4 ms·

The richest in India are less happy than Brazil's poorest. But leave it to the economist to find that money makes you happy while ignoring that some countries

The richest in India are less happy than Brazil's poorest. But leave it to the economist to find that money makes you happy while ignoring that some countries seem much happier. If you were to pick a country where you could randomly end up anywhere on the income scale, which would you pick? Of the countries listed, I'd pick the United States, followed by Brazil, Britain and Mexico.

jackgolding 13y ago
Why not Australia or Canada?
- danielharan 13y ago
  I am in Canada :) It just wasn't in the chart.
_delirium 13y ago
I'd pick somewhere in northern Europe probably. I might take the U.S. option if you could guarantee I was in the top 75% of the U.S. income scale. If I could really be randomly assigned anywhere on the scale, though, the U.S. seems too risky, because the low end of American lifestyles is really low, not even reaching the level of first-world poverty. Driving through parts of Mississippi was pretty surprising for someone who had never been there before: actual dilapidated shacks without running water, like you see on National Geographic documentaries about poor parts of the world. And urban American poverty, while it has running water, comes with too high a risk of violence.
- adventured 13y ago
  At the same time, your reference points are a very small % of the American population, not the bottom 25%. Only 5% to 10% of the poor live the way you describe. America's poor is on average equivalent to France's middle class. Once our healthcare system is properly in place, that will be even more accurate. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understandi... The average person in the bottom 25% also collects over $30,000 per year in government benefits, from housing to food to healthcare.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    The claim that the American poor are wealthier than the French middle class is rather loaded, and looking at it from a specific set of norms. I've spent considerable time living in both the U.S. and Europe, and in some ways Americans are indeed wealthier, but in some ways even America's middle-class doesn't live up to what Europeans expect of a middle-class lifestyle. That report seems to be measuring solely ownership of some material goods. But some of them are negatives from my perspective! I do not want many of those goods, and many Americans are essentially forced to buy them, whether they like it or not. That makes the American of the same income live less well off, because they have to spend their money on them. Example: you have to own a car in most parts of the U.S. to get anywhere (such as work), because transit sucks. You don't in most of Europe. When I moved from California to Denmark, I sold my car, dropped my insurance, and don't pay for maintenance anymore. That former money-pit is now extra disposable income for me. With the same income, I feel wealthier. In practice, this is a huge problem for my poorer American friends: car payments, insurance payments, car repairs, etc. are a huge issue for them. If something breaks they have to come up with money to repair it ASAP or they can't get to work and they might get fired. Whereas poorer Danish people don't have this headache; to get to work all they have to come up with is a bike, or money for the monthly transit pass (I pay $50/mo for mine). Not to mention that Americans have an endless list of other expenses: they're expected to pay for their kids' college, their own health insurance, they don't get maternity/paternity leave or daycare provided, etc., etc. Even the middle-class Americans I know seem poor compared to an average Dane, in the sense that they don't feel economically secure, and are constantly stressed about money and the future. Whereas even a lower-middle-class Dane generally has smooth sailing and an economically secure lifestyle. Sure, fewer microwaves and cars, but who cares? Since this thread is about money buying happiness, it doesn't seem to have translated into Americans being happier than Danes. But mostly what appalls me about the U.S. is that it doesn't really seem first-world if you walk into poorer areas. Stuff looks incredibly run-down, and people literally fear for their lives! Right in the middle of major cities, too. When I lived in Atlanta, I had to be very careful about which streets I walked on after sundown (and not only because of the tripping hazard, since the sidewalks were all in disrepair).
edanm 13y ago
"But leave it to the economist to find that money makes you happy while ignoring that some countries seem much happier." From the article: "Though some countries seem happier than others, people everywhere report more satisfaction as they grow richer." So I wouldn't say they ignored it, it's pretty explictly mentioned AND talked about in the same sentence that they say that satisfaction scales with income.
- danielharan 13y ago
  Fair enough; mentioning it in passing is not completely ignoring it. Yet a realistic headline would have best been: "For happiness, your country is more important than your income". It seems to me that any intellectually honest and curious person looking at the data - instead of trying to prove their pet theory - would immediately remark on that most salient feature.
  - edanm 13y ago
    I think you misunderstand the context of the article. It's not "here's interesting information about wealth vs. happiness". It's "remember that theory about wealth and happiness that is generally accepted as true by everyone? Well, guess what, it's wrong". Which is a lot more interesting/important than the other questions the article raises, although they are of course also important.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
auctiontheory 13y ago
US? Mexico?! Ignoring the graph, you want to end up in a company with strong social services and wealth redistribution - Norway or somewhere similar. The US is not the best place to be poor. It also depends who "you" are. Are you black? A woman? Gay? Other countries may have a relative advantage over the US.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  The US is still upwardly mobile. If you have any ambition at all, it's possible to rise. It's not easy, but it's far from impossible. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-ke... This article on the poorest county in the US is very interesting, while they're very poor, it's not like anyone's starving, the food stamp program seems to support them well enough.
  - davidw 13y ago
    Stats actually seem to show that mobility is lower in the US than in the nordic countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_compari... Of course the US is a very different place, too.
    - pedrosorio 13y ago
      Not just lower than the nordic countries but a lot of other countries: "There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in the U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does." And also: "In spite of this low mobility Americans have had the highest belief in meritocracy among middle- and high-income countries." TL;DR: Tell the same lie enough times and people will start believing it.
      - n09n 13y ago
        And when enough people believe it, it stops being a lie.

jackgolding 13y ago

Why not Australia or Canada?

danielharan 13y ago
I am in Canada :) It just wasn't in the chart.

_delirium 13y ago

I'd pick somewhere in northern Europe probably. I might take the U.S. option if you could guarantee I was in the top 75% of the U.S. income scale. If I could really be randomly assigned anywhere on the scale, though, the U.S. seems too risky, because the low end of American lifestyles is really low, not even reaching the level of first-world poverty. Driving through parts of Mississippi was pretty surprising for someone who had never been there before: actual dilapidated shacks without running water, like you see on National Geographic documentaries about poor parts of the world. And urban American poverty, while it has running water, comes with too high a risk of violence.

adventured 13y ago
At the same time, your reference points are a very small % of the American population, not the bottom 25%. Only 5% to 10% of the poor live the way you describe. America's poor is on average equivalent to France's middle class. Once our healthcare system is properly in place, that will be even more accurate. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understandi... The average person in the bottom 25% also collects over $30,000 per year in government benefits, from housing to food to healthcare.
- _delirium 13y ago
  The claim that the American poor are wealthier than the French middle class is rather loaded, and looking at it from a specific set of norms. I've spent considerable time living in both the U.S. and Europe, and in some ways Americans are indeed wealthier, but in some ways even America's middle-class doesn't live up to what Europeans expect of a middle-class lifestyle. That report seems to be measuring solely ownership of some material goods. But some of them are negatives from my perspective! I do not want many of those goods, and many Americans are essentially forced to buy them, whether they like it or not. That makes the American of the same income live less well off, because they have to spend their money on them. Example: you have to own a car in most parts of the U.S. to get anywhere (such as work), because transit sucks. You don't in most of Europe. When I moved from California to Denmark, I sold my car, dropped my insurance, and don't pay for maintenance anymore. That former money-pit is now extra disposable income for me. With the same income, I feel wealthier. In practice, this is a huge problem for my poorer American friends: car payments, insurance payments, car repairs, etc. are a huge issue for them. If something breaks they have to come up with money to repair it ASAP or they can't get to work and they might get fired. Whereas poorer Danish people don't have this headache; to get to work all they have to come up with is a bike, or money for the monthly transit pass (I pay $50/mo for mine). Not to mention that Americans have an endless list of other expenses: they're expected to pay for their kids' college, their own health insurance, they don't get maternity/paternity leave or daycare provided, etc., etc. Even the middle-class Americans I know seem poor compared to an average Dane, in the sense that they don't feel economically secure, and are constantly stressed about money and the future. Whereas even a lower-middle-class Dane generally has smooth sailing and an economically secure lifestyle. Sure, fewer microwaves and cars, but who cares? Since this thread is about money buying happiness, it doesn't seem to have translated into Americans being happier than Danes. But mostly what appalls me about the U.S. is that it doesn't really seem first-world if you walk into poorer areas. Stuff looks incredibly run-down, and people literally fear for their lives! Right in the middle of major cities, too. When I lived in Atlanta, I had to be very careful about which streets I walked on after sundown (and not only because of the tripping hazard, since the sidewalks were all in disrepair).

edanm 13y ago

"But leave it to the economist to find that money makes you happy while ignoring that some countries seem much happier." From the article: "Though some countries seem happier than others, people everywhere report more satisfaction as they grow richer." So I wouldn't say they ignored it, it's pretty explictly mentioned AND talked about in the same sentence that they say that satisfaction scales with income.

danielharan 13y ago
Fair enough; mentioning it in passing is not completely ignoring it. Yet a realistic headline would have best been: "For happiness, your country is more important than your income". It seems to me that any intellectually honest and curious person looking at the data - instead of trying to prove their pet theory - would immediately remark on that most salient feature.
- edanm 13y ago
  I think you misunderstand the context of the article. It's not "here's interesting information about wealth vs. happiness". It's "remember that theory about wealth and happiness that is generally accepted as true by everyone? Well, guess what, it's wrong". Which is a lot more interesting/important than the other questions the article raises, although they are of course also important.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

auctiontheory 13y ago

US? Mexico?! Ignoring the graph, you want to end up in a company with strong social services and wealth redistribution - Norway or somewhere similar. The US is not the best place to be poor. It also depends who "you" are. Are you black? A woman? Gay? Other countries may have a relative advantage over the US.

vinceguidry 13y ago
The US is still upwardly mobile. If you have any ambition at all, it's possible to rise. It's not easy, but it's far from impossible. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-kevin-d-williamson http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367903/white-ghetto-ke... This article on the poorest county in the US is very interesting, while they're very poor, it's not like anyone's starving, the food stamp program seems to support them well enough.
- davidw 13y ago
  Stats actually seem to show that mobility is lower in the US than in the nordic countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_compari... Of course the US is a very different place, too.
  - pedrosorio 13y ago
    Not just lower than the nordic countries but a lot of other countries: "There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in the U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does." And also: "In spite of this low mobility Americans have had the highest belief in meritocracy among middle- and high-income countries." TL;DR: Tell the same lie enough times and people will start believing it.
    - n09n 13y ago
      And when enough people believe it, it stops being a lie.