The Tyranny of Growth – How Raising Our Standard of Living Destroys Our Quality of Life

In 1972 the world respected Club of Rome issued it’s report, Limits to Growth which concluded:

Conclusions

After reviewing their computer simulations, the research team came to the following conclusions:[2]: 23–24 

1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.[c] The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.

3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success.

— Limits to Growth, Introduction

The introduction goes on to say:

These conclusions are so far-reaching and raise so many questions for further study that we are quite frankly overwhelmed by the enormity of the job that must be done. We hope that this book will serve to interest other people, in many fields of study and in many countries of the world, to raise the space and time horizons of their concerns, and to join us in understanding and preparing for a period of great transition – the transition from growth to global equilibrium.

We can contrast this with the general societal term for economic disaster, referred to as a recession, although in reality it is more a matter of economic decline rather than disaster, but mention the word and wait for the ensuing panic.

The Canadian Encyclopedia defines recession as:

A recession is a temporary period of time when the overall economy declines; it is an expected part of the business cycle. This period usually includes declines in industrial and agricultural production, trade, incomes, stock markets, consumer spending, and levels of employment. In purely technical terms, a recession occurs when two or more successive quarters (six months) show a drop in real gross domestic product (GDP), i.e., the measure of total economic output in the economy after accounting for inflation. In this sense, recessions are broad and can be particularly painful and challenging times for a country.

It is ironic that we have a problem, unrestrained growth that we know is not just bad for the planet environmentally but also a threat to our economic system and yet we consider the solution, degrowth as the worst thing that can happen to the economy.

The middle class of western industrialized countries have been taken in by the myth of raising one’s standard of living being the be all and end all. The point of an increased standard of living is to increase one’s quality of life which is about more than just producing and consuming more stuff at the expense of the habitat we have to live in. Indeed this myth is used to promote an anti-taxation theology that leads to the under-funding of the very things that increase a society’s quality of life, health care, education, social safety nets and environmental protection among others.

Yes a certain level of income is necessary for a good quality of life and this can be provided by raising minimum wages to a living wage and providing a guaranteed annual income (universal basic income) for everyone.

The problem is that we measuring the wrong things when we want to measure how successful our economies are. A strong economy must be a reflection of a strong society. If we want to measure the success of our society it is not by measuring how rich the wealthiest people are or even so-called per-capita GDP numbers that are distorted by excessive wealth and income levels of a minority of privileged people. If we want to improve the quality of life of a society we must improve everyone’s economic status and build a society that provides everyone with more than just more stuff.

We need to start by measuring poverty and inequality and setting our economic goals at reducing those rather than increasing abstract measures of stuff acquired.

Imagining A Post Capitalist World

This is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis but an imagining of some of the features of a post capitalist world.

OK lets get this over with first. The first thing we will notice is the numbers we use to measure the success of a capitalist economy, GDP, GNP and economic growth will look bad. That is because the goals of the new economy will not be excessive production, consumption, energy waste and unsustainable growth. The new economy will be based on people not stuff. While our so-called standard of living will decline our quality of life will increase.

Because of higher minimum wages and a Guaranteed Basic Income everyone will have at least a comfortable modest life with adequate housing and all their basic needs met because there are enough resources to provide this when there is not excessive inequality and waste by the excessively wealthy.

Excessive inequality will be eliminated because of an aggressive progressive tax system based on the principle that everyone should contribute to the society/economy based on their ability.

Everyone, not just the very wealthy, will finally benefit from the use of machines to increase productivity and most drudge work will now be done by machines. The effect will be that everyone will have reduced working hours for a shorter period of their life. Work will no longer be a necessity to survive but something people crave for the fulfillment it brings to their lives.

Because of a societal decision all work requiring intelligence or decision making will be reserved for human beings.

Elimination of the exploitative capitalist practice of producing goods in low wage countries will see the elimination of excessive wasted energy transporting goods as most food will be produced within 100 kilometres of where it is consumed and other goods within 500 kilometres.

With increased time for themselves education will be an important part of everyone’s life and as with health care, treated as a public good and paid for collectively. Arts and culture, theatre and music, will be emphasized with the emphasis on local artists and productions (rather than overpriced “superstars”) as well as outdoor recreation.

Small businesses, where the owner earns his income by working in the business, will be encouraged and supported. For large enterprises, ownership and control of the means of production (factories, computer facilities, etc) will reside with the workers producing the products or providing the services, most often through co-operatives, except for public services like education, health care and public utilities where control and ownership will reside with the people through their democratically elected governments. All workers will have an effective, not just theoretical, right to join a union and bargain collectively.

The overall philosophy of the society/economy will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Money Cannot Buy Happiness But ...

They say money cannot buy happiness but it certainly can buy food and shelter and education that can make the difference between misery and happiness, not to mention that health is directly related to economic status.

Yet people still claim people are poor because they are lazy and all we need to do to get rid of poverty is to create more wealth. Can anybody look at these numbers and seriously claim the problem is one of wealth creation rather than a critical need for wealth and income redistribution.

Keeping this in mind what reason, besides absolute immoral greed, could the excessively wealthy not want to redistribute the excessive wealth they cannot even comprehend, never mind spend, to those living in poverty and misery.

On Inequality, Democracy and Taxing the Rich – A Modest Proposal

No doubt many raised in our capitalist society, where inequality rules and excessive incomes and wealth are seen as a right (and where even the NDP only proposes a measly 1% tax on excessive wealth), will consider this proposal to be radical but it is actually quite a modest proposal.

So what is excessive income and wealth. There are many ways to measure that, many statistical, but I propose a simpler definition – the amount of wealth and income where increases have no discernible effect on ones way of life or standard of living, where the increase is simply not noticeable in one's day to day life. Let's be generous to the wealthy in determining such levels. I propose an annual income of $1 million dollars and total assets of $100 million as the level that triggers “excessive income and wealth”. Above that no one notices without reading their financial statements.

The thing about excessive wealth is that it makes minuscule difference to the recipients but could make all the world of difference to the poor and underprivileged and to society as a whole if used for the common good. I will not even attempt to list what all that excessive wealth could do if devoted to the common good of society .

But there is another side to excessive income and wealth – it is highly undemocratic. The rich do not cling to their excessive wealth because it makes a difference to their daily lives. They cling to it because it gives them economic and political power. It is not just a matter of economic inequality, is a matter of political inequality.

Democracy is based on equality, one person one vote. Economic power is political power. Excessive wealth skews political power so that the wealthy have more of it. Excessive wealth is inherently undemocratic.

So what do we do with this excessive wealth so that it benefits society. We tax it away so that it can be used for the common good.

This sounds radical at first. But what do the wealthy lose in this proposal. Their standard of living and quality of life does not change. They only thing they lose is their excessive economic and political power, power that undermines our democracy.

Postscript

In taxing away excessive wealth we cannot just require it's conversion to cash to be paid as taxes. That would obviously be very disruptive to the economic system. Society (through the government) will take ownership of these resources in kind and in many cases maintain them while applying revenues from them to the common good. In some cases they may need to change the policies of entities that are not acting in the public interest or divest ownership of entities where that serves the public interest.

Also this proposal does not address all the problems with our tax system. For it to be truly progressive we need to raise the income level that triggers the payment of taxes and increase the higher marginal tax rates, including adding marginal tax rates at higher income levels (between $200,000 and $1 million).

Sick and Comfortable

Do you ever have one of those days you feel so sick and miserable you just call in sick, spend the day in your warm bed in your nice warm house and just wait till you feel better. Whenever I feel like that I feel so thankful that I can do that. Most people in the world do not live in modern industrialized countries with so very comfortable living conditions and the ability to take time off work when they are sick. Most people live in much harsher living conditions than we do and have to continue with the drudgery of life no matter how sick they feel, unless of course their illness makes them physically unable to continue to function, in which case they usually end up in even worse poverty than their normal poor living conditions. Sometimes I am just thankful that I can be "sick and comfortable".