3 ms·
Yeah but, who's happier? That's not easy to answer btw. I've read studies that show evidence for both: -Money brings you happiness (up to some asymptote most n
by eanzenberg 8y ago
Yeah but, who's happier? That's not easy to answer btw. I've read studies that show evidence for both:
-Money brings you happiness (up to some asymptote most never reach)
-Poor (by western standards) rural tribes or hunter-gatherers are very happy.
I think it's illustrative to compare assets across the world but perhaps a more normalized metric would be overall "happiness", whatever that means (no its not easy to define).
My own western-biased experience tells me it's a bit of both. Money does in fact bring freedom of time which can bring happiness, but I've met some extremely happy people living on peanuts, eating very healthy and living on islands off the coast of Japan.
- evanpw 8y agoIt would be completely consistent for more money => more happiness for each individual person, but for differences in happiness between people to be dominated by non-monetary factors (personality, relationships, local culture, etc.). The problem is that you probably can't make that hunter-gatherer much richer without completely changing the culture they live in.
- Retra 8y agoHappiness isn't a useful metric by itself. Happiness needs to be stable, stability requires power, and power requires relative wealth. In the long run inequality undermines happiness, even if you've met some happy poor people. Look at the native American population. They were happy until the weren't: when a culture with greater financial power wanted what they had and they didn't have the power to stop it. Or look at Somali pirates: happy fisherman. Until foreign powers dump waste in their fishing waters for decades, then they lose their economy and have to arm themselves to defend their waters. No more happy. Because they couldn't fund a proper navy. The point being -- know the difference between weather and climate.