[i] Last week, at the Brookings Institution in Washington, two young economists - from the University of Pennsylvania, as it happens �?? presented a rebuttal of the paradox. Their paper has quickly captured the attention of top economists around the world. It has also led to a spirited response from Mr. Easterlin.
In the paper, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers argue that money indeed tends to bring happiness, even if it doesn’t guarantee it. They point out that in the 34 years since Mr. Easterlin published his paper, an explosion of public opinion surveys has allowed for a better look at the question. “The central message,” Ms. Stevenson said, “is that income does matter.”
To see what they mean, take a look at the map that accompanies this column. It’s based on Gallup polls done around the world, and it clearly shows that life satisfaction is highest in the richest countries. The residents of these countries seem to understand that they have it pretty good, whether or not they own an iPod Touch.
If anything, Ms. Stevenson and Mr. Wolfers say, absolute income seems to matter more than relative income. In the United States, about 90 percent of people in households making at least $250,000 a year called themselves “very happy” in a recent Gallup Poll. In households with income below $30,000, only 42 percent of people gave that answer. But the international polling data suggests that the under-$30,000 crowd might not be happier if they lived in a poorer country.[/i]
I still think it’s only up to a certain point - but I think that point is higher than sustenance level.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I still think it’s only up to a certain point - but I think that point is higher than sustenance level.
And you had to make a thread to tell us about this nugget?[/quote]
Yes - I guess you didn’t click through the link.
Here’s another excerpt:
[i] This contrast became the most famous example of a theory known as the Easterlin paradox. In 1974, Richard Easterlin, then an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, published a study in which he argued that economic growth didn�??t necessarily lead to more satisfaction.
People in poor countries, not surprisingly, did become happier once they could afford basic necessities. But beyond that, further gains simply seemed to reset the bar. To put it in today�??s terms, owning an iPod doesn’t make you happier, because you then want an iPod Touch. Relative income - how much you make compared with others around you - mattered far more than absolute income, Mr. Easterlin wrote.
The paradox quickly became a social science classic, cited in academic journals and the popular media. It tapped into a near-spiritual human instinct to believe that money can’t buy happiness. As a 2006 headline in The Financial Times said, “The Hippies Were Right All Along About Happiness.”
But now the Easterlin paradox is under attack.[/i]
perhaps someone should talk to an ethicist about this.
besides, this is about 2,500 years behind the times. just what is “happiness”, beyond a term often used to denote the positive end of some normative scale? further explication is needed. this is what ethicists do.
[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
They just need to pay other people to do time-consuming tasks for them.
[/quote]
Precisely. I was going to say that rich people are unhappy because they don’t know how to spend their money the right way.
“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensation for misery.”–The Controller, Brave New World
What money too often buys is overcompensation for misery (as seen on every TV commercial you’ve ever watched), not actual happiness (which you can’t really advertise).
To which I say, “if you want to know if your society is doomed, watch Cheney.”
When the Vice President cashes in his dollars, buys gold, and moves his company to Dubai, I’d say that’s a pretty good indication that the fecal matter is approaching the ventilator.