policy. Rather than focusing on economic growth as an end in itself, the economics of the good life argues that the primary goal should be the promotion of social well-being through the possession by all humans of basic (and universal) goods essential for a full life.
Among the main ideas of the good life economy, it is worth highlighting that the growth in the production of goods and services should be seen as a means, not an end in itself. It would be considered a by-product of a process aimed at achieving the good life, not the main objective. The focus should be on creating conditions for people to evolve culturally, and not just on increasing production and consumption.
The good life is defined by the possession of seven basic goods: health, security, respect, personality, friendship, leisure, and harmony with nature. These goods are universal (needed worldwide) and essential for human well-being, regardless of culture, income bracket, or individual preference.
The aforementioned basic goods transcend cultural, ideological, religious differences, and individual preferences. The absence of any of these goods constitutes a significant loss, preventing full human fulfillment.
Health represents the proper functioning of the body, vitality, energy and the absence of pain. It is not limited to mere survival, but encompasses physical and mental well-being, allowing a person to fully engage in life.
Security refers to the justified expectation that life will follow its normal course, uninterrupted by events such as wars, crimes, revolutions or socio-economic crises. Instability and fear impede the development of personality, friendship and leisure.
Mutual respect, between peers or equals, is the consideration and appreciation of every individual as a human being, recognizing their dignity and autonomy. It is fundamental for self-esteem and for building healthy social relationships.
Personality refers to the ability of each individual to structure and live according to his or her own tastes, temperament and values. It implies autonomy, individuality, spontaneity and the freedom to be oneself, without the imposition of rigid social roles. Private property is considered essential to it.
Friendship, in its most authentic form, is characterized by love and genuine concern for the well-being of the other. It differs from mere utilitarian friendship or friendship based on shared pleasures.
Leisure is defined as an activity performed for pure pleasure and satisfaction. It differs from idleness, which is characterized by passivity and lack of purpose.
Harmony with nature represents a relationship of respect and care for the environment, recognizing its intrinsic value. It involves living sustainably, seeking to minimize the negative impact of human activities on the planet. It is essential for the good life by providing beauty, peace and a sense of connection with the natural world.
Basic goods are not independent, but complement and reinforce each other. For the economy of the good life, the primary objective of the working day should be to provide access to these basic goods for all citizens. The incessant pursuit of economic growth, without everyone having these goods, may lead to a society that is materially rich but spiritually impoverished.
There is a contrast between the economy of the good life and the economy of happiness. The latter seeks to determine the aggregate happiness of the population, using subjective indicators of well-being, such as life satisfaction surveys.
Criticism of the first to the second includes the disbelief in subjective measures. It questions the reliability of happiness surveys, because the expression of happiness is influenced by cultural norms and does not reflect real well-being.
Happiness cannot be reduced to a pleasant – and fleeting – state of mind. For it to be authentic, it depends on the achievement of objective goods, such as the aforementioned basic goods, and not just on the feeling of well-being.
The quest to maximize happiness can lead to the “infantilization of society” and the neglect of important values. The excessive emphasis on happiness as an end in itself diverts attention from issues such as social justice, individual freedom, and human development.
In contrast, the good life economy takes a more holistic and ethical view of human well-being. It focuses on the achievement of objective goods because they actually contribute to a full and meaningful life.
*Fernando Nogueira da Costa He is a full professor at the Institute of Economics at Unicamp. Author, among other books, of Brazil of banks (EDUSP). [https://amzn.to/4dvKtBb]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
