4 ms·
I don't know that the article is discussing happiness. The framing is "life is better", which I think ought to be interpreted broadly. However, even to your po
by andsoitis 4mo ago
I don't know that the article is discussing happiness. The framing is "life is better", which I think ought to be interpreted broadly.
However, even to your point, there's a lot of research that shows how wealth and happiness are correlated, with happiness rising with income, roughly log-linearly. Interestingly, the research also shows that there's an unhappy minority, roughly the bottom 20% of the wellbeing distribution for whom happiness increases with income up to about $100k and then flatlines because their unhappiness stems from problems money doesn't fix (grief, health crisis, loneliness).
- JohnFen 4mo ago> The framing is "life is better", which I think ought to be interpreted broadly. I don't understand. Surely, happiness ("satisfaction" is probably a better word, true) is the only measure that counts. What else would count as having a better life than being more satisfied with it?
- andsoitis 4mo agoAs I describe in the next paragraph, happiness / satisfaction, is, in fact, correlated with increased wealth according to research. Now, someone might very well take the position that they don't want to pursue more (personal) wealth because they bet it will make them less happy (e.g. it comes with increased responsibility or expectations) but I am confident that the vast majority of people would not opt out of the benefits that increased societal wealth brings. Or that they would say we should no longer increase wealth in society because it makes us less happy.