Comments on: The Squabble Resumes: Does More Wealth Make a Nation Happier?

By: Barry Johnstone

Barry Johnstone — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 06:30:18 +0000

I would think that a “happiness” index would be about equality more than money! Surely being equal is the more important thing.

By: Propo

Propo — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 00:50:03 +0000

I wonder if the “paradox” is a result of perception based upon relative vs. absolute wealth. So, in any given snapshot, wealthier people look around and see that they ARE wealthier, which makes them happy. But people who were poorer 30 years ago, and have obtained significantly higher income look around and see that there are still plenty of people who are yet even wealthier now. Thus, they are still “poorer” than others – hence, no more happiness.

I strongly suspect that a comparison between the satisfaction levels of (a) an average worker in an underdeveloped country and (b) an inner-city, minimum wage earner in the US, would reveal that the first category is MUCH happier than the second, even though the second category actually has a far higher income and far more material wealth than the first. It’s all about expectations/perceptions and the person’s individual sense of what he/she is entitled to.

This kind of effect is undoubtedly enhanced by the worldwide media portrayals, dominated by “First World” images.

By: Bobito

Bobito — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 20:16:34 +0000

Our (USA) GDP is tanking, and I’m less happy than I was 10 years ago. But I am making more money now than I was 10 years ago. My “less happy” is do to concern for the future of my new found baseline (much money I have).

I do agree that going up is less noticeable than going down because you just continue to reset your baseline. It’s always easier to go forwards than back. Can you imagine how happy you would be now with the first car you had in high school? But at the time, that car was sheer love!

By: YouRang

YouRang — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:01:37 +0000

I like Gorban’s point particularly–GDP is a TERRIBLE indicator of wealth!!! If the GDP goes up but the disparity increases more, one would expect the most unhappy people to become more unhappy. And if the GDP goes up but the people with unmet NEEDS rather than unmet WANTS goes up, the likelihood of revolt and terrorism also goes up. So bottom line: measure median happiness and measure standard deviation of happiness rather than average. And in fact measure median UNhappiness rather than median Happiness.

By: Jayarava

Jayarava — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 09:42:29 +0000

Perhaps the causal relationship, if there is one, goes the other way. Happy people are responsible for more productive economies?

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:16:14 +0000

Isn’t the problem with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? When you satisfy lower level needs the person immediately moves on and starts to focus on higher level needs. Therefore there is always some ‘unmet need’ in an individual’s life.

Perhaps unmet higher needs should cause less unhappiness than unmet lower needs. Resulting in increased overall happiness. However I’m just not sure that’s true in the real world.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:56:51 +0000

I imagine many billionaires are happier than I am. But are they billions of dollars happier than I am?

Or are they happier? I have a tiny bank account and no property to worry about. They, on the other hand, have billions of dollars of investments and companies to worry about, high taxes, etc.

Is a monk who has attained enlightenment happier than me, or a billionaire?

I’m going to guess that, until we can look in a person’s mind and see the activity of ‘happiness,’ whatever that may turn out to be, this will be a very hard issue to quantify. Dopamine system stimulation generally equates to happiness-feeling in a person. So is a coke or meth addict ‘happier,’ when under the influence, than anyone else can be without those drugs?