The Challenge of Affluence: Self-Control and Well-Being in the United States and Britain since 1950

This is a very important book. Where or not they agree with the details, the point that Offer is making about human responses to abundance, and the need for social institutions to help us restrain desire for immediate gratification, will change the way the its readers see political and social problems.My own conclusions from this are broadly conservative, in a Burkeian sense; if you can't rely on individual decision-making to maximise long term social welfare at times of rapid change, then the restraints placed on behaviour by custom may be overwhelmingly important to save us from tragedy. Offer himself gives the example of things such as strict table-manners (for example, the ban in polite society on eating food on the street), which paced the rate of food consumption for those who have long been accustomed to abundance, but had not evolved as a guide to behaviour amongst families for whom food was scarce. When affluence grew - or food became cheap - there was an epidemic of obesity amongst the previously food-poor, because there were no customary restrain mechanisms in place. Equally, he argues that society as awhile was ill-equipped to resist the glut of cheap consumer goods that has flooded it in the last 50 years ('visceral goods')- and therefore we have over-spent and over-borrowed to acquire them, at the expense of investment in human and physical capital that we need (things he calls 'prudential goods').His own conclusions would probably be more radical, and would incline him to a major role for government to act prudently on our behalf, since we can't do it ourselves. Where we would agree, however, is in identifying the problem - which follows logically from some of the research on behavioural economics, and which he associates with a wide range of highly persuasive - though not conclusive - examples. This is a truly outstanding book and should be read by everyone engaged in social policy issues.

Whilst it isn't perfect, this is a powerfully-argued and forensic analysis of changes in British and American societies in the past half-century and more. It is well-researched but never dull. Offer has the gift of writing in a way that doesn't dumb down his analysis but is nevertheless able to be followed by an intelligent lay audience. His central thesis is that Western capitalism's ability to innovate with new products and experiences has run well ahead of the ability of society in general and of many individuals to adjust to such change. This has highly negative consequences, as our short-term appetite for the new goods and services runs well ahead of collective and individual long-term interests. Offer's take on changing gender relations tends to be rather sexist and simplistic (perhaps it's the economist in him; the sociologist is much more sophisticated), but that apart I found it highly thought-provoking. Well worth anybody's time. His account of what's happening to our leisure time, food consumption and other key areas of life is unnerving but, importantly, this isn't a negative, one-sided rant. It is much more balanced, thoughtful and nuanced than that. Offer does suggest ways forward and sees hope in the ability we have to act individually and collectively, to learn from our experiences and to create solutions to present problems. This is an important book. I have been thinking about it since I finished it a couple of months ago and I now understand contemporary problems differently. Highly recommended.

My interpretation of the book is that it is essentially a challenge to the foundations of free market theory - that consumers are not always rational and cannot always be relied upon to act in their own best interest. Commitment devices - family, social norms, the state - are the mechanisms by which society can best cope with the challenges presented by affluence, but these are steadily (and deliberately) being eroded by governments captured by investors.I expect the book will have some appeal to a general readership (stick with it). For a specialist reader it really is essential.

This book provides insight into American and British behaviour from the 1940’s to the 1990’s. It’s a good reference book for those that are interested in behavior and economics.

Very illuminating as places things in its proper and correct perspective. It has helped me by adding more knowledge to my understanding in a way that I can better uncover the blabber mouthed charlatans that insist in sugar coating the truth about the way the playing field has been leveled for their obscene advantage.

The Challenge of Affluence: Self-Control and Well-Being in the United States and Britain since 1950Caught in the current economic crisis your sense of well-being may be on a downturn. But then again, maybe not, provided you can still pay for the basics in life (food, shelter, health care, and the like). Avner Offer explains why.Subjective well being (SWB) is a psychological notion, representing how satisfied we are with ourselves and our situation in life, how happy we are. There are various controversies about it among social scientists, but numerous surveys have been conducted to measure it, over many years and across many nations.One of the things social scientists try to do with the SWB data is to ascertain the factors that drive it up or down. How do wealth and income, for example, affect SWB?Offer draws on the findings of a wide swath of this research to report a number of interesting conclusions. He pulls together the empirical case against the idea that more is always better. We are on a "hedonic treadmill" - as our income goes up our aspirations rise as well, with no progress in our sense of subjective well-being. Cross-national levels of satisfaction are not obviously dependent on national wealth, although at the very bottom the poor certainly suffer. Non-market factors such as the family, human relations in the workplace, and other forms of attachment are better correlates to SWB in economically developed societies.As affluence has risen our capacity for self-control and prudence has declined, Offer suggests. People exercise "myopic choice" -- rewards arrive faster than the development of capacities for self-control. Thus, "The rewards of affluence produce the disorders of affluence," he says. For example, mental disorder increases with affluence (for nations as a whole).Given his interpretation of the data, Offer believes that a more equal distribution of wealth and income, both across nations and internally within particular societies, would enhance subjective well being. In part, this observation rests on the shape of the income and status curve: at the top it takes a big change in income to produce an increase in status; at the bottom it takes very little. And one's sense of status is very much a determinant of well-being. Although economic growth improves the quality of life in poor countries, "That does not constitute an argument for further enriching the rich in the most affluent ones," Offer contends.There is a great deal more rich detail in The Challenge of Affluence than I have indicated here. It a book filled with charts, graphs, and tables of the sort that will be familiar to economists, sociologists, and psychologists. The academic character of it may deter the general reader, however. It should not, for the themes Offer covers are of importance to all of us.He concludes that our "well-being depends primarily on how (and how well) we understand ourselves. Well-being is more than having more. It is a balance between our own needs, and those of others, on whose goodwill and approbation our own well-being depends." In hard times such as these that may be small consolation, but we will take what we can get.