Selfish society vs Big Society

[ampersand]

A recent survey carried out by the National Centre for Social Research shows some interesting changes in people's attitudes over recent years

 

http://www.natcen.ac.uk/

 

I haven't read it all (yet!) but looking at the press release and media comment it appears

 

the proportion of people who believe unemployment benefit is too high and discourages the unemployed from finding a job has risen from 35% to 54% in the last 28 years

 

the proportion of people who believe we should all pay more to protect the environment has fallen from 43% to 25% in the last 11 years

 

although 75% agree that the gap between rich and poor is too large, only 35% believe the Government should redistribute more of the wealth from the richer to the poorer

 

45% oppose new housing in their area (as I think has been posted elsewhere)

 

in the last 9 years, support for tax rises to fund the health service and education has fallen from 63% to 31% whereas opposition to private healthcare and education has fallen over a similar period from 37% to 24%

 

I suppose it is just common sense that when there is less to go round we become more concerned with making sure we look after ourselves first, but I just wonder, are we more selfish and self centred as a society than we were 10 years ago, or are we just more self concerned

 

As the chief exec of the National Centre for Social Research put it - "are we in it together or are we in it for ourselves"

 

I know it's not socially acceptable to quote (or paraphrase) Mrs Thatcher with some on SF, but was she right when she said that no-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he hadn't been rich?

[fruitisbad]

hard times can bring out the best in some people, I mean helping out when you can't afford to is almost more worthy than helping when you can. But it also makes a lot of people tight, I mean look at all the calls to stop international aid. Yes we have got it bad but you have a roof over your head, you aren't starving, you have never experienced true poverty.

[Anna B]

hard times can bring out the best in some people, I mean helping out when you can't afford to is almost more worthy than helping when you can. But it also makes a lot of people tight, I mean look at all the calls to stop international aid. Yes we have got it bad but you have a roof over your head, you aren't starving, you have never experienced true poverty.

 

I agree.

 

I think one of the best things to come out of this austerity is the fact that it's no longer good form to go in for oppulant displays of wealth, - Designer this, designer that etc. (it was always a con anyway,) and hopefully the stirrings of a return to real values.

 

I think older people remember times when they had less and know that you don't have to have a lot to be happy, but then they are already pretty well established. I feel so sorry for younger people trying to put a home together these days.

 

I always question what I buy, - do I need it or just want it? and 9 times out of 10 I save my money and then give it to a charity. I still try to give about 10% of my income to charity, but I do tend to give more to British charities at the moment, especially the smaller, less known ones. (I also try to check what the MD is getting paid and if I consider it too much then I don't give.) Apparently Sweden has a very good system where everyone gives 1% of income to charity, but how that differs from income tax or say the Lottery I don't know.

 

As for foreign aid, I'm now in two minds. India, for example, has enough money to fund its own welfare system, and you read that sometimes giving food aid actually holds countries back. But when you are faced with starving children, droughts etc it's very hard not to want to help and giving money is all most people can do.

[L00b]

the proportion of people who believe unemployment benefit is too high and discourages the unemployed from finding a job has risen from 35% to 54% in the last 28 years

Could be explained by sustained mass-media conditioning (demonisation of relevant public), rather than selfishness (as such)?

the proportion of people who believe we should all pay more to protect the environment has fallen from 43% to 25% in the last 11 years

Could be explained by a growing realisation of what an absolute con "environmental policies" have turned out to be, rather than selfishness (as such)?

in the last 9 years, support for tax rises to fund the health service and education has fallen from 63% to 31%

Could be explained by a growing realisation of how terminally mismanaged the NHS and Education services are, rather than selfishness (as such)?

although 75% agree that the gap between rich and poor is too large, only 35% believe the Government should redistribute more of the wealth from the richer to the poorer

 

45% oppose new housing in their area (as I think has been posted elsewhere)

...but these can undoubtedly be attributed to increasing selfishness. I'm alright Jack syndrome, it's human nature, can't be fought.

I know it's not socially acceptable to quote (or paraphrase) Mrs Thatcher with some on SF, but was she right when she said that no-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he hadn't been rich?

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that last point, though

 

Just musing

[ampersand]

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that last point, though

 

Just musing

 

I know, I didn't link that in very well - was late for a meeting

 

I think the point I was trying to make was that you don't have to be rich or wealthy to give - and of course, giving doesn't just mean donating money, it could also mean donating time - which, to some people and some charitable organisations is more valuable

 

I think your suggested explanations for the changes are perfectly valid and reasonable - particularly with regard to the reduced support for increased taxation to cover expenditure on health and education, I just think that, although it is a sweeping generalisation, society as a whole is becoming less altruistic and more concerned with "what's in it for me"

[L00b]

I think the point I was trying to make was that you don't have to be rich or wealthy to give - and of course, giving doesn't just mean donating money, it could also mean donating time - which, to some people and some charitable organisations is more valuable

A perfectly acceptable PoV

 

Time is, for me at least, vastly more valuable than money (I often joke with friends & family, scratching their heads what presents to get me at relevant times, to buy me some time, or a clone ). They -and other people and organisations, charitable or not- do value the time (in a professional, semi-professional, or 'advisory' capacity) I give (not sell) to them.

 

Conversely...many people I have met, and continue to meet, particularly during legal clinics (which I provide 100% pro bono to Sheffield and Leeds central libraries) do not seem to value it at all, by not turning up or not bothering to take any notes of the advice they receive or other attitude/behaviour which, roughly, translates as "you're free to me so whatever you say can't be worth that much".

 

That I put down, in the end, to a "devaluation" of professional advice and services in the last 4 or 5 years, by the Gvt and public sector encroaching ever further into this area with subsidised training, seminars, propping, etc...whereby people (and many companies), by and large, now seem to consider such services being provided free of charge as a right, or at least a given.

 

So, about:

I just think that, although it is a sweeping generalisation, society as a whole is becoming less altruistic and more concerned with "what's in it for me"

I'll agree with that, to an extent - as the fully-expectable, and obtained, by-product of a decade's worth (at least) of unbridled consumerism and me-me-me media conditioning.

 

But, at the same time, you cannot abstract the current economic context, which of course is going to have many (most) people batten down the hatches to ensure they can ride the recession/downturn/etc. as unscathed as possible. Again, a fully-expectable consequence of that, will be a reduction in charitable donations (money/time/etc.) which -from the other side of the table- will be perceived as selfishness.

 

IMHO, it would have been more interesting to debate this in, or as of, 2007, rather than 3 years down one of the most severe economic contractions the UK has undergone in decades...or am I being selfish here ?