Dan McLaughlin

Voices For Freedom Read Columns Daniel McLaughlin
To Home Page Latest Newsletter Column Archives Click to get these columns for your local paper	Post Comments Below © 2007 Daniel J. McLaughlin Pick Your Poison Money can’t buy happiness. That is a timeless truth that most people can vouch for in their own experience. Most of the truly wonderful things we experience cannot be bought for any price. There are some people who can be happy with little wealth. There are others who won’t be happy, no matter how much they have. The multitude of problems that members of an advanced society have to deal with have frequently been brought to our attention. Affluent society brings the significant burden of mental health problems. Some people are overweight and out of shape. There is increased urbanization and tighter packing of people into cities, longer distances and commute times to workplaces, frustration with traffic congestion, environmental issues, and so on. Some of the problems have very serious consequences. It should be remembered, however, that every society, in every age, had it’s issues. Poor societies have a completely different set. Whether they were feudal societies of the middle ages or present day less developed countries, the problems are similar. While they don’t have to worry about one hour commutes from work in heavy traffic, they do have to worry about how to get water from the well to the home, sometimes miles away. They may not need to see the therapist every week but they do need to find a way to feed their families every day. They may not need to run around franticly, wondering how to get junior to soccer or baseball or dance or football or scouts or the hundreds of other options. They do, however, need to worry about junior having to work to help the family survive. They don’t need to pay exorbitant electric bills for air conditioning. But that is because they don’t even have electricity to make their work more productive. In their 1985 book, “How The West Grew Rich”, authors Nathan Rozenburg and L.E. Birdzell remarked that “It is, after all, in the nature of social change to supply societies with a new set of problems in exchange for an old set, and people are hardly to be blamed for preferring the problems of wealth to those of poverty.” By “The West”, they meant those countries, regardless of geographic location, that have adopted western style capitalist economies. The difference between poor and wealthy societies can be superficially viewed as per capita income and material wealth. Those differences, however, don’t really capture the full extent of the advance to affluence. While there may be health problems associated with living well, they are generally preferable to the health problems of living poorly. Death comes to visit more often and at an earlier age among the poor. Infant mortality is higher. Hunger and malnourishment is a constant threat. Low productivity and lack of capital means longer working hours with lower pay. In richer countries, there are sometimes too many choices, which can lead to psychological issues and a flourishing mental health industry. However, there is no time to worry about mental health when your family hasn’t eaten today. In poor countries, there is often no choice, or at best, very little choice. Think about the state of affairs for poor people in western societies. According to the Heritage Foundation, in the United States, three quarters of poor households own cars, 30% own two or more. 97% have color televisions, over half have two or more. 76% have air conditioning. Only about 6% of poor American households are overcrowded. Over than two thirds have two or more rooms per person. Yes, people pay a price for living in an affluent society. People who don’t like paying the price are generally free to leave. The authors of reports critical affluent society seem to prefer the problems of affluence, however, because that is generally where they choose to live. They prefer them because they involve a much more desirable set of problems. Those who want to roll back the clock to a previous era of easier times and the good life for everyone are imagining a fairly land which never existed. The good old days weren’t very good unless you happened to be one of the ruling elite. The same holds true for modern dictatorships, forcing their subjects to live in poverty. They suffer, not only from political oppression, but also from oppressive economic conditions, which can never be surmounted without the advance to freedom. Pick your poison. Most people will choose the problems of affluence over those of poverty. Count me in.
Contact us Privacy Policy Comments
Daniel Mclaughlin Copyright © 2006 [Daniel McLaughlin]. All rights reserved. Revised: 01/06/08

Voices For Freedom

Read Columns

Daniel McLaughlin

To Home Page

Latest Newsletter

Column Archives

Click to get these columns for your local paper

Post Comments Below

Pick Your Poison

Money can’t buy happiness. That is a timeless truth that most people can vouch for in their own experience. Most of the truly wonderful things we experience cannot be bought for any price. There are some people who can be happy with little wealth. There are others who won’t be happy, no matter how much they have.

The multitude of problems that members of an advanced society have to deal with have frequently been brought to our attention. Affluent society brings the significant burden of mental health problems. Some people are overweight and out of shape. There is increased urbanization and tighter packing of people into cities, longer distances and commute times to workplaces, frustration with traffic congestion, environmental issues, and so on. Some of the problems have very serious consequences. It should be remembered, however, that every society, in every age, had it’s issues.

Poor societies have a completely different set. Whether they were feudal societies of the middle ages or present day less developed countries, the problems are similar. While they don’t have to worry about one hour commutes from work in heavy traffic, they do have to worry about how to get water from the well to the home, sometimes miles away. They may not need to see the therapist every week but they do need to find a way to feed their families every day. They may not need to run around franticly, wondering how to get junior to soccer or baseball or dance or football or scouts or the hundreds of other options. They do, however, need to worry about junior having to work to help the family survive. They don’t need to pay exorbitant electric bills for air conditioning. But that is because they don’t even have electricity to make their work more productive.

In their 1985 book, “How The West Grew Rich”, authors Nathan Rozenburg and L.E. Birdzell remarked that “It is, after all, in the nature of social change to supply societies with a new set of problems in exchange for an old set, and people are hardly to be blamed for preferring the problems of wealth to those of poverty.” By “The West”, they meant those countries, regardless of geographic location, that have adopted western style capitalist economies.

The difference between poor and wealthy societies can be superficially viewed as per capita income and material wealth. Those differences, however, don’t really capture the full extent of the advance to affluence. While there may be health problems associated with living well, they are generally preferable to the health problems of living poorly. Death comes to visit more often and at an earlier age among the poor. Infant mortality is higher. Hunger and malnourishment is a constant threat. Low productivity and lack of capital means longer working hours with lower pay.

In richer countries, there are sometimes too many choices, which can lead to psychological issues and a flourishing mental health industry. However, there is no time to worry about mental health when your family hasn’t eaten today. In poor countries, there is often no choice, or at best, very little choice.

Think about the state of affairs for poor people in western societies. According to the Heritage Foundation, in the United States, three quarters of poor households own cars, 30% own two or more. 97% have color televisions, over half have two or more. 76% have air conditioning. Only about 6% of poor American households are overcrowded. Over than two thirds have two or more rooms per person.

Yes, people pay a price for living in an affluent society. People who don’t like paying the price are generally free to leave. The authors of reports critical affluent society seem to prefer the problems of affluence, however, because that is generally where they choose to live. They prefer them because they involve a much more desirable set of problems. Those who want to roll back the clock to a previous era of easier times and the good life for everyone are imagining a fairly land which never existed.

The good old days weren’t very good unless you happened to be one of the ruling elite. The same holds true for modern dictatorships, forcing their subjects to live in poverty. They suffer, not only from political oppression, but also from oppressive economic conditions, which can never be surmounted without the advance to freedom.

Pick your poison. Most people will choose the problems of affluence over those of poverty. Count me in.

Hit Counter