Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Quite an interesting read, but it's just stating the obvious repeatedly. Time equals money. And of course, with slower economics coupled with ever-increasing competition of the global market money becomes more valuable. But why do we feel so? It seems, there are some socio-cultural drivers for this need of the resources.

People tend to want same things their neighbours have, or more. Today you feel your neighbour is not just someone living across the fence, but also someone you've just chatted on Skype (across the continents). Our sense of what Normal is is based on the cultural environment we're living in. And with technological progress, modern communications and mass media this sense skews towards images propagated by those who are involved in producing more of this kind of information i.e. western world.

This flip side of this process is what might have looked like a decent living now seems less so. When you live in the area with life expectancy about 60 years and suddenly you realize your friends live somewhere where average is 74, you become more stressed to maximize your efforts. So my idea is that most people who work extra hours do so not to get rich, but trying to avoid ending up worse than average.

So what is the way we can free our time so we could sit on the "park benches with pretty girls" more often?

The only obvious answer I see is to improve the overall life quality of the poorest. This sounds frighteningly lefty, but this notion is based on the realization of one of humanity's ultimate goals: providing personal freedom for everybody to do what person feels preferable for him. The non-destructive way of achieving it is taking off the stress and fears of less income-maximizing life style. When you're certain you still will be well fed and able to afford medical assistance even without extra-hours at work you'll be more inclined to do what fulfils you as a person.

At this point it's natural to discuss the old issues of exploiting social care and parasitic lifestyle in market economy, which might be possible in societies with high social guarantees. This is an axiological issue and answers depend on personal senses of equity and sympathy, and it's a hot topic on its own. However, scientific and technological progress is what I think the only plausible potential way of improving the overall life conditions thus leaving more time for leisure.

*Some context on happiness vs inequality: Paul Alois. Income Inequality and Happiness: Is There a Relationship? www.lisdatacenter.org/wps/liswps/614.pdf

Shigehiro Oishi, Selin Kesebir and Ed Diener. Income Inequality and Happiness. http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S13_Oishi.pd...




> This sounds frighteningly lefty

Thats not 'lefty' I have the same goals and Im not 'lefty'. Where we might differ is HOW this can be achived.

I want to creat a dynamic market economy that grows and gives other people the same conforts I have, meaning that I can work 8h and always have awesome new gadgets or I can work 4h and just read books on the kindle all day.

What is really 'lefty' is focusing on inequallity instead of individual wealth. It drives me mad that the focus is inequalily instead of individual wealth/consumtion.

I have looked at lots of this 'Happiness' research and I dont have a high opinion about it (even when it confirms my priors) because its not clear at all how to measure happiness. I think, we need to provide liberty, once you have liberty at least your happiness mostly depends on your own action. I dont think society should be in the buissness of providing happyness, because that is even more elusive goal then providing freedom.


I didn't say the goal is lefty, however, decreasing inequality gap by all means is one of the main left ideas.

Focusing on inequality is not means to an end, but it's a usable metric. Society shouldn't "provide" happiness, but happiness dynamics can show successfulness of what society does.

>its not clear at all how to measure happiness

I don't think its significantly harder than measuring any other attribute. You just need to ask the right questions and take into account some social factors (such as fear of oppression) that can distort the results.

Liberty is an essential condition of happiness (probably, not everyone agrees but it's just my opinion). However, I think it's taking us too far from the topic.


> Liberty is an essential condition of happiness (probably, not everyone agrees but it's just my opinion)

That does not turn out in the reasearch. Social or Economic freedom does not corrulate with happyness, specially the 'ask questions' kind very well. You need to ajust for cultural bias, some people, on the question how happy the are say, 'normal' others say 'good'. This depends on culture and attidute, its not clear however that the person that said 'good' is happier then the one that said 'normal'.

Thats why I said measuring happyness is very difficult, its not at all clear how to ajust for culture and many other factors. And when you ajust, how do you do it without beeing totally arbitrary.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: