I saw reference the other day to a new(ish) multi-country survey conducted by the Pew Research Center last year, asking people in 38 countries whether life in their country was better, worse, or not much different for people like them than it had been 50 years previously. Among the people I saw tweeting a link to the survey results, there seemed to be general incredulity that anyone could not think things were better now than they had been 50 years previously. The focus of those comments was particularly on the US results, where 41 per cent of respondents thought things were worse, and 37 per cent though things were better.
But, as it happens, the US results were close to the middle of the field.
At the extremes, the results are not remotely surprising. In 1967 Vietnam had been in the midst of a longrunning war, and now is relatively prosperous and stable, even if not free. And in 1967 Venezuela was pretty prosperous, whereas now it is poor and chaotic.
And if it is mostly rich countries above the median line, and mostly poor countries below it, that picture isn’t uniform.
New Zealand wasn’t covered by the survey, but Australia, the UK, and the US were. Australian and British respondents were net positive, while US respondents were slightly net negative. To the extent that overall economic performance is a material part of what shapes respondents’ answers to such a question, I suspect that New Zealand answers would be less positive than those for the US and the UK. After all, over that half century almost a million New Zealanders net left the country in pursuit of better opportunities abroad, mostly in Australia.
In a bit over half the countries covered in the survey (but not, for example, in Australia), there was a statistically significant difference in which those with a higher education were more likely than the less educated to say that things had improved.
Without being aware of this survey, I wrote about the 2017 vs 1967 question on another blog a few months ago. I came to the conclusion that, taken as a whole, I’d answer “worse” if asked this particular survey question about New Zealand (even though transplanted 50 years back, this blog would have been impossible, and I’d have been grinding out an existence in some public sector job, probably longing for retirement).
Here is how, in that earlier post, I described some of the things I would put on the positive side of any such assessment.
For sure, there are things to be thankful for – that favour 2017 over 1967. Real per capita GDP, for example, is around twice what it was 50 years ago – that is the ability to consume more stuff. “More stuff” encompasses “better stuff” – cars that are better-built, that are air-conditioned; TVs that offer (in NZ) more than a single channel; a rich array of eating-out options; much more affordable overseas travel, and smartphones with the resources of the internet in our pocket. And yet in 1967 New Zealand most people had fridges, ovens, washing machines, TVs and radios, cars, and it is far from obvious how much real gain new and better gadgets have brought. Some no doubt, but much? People like to talk, for example, of the immediacy of news via the internet. But how many of us really need that immediacy that much? I look at some copies of Time magazine on my shelves from the late 1960s – sure it was only weekly, but the content was generally far superior to that in today’s newspapers or news magazines. I’m not suggesting I’d prefer the 1967 model in this respect, but how large is the gain? (In some ways, this is economist Robert Gordon’s point) After all, in 1969 I heard the broadcast of the moon landing live, played out into our school playground.
Life expectancy is quite a bit longer than it was too – infant mortality has dropped further, and life expectancy among the old has also improved considerably. And there are more work options for women in particular – if most discriminatory laws had gone by 1967, old models in which married women were typically out of the workforce either permanently or for long periods while children were around still prevailed. In many more-formal ways, options for Maori have considerably improved – witness the number of Maori MPs as just one small example. In 1967 people like me couldn’t find an audience with something like a blog.
And on the other hand, specific to New Zealand:
- so many New Zealanders have left (a regrettable thing in itself, for community and family relationships/networks etc),
- the house price disaster. Just prior to 1967, my parents bought a (new) first house on a single (not especially high) income. Few have that opportunity now,
- rates of imprisonment are so much higher now than then,
- rates of welfare dependency are so much higher now than then,
- a far smaller percentage of children are growing up in two-parent families,
- the normalisation of drug use (my 13 year old niece told me the other day of recently being offered marijuana in the playground in a nice middle class New Zealand high school),
- pervasive access to, and use of, pornography,
- more social isolation and higher rates of mental illness,
- the growth of the regulatory (and surveillance) state,
- the deference paid by our elites to one of the most brutal states on earth, in contrast say to New Zealand attitudes to the Soviet Union in 1967.
I could go on to include things more specific to the decline of Christianity in the west, and in New Zealand specifically, but I won’t belabour that point here. As a parent, my impression is that it is harder to raise children well now than then.
In the Pew results, there was not a statistically significant difference between attitudes of young and old respondents in most countries, but among those where the young were more upbeat were the UK, the US, and Australisa. Most probably, one would find such a difference in New Zealand.
When we discussed these results around the dinner table, it was suggested that woman might be more inclined to answer positively than men. I am not sure I share that prior, but unfortunately no results were reported by gender (perhaps suggesting that there were not any consistent or interesting differences, given the typically fairly comprehensive nature of Pew analysis). Sadly, there also was not any analysis of differences by political inclination (liberal vs conservative), which one would expect to explain some of the differences in responses within, and perhaps between, countries.
I can see how some people would answer that things were better now (many liberals – depending on the components of the liberal agenda emphasised – would be expected to), and economists seem often to weight most heavily income measures (undoubtedly higher than half a century ago), available technology, and life expectancy. But these results suggest that to people around the world the answer is not clear cut. Perhaps in some cases those negative answers involve people just looking at the past with nostalgic rose-tinted glasses, but the diversity of results across countries suggests something more is at work than that.
12 thoughts on “Are things better or worse than 50 years ago?”
Well for my family now is better – we survived cancer and heart attack in the last two years and if that had happened in ’65 we would have been dead by ’67. [ Note: excellant service by Auckland hospitals and our GPs.]
But you made significant points about NZ: high rates of imprisonment and welfare dependency are clear symptoms of somthing has gone wrong with NZ society. So our political discourse is too busy discussing how to provide more and better mental health services without ever asking why the number of people with serious mental troubles has doubled in a decade.
However if you were ill you would go into hospital and they wouldn’t let you out. They doted on you.
Do we have stats on this for NZ;
“a far smaller percentage of children are growing up in two-parent families”
And are there any int’l comparisons that you know of?
Not sure about internationally comparable data, but for what it is worth there are some numbers and charts here for several countries ((not including NZ)
also some relevant data here
(as tho note, out of wedlock is not the same as growing up with a single parent, altho they have some numbers on the latter too)
The significant question. I have read that the single most important factor for a successful life is two parents living together. More important than all the many other factors that correlate to a failed life. Successful being measured by absence of drug addiction, crime, imprisonment, depression, welfare dependency, etc most of which have economic costs to society.
Politicians endlessly discuss means of reducing childhood poverty and improving child health and child education but continue to enact laws that tend to separate parents – just those little nudges that make a difference if you are poor.
Experiment with the MSD accommodation supplement and childcare allowance calculator https://www.workingforfamilies.govt.nz/calculator/filter.jsp and you can see the advantages of claiming you are a single parent (ref a prominent politician pre-last election). I assume it is similar if you are looking for a state housing – better to abandon even the lowest paid partner to end up top of the housing list
Since there are significant economic costs when a child becomes a failed adult we have a justification to make those economic nudges that tend to keep families together. Mine would be: universal child benefit paid to both parents if living with the child and secondly allowing any taxpayer to transfer income to their partner for tax purposes.
Note I’m not condemning children who are seriously disadvantaged – some loving parents have produced monsters and some severely disadvantaged children rise way above the obstacles of their childhood (my best example of the latter would be Louis Armstrong – the most influential musician ever and beloved by all who knew him but his childhood was a disaster).
LikeLiked by 1 person
…think over time people have invented some truly amazing ‘stuff’ that NZ benefits from today but also seems those less desirable aspects of human nature have remained somewhat constant rather than diminished ? perhaps social media allows greater promotion of such things these days?? Better to believe the best years are still to come.
Women’s wellbeing ratings have declined substantially relative to men, basically anywhere in the world you care to look. It seems that, if gender equality and wider gender trends have been a net positive for women, in terms of self-reported wellbeing, it has all been outweighed by the rise in awareness about how much is still unequal between women and men.
I’d add: this isn’t just a report from conservative outlets wanting to discredit modern trends. The finding is generally unchallenged and uncontroversial. The only thing to quibble over is the interpretation.
See for instance,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the best links I’ve read for ages. Endless conversation with my adult daughters.
If you haven’t already read Factfulness by Hans Rosling https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-Reasons-World-Things-Better/dp/1250107814
The world is unequivocally a better place than 50 years ago. It’s only our propensity to look backwards through rose tinted glasses and over emphasize the negative today that leads us to believe otherwise.
It clearly isnt an unequivocal matter: more a matter of what things individuals weight most heavily.