Listen up, Americans. Listen up, citizens of the world’s advanced economies.
Stop. Just stop it.
You’re rich enough. Well, at least a good chunk of you are. Time to take it easy. Forget your life’s work,even if it brings you deep satisfaction. Forget about innovating and producing more with less.
You’re really just wage slaves, laboring automatons persuaded by slick advertising that you want that new iPad or iPhone. A job is just a way to afford more consumption of stuff you don’t really want and sure don’t really need. Nothing more.
But enough of my exhortations, British historian and John Maynard Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky says it so much better today in the Financial Times:
So what is to be done? First, we must convince ourselves that there is something called the good life, and that money is simply a means to it. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is as insane as saying my purpose in eating is to get fatter and fatter. But second, there are measures we can take collectively to nudge us off the consumption treadmill.
One is to improve job security. Government should restore the full employment guarantee. This does not mean guaranteeing everyone a 40-hour a week job. Government should gradually reduce the maximum allowable hours of work for most occupations, guaranteeing a job for everyone who wants to work that amount of time.
At the same time it should institute an unconditional basic income for all citizens. This would aim to improve the choice between work and leisure. Critics say this would be a disincentive to work. That is precisely its merit in a society which should be working less and enjoying life more.
Third, government should reduce the pressure to consume by curbs on advertising. We already have curbs to guard against specific harms: it would not be a big jump to recognise that excessive consumption is itself harmful – to the environment, to contentment, to any mature conception of the good life.
Underpinning these measures would be a steeply progressive consumption tax, with a top bracket of, say, 75 per cent. This would be a tax on what is spent, not on earnings. It would reduce the pressure to consume, finance basic income, and encourage private saving for old age and infirmity.
Wow. In just a few short paragraphs, Skidelsky advocates frightening new limits on economic and political freedom so that we could all be “happier” — with happiness defined by Skidelsky himself. This might be the worst FT op-ed I’ve ever read.
And it apparently never really occurs to Skidelsky that, you know, lots of people might actually get something better, deeper than “happiness” — which to Skidelsky may mean nothing more than superficial entertainment or materialist diversion — from their jobs. AEI’s Arthur Brooks offers a different perspective, “But what does the right to pursue happiness mean? It means earned success: The right to define and seek our happiness as we see fit, through creating value in our lives and in the lives of others.” And for many people, that happiness comes through their work.
But elites like Skidelsky have often frowned on work despite their professed affection for the working man. As economist Deirdre McCloskey writes in Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World, the rising reputation of commerce—of making money through private trade rather than government favor—was a key driver of the Industrial Revolution. Historically, elites have looked down on the merchant class, particularly what today we call small business and entrepreneurs. She notes that in ancient Rome, Cicero declared that “commerce, if on a small scale, is to be regarded as vulgar; but if large and rich … it is not so very discreditable … if the merchant … contented with his profits … betakes himself from the port itself to an estate in the country.” Even the commercial Dutch in the 1500s thought hustling for a buck was disreputable, an attitude summed up by the proverb, “A lie is a merchant’s prosperity.”
But then that all changed:
After about 1700 in Britain … the vulgarities of the economy and of money and of dealing with their unsettling creativity came gradually to be talked about as noncorrupting. They began to be seen in theory as worthy of a certain respect, as not being hopelessly vulgar or sinful or underhanded or lower caste. In a word they became dignified, in part because they were recognized as good for the nation, not a useless scam.
Work can be mindless repetition. But it can also be an outlet for creativity and imagination, one that brings a sense of self-worth, identity, and achievement. A job well done as a way of doing the Lord’s work, of creating a “good life.”
Somehow I doubt Skidelsky thinks in those terms, at least not explicitly. But imagine if a government official told the 73-year-old that he had written enough books. Time for some enforced leisure, Mr. Skidelsky (who, by the way has a new book coming out, his tenth, How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life).
Skidelsky’s life work is almost certainly meaningful for him. He doesn’t work to consume or work to live, he lives to work. Too bad he doesn’t recognize that same desire in the rest of us.
I would be inclined to support some limitations on consumption, but I nevertheless distrust modern governments attitudes the good life. It is hard to imagine a modern government’s interference being appropriate.
If I want to buy Mr. Skidelsky’s book I will have to work extra (40 hours a week pays for all my needs and is barely enough) as his book is not a necessity in my life, assuming that he is indeed a fervent believer in what he writes, and considering that working overtime IS NOT THE GOOD LIFE that he talks about, then i CERTAINLY EXPECT HIS BOOK TO BE FREE. besides, how much more money does he want, having written 9 books before, I am sure he doesn’t want/need more money, after all “to make more and more money is insane”
We need not worry about government legislation regarding reduced consumption, less than 40 hour work weeks, and restricted cash flow……simply keep electing Democrats and it will turn out as the natural order of things.
I would like to work 12 hours per week in Skidelsky’s job at a commensurate hourly wage to what Skidelsky earns. Does he say how I would go about getting this job? Also, since I don’t need 28 hours of free time per week in order to maximize my happiness and contentment, I would like to work in Albert Pujol’s place for an additional 8 hours per week. Of course my pay for this job would be at the same hourly rate which Albert earns. Thank you very much. I will now be extremely wealthy and very happy.
I’m amused that Mr. Skidelsky presents these arguments as if this is some brave, new enlightened ideal. Throughout human history, the people with lots of money tended towards decadence and leisure, while those without drudged and toiled for meager sustenance. The modern capitalist system has done far more than any other system or government to lift people out of poverty and misery. The modern capitalist system has some inherent flaws, but under no other economic model can you decide to radically alter your own circumstances by creativeness and hard work.
Mr. Skidelsky believes, apparently, that’s bad. We shouldn’t be creative or hardworking. We shouldn’t prosper unduly, when there’s so much sunshine to lounge around in.
Mr. Skidelsky believes, apparently, that he knows what’s good for you. More so than you do.
Children do what feels good. Adults devise a plan and work at it.
I do thin we need to remember that much of the consumption around us is immoral and degenerate. Sodomy, abortion, and divorce are just a few examples of a consumerist society’s tendency to degenerate. I certainly think the adults in the room need to reduce consumption of some things. There is a difference between honest work and consumption, and I find it unfortunate when people refuse to tend to that issue.
” Sodomy, abortion, and divorce are just a few examples of a consumerist society’s tendency to degenerate”
You will find these same human failure in any society, rich or poor.
But they are certainly more legal in “rich” countries. And I question whether they are equal common in traditional societies.
Liberal/progressive/socialist folks are simply reactionaries opposing any and all conservative ideas. This automatically makes them wrong on every issue. I do hope all good LPS folks take Skid’s brilliant advice.
Socialist control freaks like Sidelsky, Keynes, Lenin, Stalin and Obama are all the same. The are ever wise and all knowing unlike the hoi polloi. Just give me my freedom. Too bad that Sidelsky;’s mother didn’t avail herself of her full abortion rights and flush the Sidelesky fetus down the toilet. The same could be said of the rest of them The world would be a much bettr place without these ignorant, all knowing morons
A guaranteed salray and free healthcare worked out so well in the Soviet Union.
“Socialist control freaks like Sidelsky, Keynes, Lenin, Stalin and Obama are all the same. The are ever wise and all knowing unlike the hoi polloi. Just give me my freedom.”
Unfortunately freedom is what got us into this mess. After all, people need their “positive liberties”, don’t they?
Jimmy P, Jimmy P,
A suggestion: stick to Kudlow; you can always deny you said what you said. When you write stuff down, you’ve got no defense. Everyone can see you’re an idiot.
Hey. I found your weblog the actual online. A great write-up. I am going to make sure you save it and also come back to find out more of one’s helpful information. Thank you for the actual publish. I willundoubtedly come back.
After reading this review and realizing its provenance I’ve decided your negative review means the book is worthwhile. I’ll order it immediately! Thanks!