D-Square
Digest on what makes for a “decent standard of living”:
My view on the subject of what constitutes a decent living goes right back to Adam Smith,
whose views on the subject are not so well known, but exemplify the strand of humanity and
sound common sense which has been so thoroughly ignored in his writing ever since he coined
that phrase about the Invisible Hand. Smith asked the question in Wealth of Nations, in respect
of the minimum standard of living, whether it was part of that standard for a man to own a clean
linen shirt (at the time, linen and the laundry thereof were just making the transition from a
luxury of the upper class to a mass market product). Smith’s answer was that, although a linen
shirt was clearly not a necessity for survival, and had not been part of the basic standard of
living even ten years earlier, it was at the time of writing. His reason for so concluding was that
things had advanced to the point at which any industrious tradesman could afford to wear linen and
keep it laundered, so any tradesman not able to afford his linen shirt would be thought lazy or
inferior; even if he had happened into that state of penury by bad luck, he would find it very
difficult to get employed and get out of it once he was in it.That seems like, adjusted for technological advance, a good rule of thumb for today. Taking our
clue from the fact that the senses of “decent” which refer to the display of taboo body parts,
and the senses which refer to material standards of living, must have some common origin, I’d define
“a decent standard of living” as “the lowest level of material possessions in a society which allows
one to escape shame and prejudice”. So for example, while the phrase “trailer trash” is in common
usage, a decent standard of living implies not living in a trailer. If it is impossible to get a job
without an email address, then maybe a modem of some sort (not necessarily ADSL) is a part of that
standard. And so on.