John Pearson reviews How Much is Enough? Money and the Good Life by Robert and Edward Skidelsky, Penguin (London 2012, pbk 2013). 239 pages. £8.99.
The Skidelskys, father and son, present, as Rowan Williams suggests, 'a wake up call'. The evocative cover picture tells it all. Many in society have more than they sensibly need but are not happy, still wanting more. The authors prompt us to reflect upon our collective lot in life. They suggest that we already live 'the good life' – a state of happiness that cannot and should not be measured in terms of ever more wealth or possessions. Furthermore, we actively destroy our planet as we all continue to pursue the best and the most of everything. They do not 'preach' but, rather, present a lengthy but carefully reasoned scholarly and genuinely interesting analysis of both wealth and of happiness. For the first they re-visit Keynesian economics. For the second they reach as far back as Aristotle and his peers.
Keynes argued that by the centenary of his writings on this subject, in 2030, a utopian state of being would exist through the advance of capitalism. In this state of 'bliss' most citizens would have all their material needs satisfied and most would need to work for only 15 hours per week, as GDP would rise to supply these. In practice, it is suggested, most people today appear unsatisfied with their possessions and most still work an average 40 hour week, only ten less than in his day.
The authors present various causes why most still in employment work just as hard as ever, if not harder.
One reason is that statistical averages tend to be misleading. Currently most workers receive four to six weeks paid leave per year. This last increases slightly the average weekly rate across the year from that in days gone by, when only one or two weeks' holiday were allowed.
Chiefly, Keynes suggested that the average person (a dangerous term) would work only hard enough and long enough to achieve a certain quality of life as good as most other people. He was correct in his forecast that GDP would rise, thus lifting the average standard of living. However, he failed to foresee the vast technological advances which would occur, such that certain desirable material goods would always lie just outside the grasp of the average person – unless they worked harder, and longer, to obtain them.
What keeps them all at it is their pursuit of happiness, or 'happiness' as they perceive and measure it.
Happiness is of course a relative term. It cannot be precisely measured and is not generated, necessarily, in the same way from one person to the next. The authors study its various manifestations.
Consider the relationship between the happiness which might be born of more leisure time (the four weeks of holiday and weekends off that most nowadays enjoy), and the cost of using it up. Say that in our free time we choose to take up one of the growing number of pursuits once open only to the rich (sailing for example), we are faced with ever more sophisticated equipment, all of it a 'must'. We feel obliged to work harder, and longer, to be able to afford it!
And why the acceptance of working harder and longer? Partly because for most people work itself is generally less physically demanding nowadays, and so not seen as such a negative thing as in Keynes' time.
To the Skidelskys we are, for reasons too many to detail, more dissatisfied, more acquisitive, than we ought to be. The 'good life' should not be presented to people, or seen by them, in terms of better and best but in terms of enough. For them, seven basic elements make up this 'good life': these concern Health, Security, Respect, Personality, Harmony with Nature, Friendship and Leisure. Their carefully explained recipe for exiting the 'rat race', achieving the above for the greatest number, includes a basic income, education for leisure, reducing the pressure to consume (less advertising), less insularity and more free trade.
In 2113 mankind, in a much worse state, could be mocking the Skidelskys' own utopian proposals, or it may have adopted them and be on a much surer and 'happier' footing perhaps?
John Pearson is a former Chair of SOF Trustees and recently retired as a Director of Learning and Teaching at the University of Northumbria.