Income inequality is increasingly cruel

Private jet travel is "way over the top" this year at Aspen.  Molly Briggs/Aspen Daily News

Christopher Ingraham of The Washington Post highlighted late last year the extraordinary statistic that if Amazon executive chair Jeff Bezos gave all his employees a US$105,000 bonus he would still have more wealth than he did at the start of the pandemic.

That factoid came from an Oxfam report that arose from observing around the world, but most starkly in the United States, that  “windfall” profits flowed to a small number of very large businesses whose products and services have been in high demand during the pandemic.

Oxfam saw this phenomenon aggravating the inequality evident everywhere: 

The worsening inequality crisis triggered by Covid-19 is fuelled by an economic model that has allowed some of the world's largest corporations to funnel billions of dollars in profits to shareholders. At the same time, it has left low-wage workers and women to pay the price of the pandemic without social or financial protection.

That economic model is not inevitable - it's a result of decisions taken by those who hold corporate and political power. 

Bloomberg writer Anders Melin has been tracking the short-sighted corporate behaviour furthering inequality (see here and here), He reports the reaction to last Wednesday's action by senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to lodge a bill that would use a tax mechanism to discourage companies from "paying CEOs lavishly and workers feebly":

The proposal is a long shot given Washington’s political gridlock and broad disagreement about how income inequality should be addressed—or whether it’s even a matter in need of fixing. But if enacted, it would hit most of the biggest U.S. companies.

The typical CEO among the 1,000 biggest publicly traded firms in the country receives 144 times more than their median employee, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. 

Walmart Inc., for instance, has a CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 983:1, with the median person receiving $22,484.

At Coca-Cola Co., the ratio is 1,621:1; GameStop Corp., the company at the center of  this year’s stock trading frenzy, has a ratio of 1,137:1 with its median worker getting $11,129.

Sanders said at a Congressional hearing Wednesday that anybody who works 40 hours a week shouldn’t have to live in poverty.

“It has always been true, of course, that CEOs make more than their employees,” he said. “But what has been going on in recent years is totally absurd.”

Ingraham picked up some of the key points from Oxfam:

The Oxfam report identifies mechanisms by which major companies have “exacerbated the economic impacts” of Covid-19.

Chief among them is the long-standing tendency of many large companies to prioritise shareholder payouts over employee wages, which has continued even as millions of workers have been laid off during the pandemic.

From 2010 to 2019, companies listed in the Standard & Poor's 500 index spent US$9.1 trillion on payouts to their wealthiest shareholders – equalling more than 90 per cent of their profits over the same period, the report said. “Several companies not only paid out all of their profits to shareholders, they sometimes went into debt or used reserves to pay their rich investors.”

Because the wealthiest 10 per cent of Americans own more than 80 per cent of the stock market, these massive payouts are a key driver of the skyrocketing wealth inequality in this country. They also set many companies up to have little financial cushion to soften the blow of the coronavirus recession, contributing to the mass layoffs and even to the shortages of medical and personal protective equipment that have plagued the US response.

"Decision-making by corporate managers has become disconnected from any sense of community or national obligation"

Oxfam said the payouts are continuing even during the public health crisis. Focusing on recent earnings statements for the 25 most profitable S&P Global 100 countries, they found that they are expected to distribute a “shocking” 124 per cent of their net profits to shareholders this year [2020]. And many companies continue to funnel cash to shareholders even as they lay off their workers.

The continued flow of shareholder payouts during the economic and public health crises “underscores the degree to which decision-making by corporate managers has become disconnected from any sense of community or national obligation,” said Oren Cass, a former senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the director of American Compass, a think tank advocating for what Cass calls a “pro-worker conservatism”.

According to the report, the 32 most profitable companies globally – including Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon and others – are expected to collectively pull in profits totaling US$109b above their average annual haul, according to the companies' earnings statements. In July [2020], the chief executives of all four companies were peppered with questions about their profits and business practices during a House antitrust hearing.

The state of the business world mirrors the moral state in most societies. The "absurd" imbalance in pay levels show how the values of a few decades ago that stressed the importance of a sense of community have deteriorated, and business people have grown casually cruel out of habit - perhaps Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" code has fully taken hold.

In that light, Amazon's anti-union efforts besmirch a company I find very convenient in buying from. I will take my business away if instances of such efforts continue to surface. Of course, Amazon is not alone in fighting to prevent workers gaining a platform for securing a bettter deal with pay and benefits.

I think this is where progressives in advanced economies have got on to a morally bankrupt path by pursuing culture issues like "white privilege" and "human rights" that satisfy loud campaigners dealing with sexual matters that ignore reality and, in fact, run heavily against the family. 

Here's a statement I came across recently in a book dealing with China's struggle in the early 20th Century to modernise. I see weak-minded Western progressives very clearly in these words:

If you demand political rights you will not be met with much opposition, whereas if you speak about the equal distribution of wealth you will find yourself up against real enemies.

John Harwood of CNBC has some pertinent remarks:

The rise of income inequality and the struggles of so many families to get ahead have shaken American politics across the spectrum.

President Donald Trump invokes the plight of “the forgotten people.” Liberals call for massive new government programs.

Wall Street titan Jamie Dimon proposes “a Marshall Plan for America.” Ideological conservatives warn of a socialist uprising that would ruin American capitalism.

But economists who study the issue say it need not come to that. With bold and targeted steps, they argue, government can increase opportunity and incomes for many more people in ways that strengthen, not weaken, American capitalism.

He goes on to list five ways to fight wealth inequality. It's well worth a read to get an insight into the possibilities available for lifting millions out of a decidedly stressful condition in life. Action is well overdue, and public support at all levels is needed in order for the common good to be achieved. The US infrastructure legislation is a necessary first step and it needs to be replicated widely. But social welfare programmes are also essential.  

Read Harwood's solutions to our predicament that entraps a horrendous number, and see an earlier post titled "Morals and markets and outlandish CEO pay" (here), as well as the related post "Morals and markets and the common good" (here). 

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

China shows that inequality is not inevitable

Migrant workers Sun Chang Jie and Li Ting show the children they left behind. (Source)

Economic policies that allow the rich to get richer on the monumental hope that resources will trickle down to the poor - and the middle class - have been widely challenged, but there has been contemptibly inadequate action by governments. 

A positive sign had been that the British government of the traditionally "austerity" party had largely dumped that policy, even before it became apparent with the Covid outbreak that the state's smoothing of income was imperative. But there has been little movement beyond that. In addition, Donald Trump campaigned on taking action to rein in the 1 per cent reaping the bulk of value society as a whole was generating, but betrayed his supporters by cutting tax only for the rich elite and doing little else to lift the living conditions of the bulk of society.

So it is gratifying to observe this week how China is leading the way in the world to actively launch policies that compel high-wealth citizens and the biggest companies, particular the huge tech entities, to contribute in a more socially responsible way to the goal of diminishing the inequality that sits as a ticking bomb at the base of most developed nations.

This commitment to strengthen the common good shows that gross inequality is not inevitable, and a society that understands solidarity will make the accommodation necessary to participate in the necessary redistribution of resources.

The Business Standard reports:

At Tuesday’s meeting of the Communist Party’s Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs, the government detailed new strategies to target the [social elite]. Officials vowed to “strengthen the regulation and adjustment of high income, protect legal income, reasonably adjust excessive income, and encourage high-income groups and enterprises to give back to society more.”  

As Fortune put it:

Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed this week to "adjust excessive incomes," putting the nation's super-rich on notice that the state is preparing to combat economic inequality by redistributing private wealth. 

The South China Morning Post in Hong Kong quoted state media as saying "this means the country would focus on moderate wealth for all, rather than just a few". Companies would be expected to make funds available for social purposes, but on the business side new rules could control speculation through property and inheritance taxes, and target anticompetitive practices by internet companies 

A day after this announcement the tech giant Tencent Holdings said it had set aside US$7.7 billion to pursue the government's goal for "social prosperity". 

Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report Wednesday the goal was “to increase the middle-income group’s share of the economy.” The report adds:

Elaborating on the ‘common prosperity’ objective, China has affirmed its effort to rebalance the economy toward labor, tackling social inequality with redistribution, social welfare, taxes and inclusive education. 

That reference to education is linked to the crackdown on the high fees charged by private tutoring companies. It was becoming too much of a drain on families to send their children to the extra classes needed, so the poor were shut out.

Tencent said its ads business only grew 5 per cent from the previous quarter as a result of “reduced spending by companies providing after-school tutoring due to regulatory changes”. 

The news reports tell how the government is aware of some impact on growth but the impetus to act comes from the mounting inequality of incomes. "The lower-earning half of the population has seen its share of national income fall to about 15%, down from about 27% in 1978," according to CNBC.

The Business Standard elaborates:

“China’s wealth and income inequality has worsened to such a serious level that policy makers have no choice but to face it and make addressing it a priority,” said Larry Hu, head of Greater China economics at Macquarie Group in Hong Kong. Xi’s meeting “brought the issue to the highest level” and is an important signal of future policy direction, he said.

Carol Liao, China economist at Pimco Asia, said capital gains taxes are also an option, as well as other measures to improve income distribution, like enhancing social security programs, providing incentives for charity [the social prospeity fund, for example] and more government transfers to less developed regions.

At Xi’s meeting, officials pledged to provide conditions for people to enhance their education and move up the income ladder. They also called for promoting the equal access to public services by improving housing supply, elderly care and the medical system.

The government identified the eastern province of Zhejiang, home to Alibaba Group and known for its robust private sector, as a pilot zone for the new initiatives.

Last month, Zhejiang released detailed plans for raising per capita disposable income to 75,000 yuan ($11,563) by 2025, which would be a 45% increase within five years. It also wants wages to account for more than half of its gross domestic product, and to lift its urbanization rate to 75%.

To achieve those goals, the provincial government will encourage workers to bargain collectively for wages; listed companies to raise cash dividends to shareholders; and farmers to pursue entrepreneurship strategies. It will also promote the development of financial products to benefit residents.

The road map also said the government will better protect the rights of those in new forms of employment, including delivery workers and drivers working for ride-hailing companies, and implement tax benefits for philanthropic donations.

It’s also worth noting that Tencent and its subsidiaries have been pushed to reduce the time young people can play video games. 

The Chinese government's strength of purpose presents a model for all countries in showing courage against the usual powerful interests in rebalancing the world's over-flowing inventory of disordered economies.

Ω For more on this topic of morals and the market, go here and here

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Scientists struggle along without arriving at certainty

Given the vise-like hold science has over the thinking of much of society, I like to scan scientific publications to gain insights into what scientists and academic types say about their own domain. Of course, science is a boon to the well-being of society, but along with that goes the legacy of rationalist thinkers who blew much of the treasure of a rich civilisation, leaving us a threadbare wardrobe of consumerism, individualism and lack of direction.

The writer of a Scientific American article just out (see here) is an agnostic - both as to belief in God and what science can prove - who digs into the "theories that try to explain [all the] big metaphysical mysteries",  quantum mechanics being one of those theories. This is the key point: Despite the impression you get from public intellectuals who tend to argue that they have the world neatly packaged, science writer John Horgan finds that scientists are often skeptical that the full truth can be found in their work. 

Here are the writer's credentials that run with the article:

John Horgan directs the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology [a private research university in New Jersey]. His books include The End of Science, The End of War and Mind-Body Problems. For many years, he wrote the immensely popular blog Cross Check for Scientific American. 

To quickly highlight some of the points Horgan makes, a good place to start is with "the problem of suffering" - and with the "problem of beauty". For Horgan, suffering is a closed case, supporting his skepticism about God. Beauty is another matter. 

He states: "We experience love, friendship, adventure and heartbreaking beauty. Could all this really come from random collisions of particles?" He also reports that the prominent physicist Steven Weinberg, an atheist, who died in July, had conceded that life sometimes seems “more beautiful than strictly necessary”. In fact, it’s interesting how often scientists, particularly physicists and mathematicians, describe the laws and other features of their field as beautiful.

In dealing with another of his "problems", Horgan examines quantum mechanics and finds the theory wanting:

Quantum mechanics is science’s most precise, powerful theory of reality. It has predicted countless experiments, spawned countless applications. The trouble is, physicists and philosophers disagree over what it means, that is, what it says about how the world works. Many physicists—most, probably—adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation, advanced by Danish physicist Niels Bohr. But that is a kind of anti-interpretation, which says physicists should not try to make sense of quantum mechanics; they should “shut up and calculate”, as physicist David Mermin once put it.

To continue:

Philosopher Tim Maudlin deplores this situation. In his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory, he points out that several interpretations of quantum mechanics describe in detail how the world works. [...] But here’s the irony: Maudlin is so scrupulous in pointing out the flaws of these interpretations that he reinforces my skepticism. They all seem hopelessly kludgy and preposterous. 

Maudlin does not examine interpretations that recast quantum mechanics as a theory about information. [...] But to my mind, information-based takes on quantum mechanics are even less plausible than the interpretations that Maudlin scrutinizes. The concept of information makes no sense without conscious beings to send, receive and act upon the information.

Introducing consciousness into physics undermines its claim to objectivity. Moreover, as far as we know, consciousness arises only in certain organisms that have existed for a brief period here on Earth. So how can quantum mechanics, if it’s a theory of information rather than matter and energy, apply to the entire cosmos since the big bang? Information-based theories of physics seem like a throwback to geocentrism, which assumed the universe revolves around us. [...]

Another sticking point for Horgan is science's quandary over of the "mind-body problem":

The debate over consciousness is even more fractious than the debate over quantum mechanics. How does matter make a mind? A few decades ago, a consensus seemed to be emerging. Philosopher Daniel Dennett, in his cockily titled Consciousness Explained, asserted that consciousness clearly emerges from neural processes, such as electrochemical pulses in the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that consciousness is generated by networks of neurons oscillating in synchrony.

Gradually, this consensus collapsed, as empirical evidence for neural theories of consciousness failed to materialize. As I point out in my recent book Mind-Body Problems, there are now a dizzying variety of theories of consciousness. Christof Koch has thrown his weight behind integrated information theory, which holds that consciousness might be a property of all matter, not just brains. This theory suffers from the same problems as information-based theories of quantum mechanics. Theorists such as Roger Penrose, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in Physics, have conjectured that quantum effects underpin consciousness, but this theory is even more lacking in evidence than integrated information theory.

Researchers cannot even agree on what form a theory of consciousness should take. Should it be a philosophical treatise? A purely mathematical model? A gigantic algorithm, perhaps based on Bayesian computation? Should it borrow concepts from Buddhism, such as anatta, the doctrine of no self? All of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems farther away than ever. And that’s a good thing. We should be open-minded about our minds.

Horgan has long been exploring the realms of what is knowable and unknowable, but his conclusion for this latest effort is: 

I’m definitely a skeptic. I doubt we’ll ever know whether God exists, what quantum mechanics means, how matter makes mind. These three puzzles, I suspect, are different aspects of a single, impenetrable mystery at the heart of things. But one of the pleasures of agnosticism—perhaps the greatest pleasure—is that I can keep looking for answers and hoping that a revelation awaits just over the horizon.

God is at the heart of things, and it has been the Catholic position that, using our reason, we can know the existence of God. This has been consistent from Paul (Romans 1:19-20), through the 5th Century's Augustine and the 13th Century's Thomas Aquinas, and the magisterium of the Church expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (source):

Created in God's image and called to know and love Him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know Him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. (31)

For example, since Horgan talked of the beauty of life as a counterargument to the problem of pain, we can take Augustine's demonstration of knowledge of God from the beauty of creation. Augustine writes:

Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky...question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a [statement] (confessio). However, these beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One (Pulcher) who is not subject to change?

That's just one way that the existence of God can be accepted as a reasonable proposition. We can also draw from the nature of the human person a knowledge of our transcendence, and of God as the origin and end of the universe.

The human person: With their openness to truth and beauty, their sense of moral goodness, their freedom and the voice of their conscience, with their longing for the infinite and for happiness, the person questions themself about God's existence. [The debate over atheism is itself a sign of the existence of God.] In all these ways mentioned the person discerns signs of their spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material," can have its origin only in God. (Adapted from CCC 33) 

For another statement on the natural proofs for the existence of the soul, go here.

In all this, we have to recognise the obstacles to accepting the demonstrations from creation and from the nature of the person:

The truths that concern the relations between God and the person wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence, they call for self-surrender and abnegation.  The human mind, in its turn is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and imagination, but also by disordered appetites. ... So it happens that the person easily persuades themself that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. (CCC 37) 

Unfortunately, this last element is what we see often within the scientific community, where scientists are immersed in an atmosphere of dismissal of anything not material, and so they do not even consider options that cannot be measured but rather are to be observed. Horgan has a telling testimony in his article, citing Francis Collins, a geneticist who directs the U.S. National Institutes of Health. He is a Christian, and in his 2006 book The Language of God, he calls agnosticism a “cop-out.” 

Horgan quotes Collins as telling him:

That was a put-down that should not apply to earnest agnostics who have considered the evidence and still don’t find an answer. I was reacting to the agnosticism I see in the scientific community, which has not been arrived at by a careful examination of the evidence.  

Therefore, science is by its nature an uncertain domain, but it worsens its condition when it allows itself to be a blinkered activity that does not examine reality in all its fullness. In that case, it will fail to be of service to humanity, and, in fact, will take humanity down paths that give rise to disorder and regret.

Ω For a good discussion about uncertainty in science, go here.

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

The good news as Covid changes lives

Families together again for the thick and thin - becoming part of the post-Covid mindset

The good news is that people have been making a radical reassessment of their lives, making decisions about what is most important among all the priorities that press upon them in normal times. In other words, they are being brave in distinguishing between the wheat and the chaff of life.

The headlines have been saying it for more than a year as Covid-19 took a grip all around the world. "Families reunite in pandemic and rethink what home means", says the Washington Post; "COVID-19 brings some families closer together, as bonds strengthen in times of crisis" - Canadian TV: "While pandemic-related restrictions have separated many families, some Canadians are reuniting with relatives to support each other through the crisis, often rekindling bonds that had perhaps been neglected in the bustle of pre-lockdown life." 

Also, the independence that older people claimed in encouraging their children to move out, or in moving themselves to retire "gracefully" without the "bother" of attending to grandchildren, has been found to be a mistake: "Baby Boomers, Isolated During Covid, Rushed to Move Close to Their Kids", says the Wall Street Journal.

Living conditions in some cities, tolerated but a cause of  disquiet, have also undergone a fresh look:

"More than 40% of people in large European cities have considered moving away due to the new coronavirus pandemic, ... with Londoners most prone to dreaming of living in a smaller town with better access to parks and other amenities," according to a Thomson Reuters story. It went on:

Half of urban dwellers in London, Paris, Milan, Madrid and Berlin said lockdowns had made them more concerned about overcrowding and air pollution, according to the poll by British engineering firm Arup. [...] People have re-evaluated the importance of living near essential services like shops and green spaces. 

Certainly it is great to see families undertaking an audit of their lives. However, I am most heartened to learn about the large numbers of knowledge workers who are shedding the pressures of what might be regarded as a trendy, even sophisticated lifestyle, for one where simplicity allows a return to the very real and more satisfying simpler pleasures of life, which include time for leisure, a tight community, and an escape from "corporate think".

The New Yorker has an article that comprehensively examines this development. It states:

In early June, the Labor Department released a report that revealed a record four million Americans had quit their jobs in April alone—part of a phenomenon that news outlets called “The Great Resignation.” 

Though the reasons for this pandemic-related behaviour are complex and affect workers in multiple sectors of  the economy, there is a clear link with what is happening in the knowledge sector:

These people are generally well-educated workers who are leaving their jobs not because the pandemic created obstacles to their employment but, at least in part, because it nudged them to rethink the role of work in their lives altogether. Many are embracing career downsizing, voluntarily reducing their work hours to emphasize other aspects of life.

These kinds of workers are prepared to "downshift", to have a lower income in order to reduce the pace of their life, and to end the stupidity of driving themselves into the ground for the sake of status in its various forms.

What is most heartening about the outcome of the self-scrutiny of this group is that they can have a big impact on the mentality of society into the future:

These downsizing knowledge workers represent only one piece of the Great Resignation, and their choices certainly earn disclaimers about privilege, but they seem worth monitoring, because they represent a group that wields outsized economic and cultural influence. 

This group can go a long way towards reshaping society, ridding developed countries of the some of the misery hidden under a veneer of wealth, relative or not. The materialism and its consequent way of life are then less likely to be admired and absorbed by the younger generations of emerging nations.

The New Yorker provides an analysis that rings true:

Many well-compensated but burnt-out knowledge workers have long felt that their internal ledger books were out of balance: they worked long hours, they made good money, they had lots of stuff, they were exhausted, and, above all, they saw no easy options for changing their circumstances. Then came shelter-in-place orders and shuttered office buildings. This particular class of workers were thrown into their own Zoom-equipped versions of Walden Pond [by Henry David Thoreau].

Diversion and entertainment were stripped down to basic forms, and it became difficult to spend more than the cost of a Netflix subscription or batch of sourdough starter to keep occupied. The absence of visits with friends and family reinforced the value of social connection. The unceasing presence of video conferencing and e-mail enhanced the Kafkaesque superfluousness of many of the activities that dominated the pre-pandemic workday. 

The only logical thing to do was to flee the craziness, physically or through a thorough lifestyle revamp.

While the author of this piece hedges on a prediction as to whether this phenomenon is set to survive any "return to normalcy", it does offer a shaft of hope that people are willing to reflect and act when their own welfare and that of their family are endangered by the disoriented culture that governs most societies.

Ω See another post on this topic here

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

More Nobel scientists join Catholic academy

Emmanuelle Charpentier: credit - Bianca Fioretti of Hallbauer & Fioretti; and Jennifer Doudna: credit - Duncan.Hull and The Royal Society. CC BY-SA 4.0 Wikimedia

 Two more Nobel Prize winning scientists have been appointed to the Catholic Church's advisory scientific body. They are the co-inventors of the CRISPR genome editing technology. 

Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna discovered CRISPR about 10 years ago, sparking research into new treatments for cancer and other diseases, earning them the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

The technology simplifies the editing of human DNA, allowing scientists to use an enzyme called Cas9 to “cut and paste” gene sequences. 

This has been applied to experimental treatments for sickle cell anemia and certain cancers, but has also raised bioethical concerns, including its application in “designer babies.”

Rome-based journalist Courtney Mares offers some background to the Pontical Sciences Academy appointments, made under the auspices of the pope: 

One of the current members, who are known as "ordinary academicians," is Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project and is the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Past members included Stephen Hawking and scores of Nobel Prize-winning scientists, such as Guglielmo Marconi, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger.

Religious belief – Catholic or otherwise – is not a criterion for membership in the pontifical academy. This open membership policy exists because the Pontifical Academy is conceived as a place where science and faith can meet and discuss. It is not a confessional forum, but a place where it is possible to have an open discussion and examine scientific developments.

Mares' article also gives more detail on the ethical issues arising from the gene-editing capability, so it's worth a read.

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

High screen use, low life-satisfaction

Girls, especially, suffer from tech dis-ease. Photo by Julia M Cameron, from Pexels

A new set of evidence has come in on the abhorrent influence of tech devices and social media on young people, demonstrating again that parents and society as a whole must confront the problem of unsupervised access.

Research published in The Lancet found detrimental mental health impacts start after two hours of screen use for girls and after four hours for boys.

Screen use included television, video games and social media, but excluded screen time for school study. 

The research involved more than 577,000 children aged between 11 and 15 from 42 high-income countries, and it was conducted well before the pandemic altered our lifestyles. The last sample for the study is from 2014, so the impact of screen time on adolescents is likely to have become more pronounced since the early days of social media. 

The study's lead author, Dr Asad Khan, from Australia's University of Queensland School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, said they measured life satisfaction and  "psychosomatic" health, being where physical illness or other condition is caused or aggravated by a mental factor.

Khan said of the team's findings: 

What we found was that mental health is a big issue. We have also started seeing evidence coming through the scientific literature that overuse of screen time for recreation is also causing some issues in academic achievement, attention and other psychosocial problems like attention deficiency disorder syndrome.

We have also seen that it is linked with depression and anxiety in this particular paediatric population.

As to why negative mental health impacts kicked in after four hours of screen time for boys, but within half that time for girls, Khan said boys are generally more active with their screen time.

Boys are doing more of active screen time for computer, electronic games, whereas girls are not doing that.

Girls' [active] contribution is really low compared to the boys, so that may be why the passive screen time, which is television and social media, are the dominant component of the girls' screen time.

The study's summary states:

Mental wellbeing in adolescents has declined considerably during past decades, making the identification of modifiable risk factors important. 

Detrimental associations between screen time and mental well-being started when screen time exceeded one hour per day, whereas increases in physical activity levels were beneficially ... associated with well-being.  

Screen time levels were negatively associated with life satisfaction and positively associated with psychosomatic complaints in a dose-dependent manner. Physical activity levels were positively associated with life satisfaction and negatively associated with psychosomatic complaints in a dose-dependent manner.  

That means the more screen time, the worse is youngsters' feeling of well-being, and the more physical activity taken, the better youngsters feel.

The study's conclusion is:

Public health strategies to promote adolescents' mental well-being should aim to decrease screen time and increase physical activity.

That goes for parents' strategies as well! 

The Australian recommendations for parents is limiting electronic screen use to a maximum of two hours a day and encouraging physical activity of at least one hour a day for both boys and girls.

Khan said one hour of physical activity and no more than two hours of screen time a day provided "optimal mental well-being".

We need to recalibrate our kids' behaviour towards a healthier lifestyle, meaning that when we can, [we should] replace the screen time with some outdoor activity.

Targeting both behaviours simultaneously is likely to give us the best benefit.

We are urging parents to actually minimise screen time as well as maximise the physical activity so we could give a better life to our kids.

The data was collected long before the COVID-19 pandemic where dramatic reductions in physical activity and increases in screen time have been observed globally.

...This is a wake-up call for us as parents, as a community, or as a society to look into this and try to help our kids to do more physical activity, to move more and sit less on a screen.

We need to invest in this if we want to see a healthier lifestyle for our kids in the future.

These findings confirm those of a study published late last year in which excessive screen time for young children under five years was found to be more often associated with poor cognitive outcomes, understandable because at that age they're developing cognitive abilities like language.

In adolescents, there was more association between mental health outcomes like depression and anxiety.

This second study focused on the benefits to children of getting some "green-time", concluding:

Nature may be an under-utilised public health resource for youth psychological well-being in a high-tech era.

Additional guidance for parents is given in response to both these findings by clinical psychotherapist Victoria Matthews, who works with teenagers and children at her Queensland practice. She urges parents to show their adolescents understanding and compassion.

[Children] stay home, they do their homework, but the socialisation that would happen in person is now online.

It used to be all about peer pressure, but now it's 'FOMO', or fear of missing out. What they fear missing out on is the conversation going past them and them not being involved in it.

It becomes a source of distress for them, because what we're not appreciating is that that's how they now socialise — and we've done that to them.

We do have to come out with some compassion and say, 'We've actually created the situation because we've deprived them of the ability to go out.'

Therefore, sports and other club activities are important for young people to get away from their screens but also have that chance to participate in a variety of "conversations" with peers. Matthews says this gives young people opportunity to build a variety of friendship groups.

They're getting their self-esteem built from interacting with people in multiple environments, not just one. Whereas now they go to school and they're still dealing with all that stuff until 9 o'clock at night.

Without that extra interaction, some may come home and head straight for a screen:

They come home, they lie on the bed, and they're just swiping, swiping, messaging, and swiping. [However,] we can't live a life without tech — we just can't.

If that is the case, then it is because the older generation/s and the self-interested corporate influencers have created the wired world the young generation finds itself in.

Therefore, these same confederates must create a fresh environment to preserve the well-being of the young. It's a serious responsibility that parents, as central figures in the core cell of society, have to accept, starting with the task of forging strong connections with their children so that family standards are set, and constructive habits formed from the youngest years. Parents also have to be the role model.

See other posts on this topic here, here and here.

Ω If you like this blog, go to my Peace and Truth newsletter on Substack, where you can subscribe for free and be notified when a new post is published.

Dr. Carl Trueman: Plastic People, Liquid World