Climbing a different ladder
The future may force us to redefine success, Shamubeel Eaqub writes.
With a new government in place, how will we hold it to account? The current undefined but implicitly accepted definition of success is climbing the ladder – better job, better pay, more spending.
It is based on an ideal of consumerism and is not right. We should be thinking more widely about dignity, mobility and happiness.
Money does not equal happiness. To conflate the two is wrong, yet we do this routinely.
We need a certain level of money to live comfortably. Happiness increases, as wealth increases from very low to middle incomes.
But as incomes rise further, happiness does not increase much further.
It is easy to measure occupation and income, but they are not the sole determinants of happiness. Yet we seem to define success as climbing the economic hierarchy, to a better job, to a better income.
The biggest risk to this is the increasingly polarised labour market, due to changes in technology.
The current phase of technological progress seems to be attacking jobs we would consider middle income.
The ladder is breaking.
In total, there are more jobs, but at the high and low end of occupation and income.
It will not be easy to attain this kind of success in the future. But we should ensure that even lowskill jobs can give people a livelihood with dignity.
Having a broken ladder may not be as big a problem as people think. It may be taboo to say so, but not everyone wants to climb the ladder.
Some people may prefer to live where they live, work in jobs that give them dignity, while prioritising family and fun.
This is not possible for everyone. But I have made this conscious decision myself, to quit my previous job, accept lower income but spend a lot more time with family.
The trade-off has made me and my family happier as a result.
Also, societal expectation is geared so much around climbing the ladder and consumerism, that those choosing family and fun are seen to be somehow lazy and sad.
This constant need to earn and spend more also makes it harder to talk about wider public policy issues, especially those dealing with poverty and inequality.
Inevitably, dealing with poverty and inequality requires significant redistribution from the rich to the poor.
Inequality rose through the 1980s and has been stable at an elevated level since the 1990s.
Despite sustained economic growth since the 1990s, there has been no reduction in inequality. The hope that a rising tide would lift all boats has failed. Trickledown economics has proven to be a lie.
Instead, any serious efforts to reduce poverty and inequality will need to redistribute income.
In a society focussed on more earning and spending – climbing the ladder – there is little appetite to give up some of the higher incomes to deal with those issues.
That’s even though the evidence shows that beyond a certain level, higher incomes do not materially affect our wellbeing.
We are wired for short-term satisfaction from the materialistic progress that we make. But we also derive satisfaction from seeing others succeed and helping others.
The inherent tension in our need for selfish satisfaction and altruistic satisfaction is what makes it so hard to define success.
When we think about what success looks like, we should think carefully about our current focus on climbing the ladder.
It helps some people, but it is not everything and does not help everyone.
We should also be thinking more widely about whether more of our population is happy.
The hope that a rising tide would lift all boats has failed.