6 ms·

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

by 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.

by J-dawg 11y ago

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.