|
|
马上注册,结交更多好友,享用更多功能,让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有账号?注册
×
Living standards have soared during the twentieth century, and ! Y N8 z$ U- k1 M5 G& Q7 H
9 ^6 ?% @, Z( Y. `, z
economists expect them to continue rising in the decades ahead. Does
( O& o- V% a |- E5 w" j8 \; F# p
that mean that we humans can look forward to increasing happiness? " f' Q! o+ k+ |
- G* ~# ^' x( W" t6 [6 f6 c& e
" C+ W1 h3 H* M$ V( H& o: q6 p" X+ TNot necessarily, warns Richard A. Easterlin, an economist at the
9 u0 N5 V! m$ J# H5 y0 w* i
# E. A- {7 ]7 K; SUniversity of Southern California, in his new book, Growth Triumphant: ' @$ ]5 y3 D/ m: a* D! f8 o9 \
1 E' z* p8 c$ _- _
The Twenty-first Century in Historical Perspective. Easterlin concedes " N7 a& }* f7 J1 q) t$ E
9 r5 p% W0 |$ @! a8 ?; ]" \ H$ z
that richer people are more likely to report themselves as being happy 6 B, I, h, P" e3 l. a- Z4 A- X
/ D3 ]& I; v# ~ y% v
than poorer people are. But steady improvements in the American economy
8 K- S* n2 ?# `* W
3 u& z0 O3 d' thave not been accompanied by steady increases in people‘s self-5 G$ Q! w6 ^% x
$ d3 n& |* k3 O9 o! k) ^$ {; wassessments of their own happiness. "There has been not improvement in
6 @* f+ w4 o3 w- P& x0 v! H7 Q& `4 m( |4 G* M8 {; l
average happiness in the United States over almost a half century----a % d z. q% T7 j; Q- y; }4 X
4 f. A1 D0 q* n: D! c
period in which real GDP per capita more than doubled," Easterlin " A6 G( e& ~! p$ R9 X
6 U4 K: ?7 P& \4 E& ^0 N
reports.
# W! p. O$ I5 a: U$ K+ B5 M2 |4 @9 ]! D
The explanation for this paradox may be that people become less
: T: V" d0 Q1 J+ q [, y% x9 ^ e
. z) `: I' Z! V! V) I- w$ b5 hsatisfied over time with a given level of income. In Easterlin‘s word: & p- R; _: U% k' H# f7 ?4 l
6 A! V# }1 B* k, W0 Q3 M8 I- O! h"As incomes rise, the aspiration level does too, and the effect of this
) v/ I/ h) D+ f+ d. J1 s- A% A6 c" o: M
increase in aspirations is to vitiate the expected growth in happiness 8 l8 u1 o/ q7 @. E
$ v6 E/ m3 o ]6 b
due to higher income." & p- D% P7 R# H, }' R
4 Q% Y* ]4 `* ^
Money can buy happiness, Easterlin seems to be saying, but only if
0 j+ v) _, d/ l) X6 T1 I$ ~) P
; O @2 l7 b, y2 v: N9 f! {one‘s amounts get bigger and other people aren‘t getting more. His
7 h% q3 P3 S- N. A8 d: N& f) v7 c% P: {) d% h' |+ M
analysis helps to explain sociologist Lee Rainwater‘s finding that
u) @& Q& k1 [: @+ W0 i- o" ?6 R# I7 T
Americans‘ perception of the income "necessary to get along" rose : A! Y# I* |- r
# O1 f$ [" X: P0 Tbetween 1950 and 1986 in the same proportion as actual per capita
a1 ^" D( b% g) {
+ M7 K9 H+ N3 S+ @8 G* mincome. We feel rich if we have more than our neighbors, poor if we . ?/ B" V* h& Z5 P& f4 Z
5 R' m9 w1 n7 u# Nhave less, and feeling relatively well off is equated with being happy.
6 p( `8 y: a% B5 w1 V0 Q
/ }' \: ~0 O& R. W7 k, h0 zEasterlin‘s findings, challenge psychologist Abraham Maslow‘s
9 L3 O7 q0 p2 l$ s: k2 A
/ P+ M- a( B6 ?! {( c, b+ G"hierarchy of wants" as a reliable guide to future human motivation.
2 k# \4 l. [& r% [ O2 I; x" s# B d5 s2 M+ l' Z' J3 ^
Maslow suggested that as people‘s basic material wants are satisfied
6 B+ B" h8 i0 p+ z& w. G
K. O! U8 l, a* @* Othey seek to achieve nonmaterial or spiritual goals. But Easterlin‘s
8 u8 [* _* D- M6 }' f+ J/ \
i$ `1 ^- Z$ K; Aevidence points to the persistence of materialism.
6 j" E5 H# K; \/ e# o& t# E0 h8 G
; d3 ^' W4 B# T; U, v"Despite a general level of affluence never before realized in the 4 H+ R! B1 H9 t: w
4 B d4 N4 G( p) \9 V3 Z7 x: Ohistory of the world." Easterlin observes, "Material concerns in the
2 u1 ?+ G6 F- B, z: X+ q* @+ F0 o
wealthiest nations today are as pressing as ever and the pursuit of 4 c2 T" _0 a! P. e5 I& e
: k% S9 j) A7 o3 Vmaterial need as intense." The evidence suggests there is no evolution , C! }/ `2 L8 i |
. O4 F. P7 g6 ~! c( r
toward higher order goals. Rather, each step upward on the ladder of
+ b) ~5 Q# r: Y8 D; g) d* Y/ G* g! T- p% S/ x
economic development merely stimulates new economic desires that lead ' T. d/ n2 J0 g* U( S* S3 _
( A% q$ }6 J8 P0 p1 W: Mthe chase ever onward. Economists are accustomed to deflating the money " k6 n2 O: y: }, U! L2 N
2 x4 Q2 d, z* ?$ v$ d7 D
value of national income by the average level of prices to obtain
' V# c) g+ i$ m2 D
- A8 D' J5 n9 b2 e P"real" income. The process here is similar----real income is being
- u! K1 W# P' l) V& e' |
# b& v& q4 @8 y! x; G( n9 Cdeflated by rising material aspiration, in this case to yield ! X& K0 |9 K6 I+ p6 J. ]# t) t
p# U+ |9 W5 F4 I* tessentially constant subjective economic well-being. While it would be
$ L, `5 v8 I6 \8 G8 Y( Q S# r5 C0 y, w
" w7 q k9 s5 Mpleasant to envisage a world free from the pressure of material want, a
- O: p) I& b$ U+ m- a6 n# z+ Z
* E4 \! y( e; C o7 ~* w! i. j2 kmore realistic projection, based on the evidence, is of a world in
# w0 A3 c* H4 ]3 b4 B/ H9 @
& U' ^: U! l9 o$ Nwhich generation after generation thinks it needs only another 10% to 4 T" j6 G! S; m* F
2 {( G% r3 F* g8 T6 ?. n
20% more income to be perfectly happy." i: |8 n) {+ p u5 y+ \
- u$ O7 q4 n" ]4 `1 Y+ YNeeds are limited, but not greeds. Science has developed no cure for x. u n8 u/ O* Q, S
& y& J; s, A' |& \% ~
envy, so our wealth boosts our happiness only briefly while shrinking & }# @7 k3 t7 ]4 f& `( n1 _" Z m O5 Z
) T7 [; q& @! v
that of our neighbors. Thus the outlook for the future is gloomy in
3 h; ?' b- Z& l1 q/ {2 L0 {4 e, _* p. r. G4 Z. o. ?
Easterlin‘s view.
5 S8 h& p, D( J, q' p: R7 V2 _: ^8 }, s
"The future, then, to which the epoch of modern economic growth is Y5 j& t6 l$ ?3 ?2 n0 v$ _3 N5 [* {
9 a; d$ ` O& Xleading is one of never ending economic growth, a world in which ever ( g! a9 u- Z+ Y+ S9 N' u
% x( [ L9 D3 B [9 M
growing abundance is matched by ever rising aspirations, a world in
( N4 `1 m0 R7 h& U7 M, O( q
. `" w9 @/ d0 p7 b1 Wwhich cultural difference is leveled in the constant race to achieve : v9 Z) x: Q; {: A+ W& I, z
6 v, ~) N: W. z
the goods life of material plenty, it is a world founded on belief in
* l6 ?, l# K2 o9 E
9 y1 j5 _6 u6 p( Z' n- vscience and the power of rational inquiry and in the ultimate capacity % k' \& J* N" P. _" K3 z) o
! R, O! k* B9 D2 y6 Qof humanity to shape its own destiny. The irony is that in this last 3 a% a9 M @" x l+ v p0 d; ^
$ ^0 @+ Y" E0 }# I& ?: j7 \" orespect the lesson of history appears to be otherwise: that there is no
1 l8 V% Y) M- |, d! n7 J& t& [2 }
choice. In the end, the triumph of economic growth is not a triumph of
1 ~1 [0 n. f1 a5 f1 _
) @' }) x1 M7 A! y$ m; S" Shumanity over material wants; rather, it is the triumph of material 6 c) S( C8 P) M6 Z3 ]
. T5 ~$ S1 e' s5 Y! E
wants over humanity." |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|