Hard work

There is a beautiful passage in Anna Karenina (part III, chapters 4 and 5) which describes the pleasure to be found in demanding physical work.  Konstantin Lévin, a landowner, spends a day with a group of forty muzhiks – peasants who work for him on his land – harvesting the summer grass.  They work in a long row, each man with a regularly sharpened scythe, cutting a swathe through the meadows under the heat of the sun. The day is long and hard, especially for Lévin who is unused to hours of repetitive physical work, but he finds happiness in belonging to this collective endeavour, seeing the large fields of his property transformed around him.  At some moments, he loses all sense of time and place, the rhythmical movements of his arms and legs becoming automatic, his mind at ease, as if his blade acted upon its own will: In this hottest time the mowing did not seem so hard to him.  The sweat that drenched him cooled him off, and the sun, burning on his back, head and arm with its sleeve rolled to the elbow, gave him firmness and perseverance in his work; more and more often those moments of unconsciousness came, when it was possible for him not to think of what he was doing.  The scythe cut by itself.  These were happy moments.  

Agricultural workers around the world would have cut grass together each year in a similar way for hundreds of years.  However, in 1877, when Tolstoy’s novel was published, machines were routinely supplanting human labour: the novel ends – famously – with a woman’s suicide assisted by a train.   The process of automation of work has continued ever since.  The modern farmer no longer has need of forty men to cut the grass of her fields: instead, she will have a tractor driven perhaps by a computer.  She will have other machines to bale the hay and transport it to where it will be stored for the winter.  Today, work is more about controlling machines than swinging scythes, which means much less sweat but much greater productivity. 

Continue reading “Hard work”

Who wants to be a billionaire?

Some are born rich, some achieve riches, others have riches thrust upon them.  Last week, the owner of a lottery ticket purchased in Illinois won a prize worth up to $1.34bn.  The ticket holder will have to decide whether to take an immediate cash prize of $780.5m, or to take the full amount in instalments over a period of 29 years.  Making this choice will, I assume, depend in part on the life expectancy of the winner, and in part on the way they would respond to Walter Mischel’s marshmallow test.

Before I think about what I would do with a billion dollars, I feel the need for a short digression.  When I was a child, the pound was worth roughly two-and-a-half dollars. The rate varied, month-by-month and year-by-year, but the simple rule of conversion was that one dollar was worth about 40p.  In those days, winning $1.34bn in a US lottery would equate to around £536m, which is a very healthy sum for sure, but only just over halfway to a billion pounds.  Nowadays, the pound is trading at around 1.20 to the dollar, which means that the lucky lottery ticket holder from Illinois is a billionaire in both dollars and pounds. In my lifetime, the pound has lost half its value against the dollar, which makes UK assets – houses, land, companies, and leading football teams – more vulnerable to foreign takeover, and which makes it increasingly hard for British citizens to move to the US without a significant short-term reduction in living standards.  The dollar benefits from the privilège exorbitant of being the leading global reserve currency, but its comparative strength relative to the pound over the past fifty years also reflects the higher calibre of economic policy making in the US.  If there were a marshmallow test for nations, I think we all know that today the UK would make no attempt to defer gratification.

Continue reading “Who wants to be a billionaire?”