« The Weeds

Cake Wars, Supreme Court edition


Dara, Sarah and Matt trace the Supreme Court Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling back to peyote and then discuss a Swedish study about lottery winners. References and further reading: Vox.com explainer on the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling Vox.com piece about religious liberty in American history The Gallup poll on rates of support for gay marriage, mentioned by Sarah White paper on Swedish lottery winners

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Is going to be a leap year than one might hope, episode of the weeds, because in Australia AIDS, what lake thirty in the morning, hello by them to another reads in the box: media access networks must replace. Yes, we ve got Berlin back with us from Australia Indonesia is and super jet lag tee, and this might be it. It's gonna be an episode. Sarah Clef stuff, now still with us, so here maybe going a couple more episodes, hopefully not that maybe you'll see me Friday. Who knows we'll see what happens? It's gonna be it's gonna be thrilling and I are going to change.
At the little bed, it's gonna, be Sweden's national day on Wednesday, which is probably went on. Most EU will be listening to this podcast chosen great swedish survey data with which to celebrate. We love the Nordic. We love their studies, but first we're going to talk about the most pressing constitutional issue at the day. Cages cake what's up with? What's up with cake? On Monday, the Supreme Court, which brief sidebar, has been super slow generally enrolling on its big cases. This term, you know the Supreme Court has a history of of saving. It's been cases until the toward the end of its term, but like that is even more true this year, so you're gonna be seeing a lot of the big cases come down the pike, but on Monday they kind of open the floodgates for that were the case. Data sharing arguments for like back several months ago in what is called the masterpiece cake shop, peace, which is the case of a baker in Colorado, who refuse to make a case for a couple who had like approach
I am for their wedding and because the Baker said he was religiously opposed same sex marriage. He refused to make the cake for them. They claim that was a violation of their rights case, went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled that, yes, in fact he had to make the damn cake. He appealed that through federal courts, ultimately got to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court sided with the baker in a ruling that cold narrow? Because not because of the vote, the vote was seventy two in favour of the baker, but because the way in which the opinion majority opinion was written was very close to the facts of this if a case it wasn't like. Yes, anyone who says they have a religious objection to same sex. Marriage can refuse to perform function for potential. Customers. It was in this particular case the key,
Bravo, civil rights Commission during their hearings on the matter said some things that indicated that they actually didn't respect this man's religious beliefs at all that they did not think that there was any kind of religious liberty claim they could possibly be valid here, and that was not a proper way to deal with this issue. The proper way to deal with this issue would have been to respect the idea that religious beliefs he had in fact be at odds with other things that we were and to engage in more of a kind of balancing approach. So it's not the out. The elderly to rights groups wanted, and many others kind of started pushing back on the idea that it was a narrow ruling, because it certainly doesn't closely a future challenges along these lines, but also, is not the Supreme Court saying? Yes, if you you are also a baker or a florists or somebody who in o decide
but they don't want to serve married same sex couples at their restaurant. You can now do that. They would like several layers of abstraction ever layers of cake that this has been to you as soon as I felt really it's more like a nested series of pastries, I would say no at which this could be addressed. Red selected. The topic of the litigation is the conflict between religious freedom and nondiscrimination law, read, which is a fascinating topic with huge stakes for everybody stayed within that controversy was a narrower claim that the court could have litigated on- and this is the question of- is cake. Art rice, Nowhere remove legitimately because eight eight grounds that the bakers put forward to try to strengthen their case here. Is that love? we're, not even trying to claim like a generic right to refuse to serve algae, BT custom.
yours or even a right to refuse to sell things to same sex marriages, but that we were being commissioned to custom craft a piece right and that you would not want a legal framework in which a sculptor or a painter can be made to produce a work of art that they don't want to make clear that that is a whore freedom of expression, value that, like you, can be a sculptor without undertaking a generic obligation to create any kind of sculpture that anybody wants you to do, and so they were saying. Look. We don't want to make this wedding cake where we are artists. We do not believe in this art, but there's room, gourd didn't rule there either right, which would him in one place to park it. They instead winches like straight to the process right, which is that, like the Colorado law, calls for these controversies to be a Jew, decayed, biased
date Civil Rights Commission, and then they said that the States Civil Rights Commission didn't adjudicated properly and they sorted low. But we dislike this. I we're done king on the Civil Rights Commissioner, really who themselves we're like dumping on the idea of there being a conscience. If you know it was like the civil rights commissioners, we're doing a lot alike. Well, you know people could raise all kinds of bad faith. Religious objections to anything- and I was it- grew at the court that the commissioners do not appear to be taking seriously. The fact that, like this is like a real doctrine of mainstreaming It means that lots of people sincerely believe in like when we like,
Actually, a little bit odd right like it, certainly true that a person could join up some kind of weird like religious objections up, we ve all been alive fer. You know a couple of decades here and are completely familiar with like faith traditions that have millions of adherence and an like people are and on it, and that the a that same sex. Marriage is wrong and it was being treated by this words. Commissioners, as us of more like more strange objection- and I think it really was why that's so legally relevant, whose I mean I think it is really relevant because going lake we. way way too. In of philosophical fundamentals. Here, It is generally a good thing that the state says we are not going to insist that all individuals act in the same way. All times in our work, to allow them to have other, like
organizations other ideas around which they orient themselves and Sometimes we should accept that the laws we make while their intended to be universal, should have some exemptions right, like the reason that we have a federal religious freedom, restoration ACT as because of a nineteen ninety Supreme Court ruling Britain by Internet Scalia. That said that native Americans couldn't use parity in religious rituals, because the that said, no one could use Patey wasn't discriminating against them. Congress preceded, say, yeah kind, It is because they're using it for religion not just to get high, but you know, you think there is a legitimate question of when do you consider a religious objection to be legitimate and something by which a person is guiding their life, verses and opportunistic way to either get personal gain? Which I think is something that a lot of people suspect is the case in some of the employers who are trying to wriggle out of contraceptive covered for their employees.
Or whether it's just bigotry, which is something that I think a lot of progressives have accepted, is the Motivating factor for a lot of people who claim to be religiously motivated right now. I think this they legitimately hard question, because if you believe that religion, acting as a cover for bigotry, and it's not like religion, has never done that before. Then. It makes sense that the strategic response to that would be to try to marginalize it. Try to trivialize it like chase bigoted beliefs out of the public sphere. Rather than saying yes, we accepted villages you: have your intellectual superstructure, I'm not comfortable, because I think that that flippancy married to that? A lot of prominent progressives don't themselves have strong religious beliefs can often turn into an assumption that no one could possibly be sincere. That turns into a flippancy toward village in itself, and that, I think, is where Cholera, civil rights Commission got a little bit over. It sees learning. This brings us to turn to refer to one of our gas, which,
up. It's the religious freedom, restoration ACT that comes up a decent amount lately at the Supreme Court. This is late nineties law that is kind of to protect religious liberty, and that has led to the Supreme Court creating a framework for how they deal with these kind of conflict. That there is talking about manders. There is also that our own Mattie, this yesterday senior thesis that is related to this area. Inexplicably, not our white paper, this very well. If we can get a pdf Yvette up on my- and maybe I am, I promise I'll see if I can find out, I may well, but it and show links that it was not their well regarded me. anyways, so the deal with rephrase the Supreme Court is essentially ennobled taken referred made it into this three pronged task that courts used it aside, like is actually an infringement on religious, but on religious leaves. So the first is Is there a substantial bird and is something happening that is burdening someone,
who s sincere belief and again these are tricky things to see us out like what is a sincere believe. How do you differentiate between that verses, something others might see, is bigotry verse. something that might be financial gain, but if the court decides yes, the case moves forward and then you, you know you move on to the government, have a compelling interest for creating that substantial burden. Is it ok, in this case to restrict religious liberty because they have a compelling? interest to do so, and this is an argument that the Obama administration would make the contraceptive cases that it defended that David very strong interest in making sure that women have access to affordable birth control, so that aid should that should be weighed against these stanch all burden is light. Economical thing here is like, if I say like all, I'm in a human sacrifice call yes, I got an email, you know now I E. We have a substantial interest in you, not sacrificing other humans and then, if you can
has that heard of you decide? You know there is a substantial burden onto sear belief that the government does not have a very good reason to interfere that you know this isn't some like cannibalism. The last thing goes to is the government, working in the least restrictive means. Are they doing kind of the bare minimum they need to get to the compelling interest that has the least burden on a sincere but leave. We didn't get through this process in masterpiece, cake case, cedar, weed and even touch this, but I think the fact This comes up to the Supreme Court that you saw unity, Obamacare contraceptive mandate come up, and that really was a referee case where they decided. There was some central burden, the government compelling interests, but they weren't pursuing that compelling interest with the least restrictive means, which is why you saw the contraceptive mandate, demanded, get water down a little bit Supreme Court. It really shows how kind of hard these cases are for courts to sets out that these are hard tensions. These are hardly.
And they get into this like weird universe of both looking the actual facts of the case, but also a train and get inside people's heads of what they believe and like how we think about those believes in what counts is substantial bird and it's a really tricky. of law, which I think makes these cases pretty unpredictable. I think one of the things that you know it's kind of interesting in this decision to pint was how much the court was thinking about the context of the decision the kind of the real world outside of all of this legal theory. So both you have These comments really dumping on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and then you of this section that I thought was interesting from Kennedy, whereas
Do you talks about? There is actually a lot. That's happened since its original kind of cake fight happened in twenty twelve in terms the landscape of gay rights. So one thing there is going to read from a paragraph from the ruling here where Kennedy writes that Philips dilemma is particularly understandable, given the background of legal principles and administration of all of the law in Colorado that time his decisions and actions leading to the refusal service all occurred in the year twenty twelve. At that point, Colorado did not recognise the validity of gay marriage. Formed in its own state. The court had not issued its decision and United States versus Windsor or a burger fell by an excellent EU marinating. The gases Kennedy is implying that potentially the exact same case would come out different now over his own prior right. Exactly this is this. Just as Kennedy saying I single handedly changed America with my own burger fell ruling lake. It should not be understated here. The extent to which this rule
is another in a long body of decisions from Justice, Anthony Kennedy, Vet legal scholars say raises many questions as they do answers, but Our law and are regarded as lake is often good law, because they're coming from the swing justice on the Supreme Court like there, definitely a lot of questions that were raised about ok. This does actually have implications for prior Supreme Court precedents that didn't really get addressed. Did Anthony Kennedy. Think about those did he not think about them did you just want to put himself on the back for the last decision. He wrote that raise these questions, yeah. So it's I thought there appeared like really stood out to me, and I, like almost implies like cursing Matt that, like maybe this wouldn't even happen and twenty eighty. Maybe there aren't cake Baker is out there who refuse to make cakes per se next day for lawyer is right because, like based on the narrowness of the sweat like any
de on any side of this issue, who like wants to have a fight, has like some grist to the mill, rarely oftentimes Supreme Court ruling for better where is sort of closes a lot of doors to future litigation. This, like only opens doors ride like a is it very hard to say, based on this case, how any future case would possibly turn out. I mean a lot of those doors already were open, like the of referral laws isn't to settle questions is to say there is a space of competing claims that we, the legislature, not equipped to adjudicate word, setting out how the courts should approach these questions. You can your specific question to the courts. In most cases, that means that, like religious claimants, get denied- and you know that sometimes that's for things that might seem
pretty obvious or interlinked the religious purposes, pretty attenuated, often its things like prison conditions and whether in our prisoners, religious rights are being respected. That Are you fall politically on? The spectrum is more likely to determine your position on some of these than a consistent belief for or against religious protection, but lake. It's not exactly that the Supreme Court open doors that were previously closed, then that the court is kind of acknowledging that this is a really tricky space that the law hasn't figured out yet and frankly, Kennedys kind of crossing his fingers and hoping that opposition to same sex marriage gets marginalized enough as a political opinion in short order, so that they don't have to be for resolving these questions of any broader alarming visit. Where I do think that, like the punting here is, is brilliant and well done. As as long as this bakery thing has been going? It's just been an open question, in my mind, is like how big a deal is this right, like
there was. There was a legal scholarship in the fifty is saying, oh this whole, like civil rights idea like that sounds nice, but this incredible tension here with the important first amendment values of freedom of Association and, like normal people, rejected that argument, because there was clearly I mean I know her put those otherwise. But like segregation was a really big t, it was like really systematic, really entrench. It had a huge impact on the everyday lives of millions and millions, and millions of Peat air was in point of fact, a matter of freedom of Association, but a matter of like daily enforcement by local law enforcement and an end to all kinds of violence that you was a huge deal. This cake thing like I dont, want to minimize, except just to say, like we
genuinely, I think, do not have enough experience to understand like what is the landscape that is going to be facing same sex couples, who are looking to get cakes and other wedding vending things like it. Just like they gave one bakery somewhere in America, will not make cakes for same sex weddings. That's not that big of a deal if same sex couples routinely find themselves facing all kinds of various forms of discrimination by vendors. There really is a big deal and so like how hard of a line you wanna take. All Demille has something to do with how idiocy Craddock this bakers preferences is like if, if just give one guy somewhere wants to be a jerk like it seems to me like. Let him be a jerk
people are facing like a huge, systematic wall of discrimination, then there's like real reason to try to intervene forcefully and break them down, and it's just like we learn more with every passing day like is there going to be in the wake of the Supreme Court whirling? Are we gonna see like a lot of litigation about this, or is it going to turn out that there are very few instances where a couple wants a service from vendor who doesn't want to provide it, and this is sort of like a rare issue when an things it's always stood out to me about gay marriage and gay rights is the incredibly fast shift in public opinion. That's been happening like really just over the past seven or eight years. I M looking right now to chart from gallop that shows in nineteen eighty four.
and sixty percent of American said that gay marriage should not be valid. Twenty seven percent said that it should be valid. Those numbers have essentially flipped in the course of twenty years, which is really really fast for social attitudes. Change and a lot of that change from the moment when we flip to among a majority of Americans putting. Gay marriage is basically in twenty twelve. This moment that this cake fiasco is beginning and kind of have to imagine reading of thinking that paragraph from Justice Kennedy that the this is what is in the back of his mind as he's. Like writing. This opinion is that we're in the middle of a huge see change that. Did you don T and other social issues like if you look at something like views on abortion?
that you don't see this kind of shit, you don't see Americans becoming more liberal if anything there becoming slightly more opposed to abortion rights, but you just see in appealing to this and show now it's fair that a huge reversal of how Americans think about this issue over you know from twenty eleven twenty two of ash iron, and I mean that significant one. I think the other things that's notable that the data are not just talking about more liberal Democrats getting on board. You see it among publicans independence. Democrats. Basically, you just see all these lions going up of people supporting game. no that's not to say. Discrimination does not exist in the most recent gallop. Data He still had one third of Americans who did not think that gay marriage should be valid so ITALY? You know there are people out there who disagree with this, but I think you know when I look at Kennedys decision. It seems to be quite cognizance of these trends that are changing within the United States, specific
to this one issue and kind of like almost conveys a hope. There will not be another case that comes before them because of this quick shift that we're saying in and how people think about this. So it's but I disagree with any of this, but I'm a lot less sanguine about it kind of getting resolved by the force of like majority support, because I think that for One thing: the media and political landscape that were currently n is an actually gonna. Give us a good sense of whether conflict over this kind of thing are going to be rarer. Whether there ought to be widespread, there's going into any individual conflict is going to get lifted up, it's almost inevitable that both religious conservatives and algae BT people are going to be consuming media that tells them that they are the victims and that the lake state Apparatus or the weight of
business or whatever is conspiring to prevent them from living their lives as they see fit. That's not going to give algae bid. You people the sense that they in point of fact can go into a bakery anywhere and get a cake like. Even if, in point of fact, they can do that, the amount of mental real estate that cake shops like masterpiece are likely to take up in people's minds is probably going to be outside and like it really hard for me either to say well done, It's not a rational thing to be super concerned about or daddy's on which we should be making a law like is a feeling of precedent, as that is similar to a lot of other feelings of oppressiveness. various groups that like May or may not be a suitable in point of fact, and even if they worry you're not going to tell people actually you're, not oppressed, so I think the reason that this is relevant is the lake. Most cases. We don't talk about rights as something that are protected by the majority,
There is a reason that ITALY because it is in the bill of rights, lay things out absolutely because there are cases in which the majority is going to conspire, to deprive people of their rights to like the idea that the government shouldn't have to step in, because society is going to do the work for them down really speak to the idea that sexual orientation and gender identity need to be given the full protection of the state in the same way. That, like race, is that a state needs to send the absolute message that discrimination is acceptable that, in theory, if you believe that fully that doesn't accommodate, even a single baker refusing to serve same sex couples like even just a couple of cases, would seem to give a state imprimatur to bigotry and lake. I think that in practice this is a balancing test. Congress thinks and practices of balancing test. The Supreme Court thinks and practices of balancing test allotted.
On both sides of the issue dolt they actually do, think that fundamental rights are being implicated. Eight may mean visit words important to get the majority Ryan Carton and horse sorted out correctly right, because the situation in Colorado and some other say gently to be clear. Most states do not have India Djibouti eligible. anti discrimination laws at all up in some states do Colorado is one. So these are places where the majority Marian political process has said we are going to secure the rights of our gay lesbian citizens right and the litigating claim is that the majority in a state like Colorado is stampeding on the rights of
the minority, which is the religious, conscientious objectors, and one reason why this particular topic get so fraught is because algae bt people perceive themselves as a vulnerable minority and they are cast in this litigation as the potentially oppressive majority, and, if you think about it for a second, you can see why algae bt people conceive of themselves as the vulnerable minority, because they are in fact a minority, but like legally speaking,
what's happened in Colorado, is that the the majority Harry and institutions are on their side and then it also to progressive people feels ah had to cast Christians as an oppressed minority. Although that, again like is legally what like what the issue is here is: can the mighty forces of algae BT rights damp on the oppressed minority of Orthodox Christian swayed and, and this speaks to the original politics of where for a ride? This is a rises out of a case in Oregon, where there's an organ law that, like you, can't do pay out. He and his family and drive that use piety and religious ritual as an arrest made. I think I think they're had previously been a sort of pragmatic accommodation of this, but somehow it did wind up in court, right native Americans say: ok are first amendment right to free practice of religion is being violated, and so this come
to the Corti presence is basically a classic civil rights case right, in which a group of people that everybody would recognize is a vulnerable minority group native Americans is just saying, like the majority, stamping on us, with their regular peo de la answer. port smacks. The native Americans now right because they're doing ignore more conservative reading of a civil rights case, which is that like unless the law is like super explicitly discriminatory. The mere fact that this general law is bad for native Americans, make it discrimination so named Reagan's lose you no great triumph for whatever to whirl of law and then there's a
backlash in which liberals are saying: no, no, no like we need to protect vulnerable minority groups and and what progress have in mind is like native Americans doing religious ceremonies seeks who would like to wear their turbans. You know when there's some rule about you can have seventy headway like that, because we take include two grand that leg majority groups rightly Christmas day is to holiday right and I think we're all jewish here and it's like it's really ink Vineyards to like me, with your family, for Passover. Right because, like the mainstream law, just accommodates like what Christians need and then really this minority groups need to go for like special pleading around everything's, but christian groups were smart and the hopped on this bandwagon, unlike lined up behind the idea of a legislative, religious freedom, Restoration ACT She don't, I think, was not like a no brainer call for that, but like that they were
and we're like no like this is good. It's going to be good for adherence of the majority religion in America to enact this legislative protection for minority religions and it passed overwhelmingly. Data was not a country. I think I saw their three senators. You voted a can step. it was, it was not. It is now often framed as like something that that, like a tool of the religious rights, but I think you go back to nineteen. Eighty seven is action, It was. It was very right because it originally presented, as liberals wanted to protect religious minorities and then organised Chris commercial. I guess we should help protect religious minor. these and woods. Now we frequently see in these birth control and in these baking cases is question who conceived themselves to be an oppressed minority, but, like leftwing people, do not often see them that way, and I think that's why these cases becomes a fraud right, particularly that the elderly, to discrimination, because the people on both sides see themselves as the ones who ain't discretion.
laws must be helped to hunting of also notable here to me in this case, can going against the scene of argument. And it seems to be making that all things are shifting. We still have a national law, the discrimination against algae Bt Q people like was saying, with minority of state to pass these laws. I think it's twenty one states largely blue states as Canada Map. You d expect, but I think, Can you can look at the gallop lawyers hugging about earlier, but there are also that are indicative of not being this massive shift. I know, Kennedys writing about these decisions is made and how we're in the middle of a sea change that is. Thank you. No Congress could Do I haven't heard anyone bring that seem to be an agenda item in any sort of sort of way. That is something that that is on the table in their power. That could, you know, come out of just like. We saw come out of the parity case from or again you could season
things similar, but I think it is notable is suggesting that the landscape may not be quite what can be as describing it as that in most states knew. You wouldn't even have a Colorado commission on civil liberties, because you would not have a law like the one that they have to stick to the weird majority areas or like counter majority organism of living of american life rent a generally, because, if you're an BT person living in most states in the union. You can lead When we look at your government and say there is no indication that the government thinks that I am a member of a vulnerable minority who needs to be protected by the state by if you in you know this of Colorado and your conservative Christian you're lucky. your state government and going I have no indication that the state thinks that I'm a vulnerable minorities who needs to be protected by the states like this is partly if,
federalism is partly a function of kind of the nationalization of politics generally, where I think that things that are happy being in deep red states to people There are a lot more emotionally to media consumers in blue states. Then objective led the pact on their lives is going to be, and vice versa. There's a certain use of the kind of fact that different people in America have different kinds of lives, structured by different kinds of governments to perpetuate a sense. Actually, no, you are the besieged minority in american life and Other side holds all the levers of power and is trying to crush you. Guess temporary. It's time to celebrate. We lending and take a break suck about. Sweden you pay attention to stuff like Manchester this podcast, but everything you know. I read magazines like New Yorker time,
You even entertain illegally to round up my world it and you can get every magazine that matters with texture. So what is this great? Last texture, Isn T magazine, they warn them, One hundred of the best magazines one place you get complete issues back issues any time. anywhere all in one. You stay connected to the biggest invest stories with extra So it's an app it's on your smartphone. Send your tablet especially great tablet. You did a great deal with texture, it's really fun waited dive in, and so here's the basics of what you need. If you want to start your seventy free trial, texture that comments like Swedes. So why wait start reading the latest issues? Are your favorite try texture for free today, Extra Cobb's weeds, that's texture, dot com, such weeds start your free trade
hey weeds listeners. This is tat. There were a host of vocs dot com. Is culture podcast? I think your interesting perfect. as the Americans just aired. Its last episode was one of my favorite shows, maybe as one of your favorite shows, but either way. I think you should check out my conversation. This shows Custar, Matthew, reasoned, show runners, Joe Iceberg, Joel fields. you're really enjoy. It was not subscribe to I think, your interesting wherever you get your protest. so we got some swedish lottery owners today. It's pretty sweet! Ok. So this is a paper its budget by air link best rabbit Earthling. I think Kind of pronounced swedish names and David Serafine nice American. Thank God. And so they they looked at what happens to swedish people when they win the lottery and they serve them about their psychological well being, and it turns out that
people who cleans the lottery are doing better than people who have not one the lottery. This is an interesting divergence, rapes and when they do with the goal of value would have measures of well being, which is like they ask you. You know like how has you life going? How satisfied with your life lottery? Winters are really good at like saying life. Satisfaction is high, but then, when they look at happiness and mental health is only a very slight improvement, as this is a divide between the effective, well being, which is like how happy are and your evaluative well being, which is how satisfied you say you are with how you're you're, If he's going, we find this this kind of divergence between evaluative and an effective measures in a range of contacts. So I thought it was a little interesting that it would come up and in this one so it's like money, I mean. Can money make you happy is like a perennial subject and the answer sort of work- and I think, also one things as interesting about this- is there are looking
long term well being of lottery. Winners of one of the things there doing here is just exploring this idea that I am, I think, like a popular conception that lottery winner blow all their money in the first four years and, unlike some Halleck ruin their lives, which is maybe what we are. Ourselves, because you're like a sucker languidly, I agreeably lottery winners it just like they waste their money and sign. Now it turns out, I finally rich there definitely richer. This study looks at people's well being five years after they won the lottery, so presumably they ve had some time to make by some boats are like. something down with their with their winnings. They do find that these people are of value Tivoli at least doing better than the rest of us that they ve had this increase in evaluative. Well, being I guess make sense like every like. I don't know, I guess it: wouldn't is not the most shocking grounded Finding that more money gives you more flexibility. Like you see, I can own men. They were talking about those before us out of the studio that, what's going on,
like when you have more money, you feel more sick. There are things less things to worry about, kind of safety net. This studies dude and blow that money in the first five years, but do you feel like? about your life. Do you feel like you're like doing something like positive and like exciting? That's the part, that winning the lottery doesn't seem to change very much explanation I would expect to see it go the other direction right. I would expect to see less of it virgins in how happy people said they were with their lives and more of a divergence in like happiness in mental health, I think would instead you're. Seeing here is that, like in kind of the data stuff people who, when the lottery they still sweat, the small stuff winning the lottery, does not in fact mean that you like float through your life on his master cloud. But when asked to step back and lake think equally about where they are. There's something that switch is on that says, actually even
I've been getting sucked up in all of this stuff. Actually I think my life is pretty good in almost looks like a super ego check greatly We who have gotten this windfall, who have like whose life have been changed by the fact that a bunch of money fell into their laps through something they can't portray is like they're just karmic deserves makes them think. Oh well. I know I have it well compared to other people. So when asked directly, I know I ought to say that my life is going pretty well with his really it's interesting, because the classic case for an effective, evaluate split is having children right were parents of young kids. Such myself are in practice unhappy because you know we'll get sleep, we never do anything. We have no money, it's a terrible, but then like realities. I got how you doing it's like. We have much higher life satisfaction then childless people, because, where the inky barked and a noble human event
and doing something worthwhile with our lives than you know. It's it's all for has meaning, and- and you know it eats I'm joking, but I think it's true right. It's like raising a child shapes you're your life and makes you feel like you are engaged in something worthwhile and significant wing the lottery it like it feels like it should be like the opposite of having a child right. They like it. Just awesome like you money, so that you can go do something core and just like, be happy all the time. But then, if you stepped back and think you're gonna happen like achieved anything rather get at in earned the sudden do anything worthwhile. I like just drank some fancy wine yesterday
happened to be rich, but it's the opposite right. It's like a weird data day way. It doesn't make you happier, but then, when you ask people like how's it going, they say better to me that cast into an interesting light, the psychology of like normal rich people who aren't lottery, winners link. If even people who clearly got ridge through dumb luck and have no grounds are whatsoever to full themselves into thinking, it was anything other than dumb luck can get sense of Ike smug, self satisfaction from it, like God, help people who will then snug self satisfaction, though I feel ache, its equally plaza but it's humility that its leg. You know what I don't actually have a whole lot to complain about lake I, plain that my ino rare cheetah, just like tore up my person, rug, but
You know what it's like through is super Aurettes. Everybody knows that I would spend all my money unexcited pets via that kind of the way that it makes sense to me that, at the same dynamic that you see with parents, it's like the story that people tell themselves about where they are in relation to other people. Parents tell themselves ok I am actually you no more noble than other people, because I am engaged in this great adventure, but it still serves in function of when think about where I am in my life, I'm doing pretty. Okay with lottery winner is it's the way I've been Yet it is. I guess I should complain that much I had all these problems before I won the lottery, but like there certain ways in which life is easier. Now I know there are. who don't have all the money that I have and who still have these problems lake in relation to other people. Things are going pretty okay, so when things that maybe I love it surprising,
here? As you don't see as much of a transfer from value, Rev well being to effective, see you could think of like one. of lottery winners. We're offers a new like have this windfall of money and Maybe this is less true in Sweden. Could save a much more robust socially, not that we do, but you can like. Oh, I like money to have another kid that give the money to pursue things that are actually important to me that these things have been. Holding me back in some way eggs. They don't have enough money to do the thing I want to do now. I can and like I M able to do those sorts of things so kind of I mean it comes back to This idea we have about lottery winners that, like maybe it's just start again. The comforting me as a nun very winner Maybe you know it is sure they're not like blowing their money and like five years and like they feel better and the evaluative side, but like there actually using the money to buy things we know there are things that do effects effective.
Well being, and it doesn't seem like they're using their money to buy them things. I think, maybe that's like an open question. Its paper is like Would you use this money to buy those things like we're, but what should we? worthier, say you'd, like gun like It is not like a kid but like having another kid visibility of this caution and, like you said, we have all this research showing that raising children and you know, is going increases that kind of well being that's one example that comes mind or, like I don't know like supporting a nonprofit that it that gives you a feeling, like. Oh I'm doing something super worthwhile with my, and I dont know if they like that- just wouldn't work This is more advanced well, be a question is how do I get my effective well being like how I think the other? How can I just behind
life on the time at work, because there is cheating. Evidently don't worry. The other point here and like this is almost certainly less of a thing in swedish context, for various reasons. But you know so much of the conversation about wealth and income in the United States is structured by the fact that being less, what having less wealth mean you're, also surrounded by people who have less wealth and therefore, if you come into a certain amount of money, buddy around you who is not doing well, who has a relationship with you is going to see? You know, is going to try to make some claim on your ability to help them out, and I think this is like a substantially under discussed cause of a lot of the racial wealth gap stuff. We talk because like if you have family obligations to other people, and they don't have the same income that you have been here, because you worried finding a job in they weren't like that. Actually is a really fraught question of what you as an individual, should do with that money, and I,
can see something similar happening in cases of lottery. Winners were like everybody, you know it. no you won the lottery. You're, probably not, can keep that a varied in secret and so will you know and have relationships with who feel able to make claims on? Your time now may feel able to make claims honour at least appeals to your money in ways that might actually complicate the existing life EU. And turn things that should be sources of effective well being like friendships like a strong family network. in two causes, are ass, dark, stark there We can convince ourselves that winning lottery actually, not that great I'd still take. I want I want. I want the lottery, I want the lottery that you know we don't have any advice on how to when the lottery. But you can unquestionably increase your effective and devalued of wellbeing by turning the boots.
a group back containing the conversation there check out our many other fine ox media Pike S, network pie casts also checking out our new Netflix, which is super guide and gets into this migration wealth gap issue that human events, for that is an episode on that which is amazing. Monogamy amazing K pop, like double amazing, Jean Pierre, really cool we urge my episodes coming out soon so stay tuned, yet New episodes are out every Wednesday and it's amazing, its call explained its on Netflix, you guys, probably no one Netflix is, so ok without outside. Thanks to our engineer, Griffin, Tanner are producer, Brigitte, Armstrong, two responses, of course, and we will be back hopefully still Stoa, Sarah or maybe she doesn't feel that way
clearly does not feel that way. On Friday, it's gonna be amazing. Hopefully this is my last he'd spur. While we how you guys, I will be with us on Friday,.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-12.