4 ms·

Lots of contradictory stadies on this subject: Money buys happiness until you have $75,000 (the one they are citing): https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downlo

by lqdc13 11y ago

Lots of contradictory stadies on this subject: Money buys happiness until you have $75,000 (the one they are citing): https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_... Money always buys happiness - no limit: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/subjective%20well%20being%20income/subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/... However, it seems to not matter that much as money only explains 1.8% of the variance in subjective well being: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010079728426 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010079728426

J-dawg 11y ago
The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. In South American countries for example, it certainly seems to be true that middle class professionals have a pretty nice lifestyle partially as a result of inequality in society. (For example, it's pretty normal to have a live-in housekeeper to clean and cook for you)
- AlexandrB 11y ago
  > The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. It's important to remember that this kind of finding describes a default or average psychological outlook of a population. There's no reason that an individual can't alter his own perception of the world and his place within it through meditation, psychotherapy, CBT, or some other means. Basically, relative wealth will affect your happiness if you allow yourself to believe that relative wealth is important. Capitalist society is built on this belief (it's foundational to aspirational advertising) but that doesn't make it true.
- vanderZwan 11y ago
  > The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. Note that that inference is limited to material wealth.
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
  > The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. The principle, true or not is summed up as: "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
- spacehome 11y ago
  I think the fact that happiness is (mostly) zero sum comes from the fact that in early humanity's evolutionary environment, the ecosystem had a mostly constant (meaning over human reproductive cycle timelines) carrying capacity for humans. Innovative advances in technology or techniques or knowledge that would allow for more humans to thrive with better qualities of life were so rare that evolution did not have much opportunity to select for them. In that kind of environment, one's genes can only propagate at the expense of others'. So we're now all the decedents of the early humans who preferred being the top dog of squalor as opposed to an equal in a prosperous society.
- Retric 11y ago
  Many things are zero sum. Land does not increase just because world GDP grows. Further, increasing wealth does not mean every resource becomes more abundant. Gold supply for example is fairly fixed because we have already mined the stuff for thousands of years and most of that old gold is still around. Granted, there is a lot of gold out there something like 2 pounds per person, but that it. Want more than that, take it from someone else. Housekeeping is an edge case where everyone wants it, but nobody wants to do it. So, it only shows up due to wealth disparity. PS: The abundance of food is also great wealth, but you only need so many calories a day.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    > Housekeeping is an edge case where everyone wants it, but nobody wants to do it. It's not that no one wants to do it. The problem is that it is regarded as a low status job and is also, almost invariably, low paid and poorly regulated.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Well, if you want to talk about South America, just keep in mind that in several countries the housekeepers are happier than the middle class people they work for.
gmac 11y ago
It's ridiculous, but this argument tends to boil down to whether the author chooses to plot happiness against LOG income (look ma! a straight line!) or plain old linear income. IMHO plotting against exclusively log income mainly serves to obscure arguments for redistribution and is borderline dishonest.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  So looking at yours (happiness proportional to log income) and J-dawgs (its relative wealth that matters) comments I had an idea. If we imagine dominance as a tree, then the number of levels below you is proportional to the log of the rank of your income, intensive handwaving something something, log of your income. So could it be that what actually matters is your level in the dominance tree?
  - nibs 11y ago
    Yes - except that last week the article [1] about power and autonomy discussed how people seek power in a misguided attempt at autonomy. If you think in survivalistic terms, the most powerful position to be in is one where others need you (and therefore you have high social capital) but you don't need them (so you could walk away if you wanted). This is actually autonomy, not power, but otherwise the people around you might experience the repercussions of your decisions as power. I think money is just a derivative of the needs and wants of people, and so the desire for money is mostly just the pursuit of what you want, misguided or not. More money means more autonomy. It goes deeper too, as people want mastery and respect, which can also be derived from work in a profound, interdependent to the community kind of way. [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/people-want-power-because-they-want-autonomy/474669/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/people-wan...

by lqdc13 11y ago

J-dawg 11y ago

The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. In South American countries for example, it certainly seems to be true that middle class professionals have a pretty nice lifestyle partially as a result of inequality in society. (For example, it's pretty normal to have a live-in housekeeper to clean and cook for you)

AlexandrB 11y ago
> The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. It's important to remember that this kind of finding describes a default or average psychological outlook of a population. There's no reason that an individual can't alter his own perception of the world and his place within it through meditation, psychotherapy, CBT, or some other means. Basically, relative wealth will affect your happiness if you allow yourself to believe that relative wealth is important. Capitalist society is built on this belief (it's foundational to aspirational advertising) but that doesn't make it true.
vanderZwan 11y ago
> The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. Note that that inference is limited to material wealth.
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
> The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn't sit well with me. The principle, true or not is summed up as: "It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gore_Vidal
spacehome 11y ago
I think the fact that happiness is (mostly) zero sum comes from the fact that in early humanity's evolutionary environment, the ecosystem had a mostly constant (meaning over human reproductive cycle timelines) carrying capacity for humans. Innovative advances in technology or techniques or knowledge that would allow for more humans to thrive with better qualities of life were so rare that evolution did not have much opportunity to select for them. In that kind of environment, one's genes can only propagate at the expense of others'. So we're now all the decedents of the early humans who preferred being the top dog of squalor as opposed to an equal in a prosperous society.
Retric 11y ago
Many things are zero sum. Land does not increase just because world GDP grows. Further, increasing wealth does not mean every resource becomes more abundant. Gold supply for example is fairly fixed because we have already mined the stuff for thousands of years and most of that old gold is still around. Granted, there is a lot of gold out there something like 2 pounds per person, but that it. Want more than that, take it from someone else. Housekeeping is an edge case where everyone wants it, but nobody wants to do it. So, it only shows up due to wealth disparity. PS: The abundance of food is also great wealth, but you only need so many calories a day.
- kwhitefoot 11y ago
  > Housekeeping is an edge case where everyone wants it, but nobody wants to do it. It's not that no one wants to do it. The problem is that it is regarded as a low status job and is also, almost invariably, low paid and poorly regulated.
marcosdumay 11y ago
Well, if you want to talk about South America, just keep in mind that in several countries the housekeepers are happier than the middle class people they work for.

gmac 11y ago

It's ridiculous, but this argument tends to boil down to whether the author chooses to plot happiness against LOG income (look ma! a straight line!) or plain old linear income. IMHO plotting against exclusively log income mainly serves to obscure arguments for redistribution and is borderline dishonest.

im3w1l 11y ago
So looking at yours (happiness proportional to log income) and J-dawgs (its relative wealth that matters) comments I had an idea. If we imagine dominance as a tree, then the number of levels below you is proportional to the log of the rank of your income, intensive handwaving something something, log of your income. So could it be that what actually matters is your level in the dominance tree?
- nibs 11y ago
  Yes - except that last week the article [1] about power and autonomy discussed how people seek power in a misguided attempt at autonomy. If you think in survivalistic terms, the most powerful position to be in is one where others need you (and therefore you have high social capital) but you don't need them (so you could walk away if you wanted). This is actually autonomy, not power, but otherwise the people around you might experience the repercussions of your decisions as power. I think money is just a derivative of the needs and wants of people, and so the desire for money is mostly just the pursuit of what you want, misguided or not. More money means more autonomy. It goes deeper too, as people want mastery and respect, which can also be derived from work in a profound, interdependent to the community kind of way. [1]: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/people-want-power-because-they-want-autonomy/474669/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/03/people-wan...