« The power of the 1% | Main | Arguing against immigration »

March 11, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Pablo Mira

I think that the feeling of (in)justice is much more important that the others you cite here. Inequality, then, brings a notorious negative psychological effect: those in the top do not deserve such income.

An Alien Visitor (Resistance is futile)

These happiness surveys are very useful for determining policy, as the following shows clearly:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/06/north-korea-global-happiness-index-china-happiest-place_n_871784.html

Thornton Hall

This is why doctors (in the US) suck so hard: they get paid like their job is horrible AND they get to think of themselves as helping others. No wonder they think they are god's gift!

rogerh

At least the rich can be miserable in comfort. This idea of noble sacrifice doing a worthwhile job may have been valid years back but has now become the norm and not so noble, just a daily grind. I reckon this focus on happiness surveys is pretty pointless - a low paid makework scheme.

The horrible truth is we are now reliant on the chattering classes to drive the economy and they never were all that productive.

mat

Why entertain this spurious bullocks based on spurious bullocks?

If there is such a rule, it's clearly perceptual. A hedge fund manager who makes a good return for his investors clearly 'benefits other people. But that's not acknowledged, as the industry is vilified and the gains are remote and diffuse. But yet it's entirely possible that they do 'more good, by protecting the future of their investors, than say a nurse.

And the bullocks jobs tings underlying it... yeah. Just no.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad