In modern parlance the expression Quality of Life refers to the desire for a way of life that is pleasant and sustainable; in other words the expression has come to mean happiness. But if money does not buy happiness as the old saying goes it cannot buy a life of high quality. Thus the need to pose the questions: Is there something we can do that will lead to a life which is both sustainable and of high quality? If yes, how do we recognize that thing and when we do, how do we measure the happiness it is supposed to yield?
Having no answer to these questions, most people hang on to the old notion that the level of income in a household is a good indicator as to the quality of life in it and therefore to its level of happiness. And so they quip that money may not buy happiness but it sure makes life easier and, to most of them, this is the sort of happiness they can live with and one they will seek relentlessly come what may.
While this sort of discussion takes place somewhat tongue-in-cheek among the general public, more serious discussions take place among the planners in many places around the world. And the motivation behind the latter discussions is nothing less than the deep concern that the planners have for the survival of the human race and the need to become better stewards of the planet and its resources.
This preoccupation with the health of the Earth is generated by the demands that modern living makes on the planet’s capacity to provide for a human population that keeps on growing and where everyone strives to take their place at the banquet table. In some sense, the question of how to sustain a livable condition on Earth has replaced the question that the ancient philosophers used to ask: Who are we and why are we here?
And while this is going on among one group of people, another group is debating the fate of Western Civilization where the birthrate is going against the trend and is falling. Since economic strength is viewed as being proportional to the size of the population, this group is alarmed by the prospect of the West being overwhelmed by the other cultures. And while the group does not deny that the resources of the planet are strained, it fears for the future of Western Civilization enough to want its population to grow even if this happens at the expense of the planet.
Abstract notions and potential scenarios are put forward by the various groups to advance arguments on all sides of the issue. But when all is said and done, we are confronted with the reality that we, who live in the West, compete against people who live everywhere else on much less than we do yet seem happier than we are. So the question is asked as to whether or not we can scale down our lifestyle and still function normally if not be happier.
The answers that are advanced begin with the recognition that we are a people to which having more money means being happier than having less. To wit, winning a windfall will change someone’s mood in an instant. But there is a silver lining in this observation because if claiming the winning comes with a condition, the amount won is weighed against the condition. This says that to most of us money is not an end in itself but a means to an end. And this leads to the hopeful question: Is there another way to get to that end?
To answer the question we look at the example of two households having the same annual income of 60,000 dollars. The first household is occupied by two parents and one child for a total of 3 people; the second is occupied by two parents and four children for a total of 6 people. The numbers are so chosen as to make one household twice the size of the other.
Given that the per capita income in the first household is 20,000 dollars and the second is 10,000 dollars, we ask: Can it be inferred that the individuals in the first household are happier than those in the second? If yes, are they twice as happy?
Not many people will make that inference but when the debate begins, a number of interesting arguments are generated on both sides of the issue. On close examination, the ideas expressed can be separated into two groups, the financial type and the social type.
In the financial realm, it is said that because the people in the first household earn 20,000 dollars each, they have the option to spend 10,000 dollars and stop here or they can go on and spend more if they so wish. Thus, they can be as happy as the folks who are limited to the 10,000 level or they can buy misery if this is what spending more money will get them…but it will be their choice to make. And having this choice is in itself a form of happiness. The conclusion is that 3 people earning 60,000 dollars between them are happier than 6 people earning the same amount between them.
The opposite argument says that while the above logic seems flawless on the surface, it does not reflect the full reality of the situation. This is because there are two components to the expenses of a household; there are the fixed expenses which are obligatory and common to both households and there are the discretionary purchases which are paid for with what remains to each individual.
To see how this plays out we do an experiment. We limit the allowable expenses in each household to 10,000 dollars per individual. If now we set the fixed expenses such as paying the mortgage, taxes, insurance, hydro, water, telephone, cable, furniture, appliances and so on at 18,000 dollars a year, the 3 people in the small household will each have to contribute 6,000 dollars for the fixed expenses and thus be left with 4,000 for the expenses called discretionary.
By contrast, the 6 people in the larger household will each contribute 3,000 dollars for the fixed expenses and be left with 7,000 dollars for all the other expenses. The conclusion is that they will be better off than their counterparts in the smaller household because they will enjoy the same comfort yet have more money to spend on the discretionary items.
And the fact is that in order for the people in the smaller household to have 7,000 dollars each to spend on discretionary items and still have the 6,000 dollars to contribute toward the fixed expenses and buy the level of comfort to which they have grown accustomed, they will have to earn 13,000 dollars each, not 10,000.
The folks on the other side of the argument reject this presentation because it assumes that the fixed expenses are unaffected by the size of the household. Instead, they assert that more money is required to pay for the fixed expenses when you have to raise four children in a large household than is required when you raise one child in a small household.
Yes, respond their counterparts but having three extra children in the house does not double the fixed expenses. To be sure the extra children require a little more expenses but they do not double them. For example, you may need a larger refrigerator but not two of them. Also, one oven, one washing machine and one dryer serve the large household just as well as the smaller one. In fact, aside from the refrigerator that runs all the time, these appliances sit idle 90% of the time.
In short, having children in a household does not raise the fixed expenses in proportion to their numbers. The people who argue this side of the question offer the opinion that this fact alone contributes a great deal as to the reason why people in the developing countries live on a smaller income without diminishing their level of comfort. We may have more appliances, furniture and home entertainment units per person but when the numbers are compared on a per household basis, they do not look so lopsided.
The financial arguments thus flushed out, the social arguments begin with the question as to whether or not having children in the house brings happiness. Different people have different views on this subject but they all agree that the money spent on leisure and entertainment varies greatly between the households and thus the types of happiness and their levels will vary from household to household.
And then, a view is advanced to the effect that perhaps the people in the developing countries are happier because they have each other to rely on for support, companionship and amusement. Perhaps, it is said, they feel they are blessed having this style of life more than they would be if each had a car, a refrigerator, a washing machine and a dryer all to themselves with no one to share it with.
Can we, here in the West, adopt this lifestyle and help save the planet?