The "Easterlin Paradox" which seemed to show that an increase in national wealth doesn't lead to an increase in national happiness seems to be one of those paradoxes that's just not true. The relationship isn't super-strong, so there are poorer countries that are happier than richer countries, but in general while money can't buy you happiness, it can buy you stuff that makes you happy.
« Food for Thought | Main | White Working Class Paper »
Paradox Lost
16 Apr 2008 01:35 pm
Comments (18)
"What use is happiness? It can't buy you money. "
Chic Murray
I love the poll option: “Although I am not innumerably satisfied, I am generally satisfied with life now.”
"Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."
Woody Allen
Agh! First Ezra and now you too? Now I have to defend the Easterlin paradox at TWO blogs?
Long story short, this isn't the first study done on happiness effects of income in multiple countries, and it disagrees with at least one (I don't have the citation right here but I read it a few years ago). The study I was previously familiar with found that income correlates with happiness below a certain threshold at which point your basic material concerns (food, clothing, shelter) are satisfied. Beyond that point it's basically a free for all, with other factors playing a much more prominent role than income.
Here's a slightly related bit of information I could dig up right away -
Diener, E. and Seligman, M. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-31.
Group / Rating
Forbes magazine's "richest Americans" / 5.8
Pennsylvania Amish / 5.8
Inughuit (Inuit people in northern Greenland) / 5.8
African Maasai / 5.7
Swedish probability sample / 5.6
International college-student sample (47 nations in 2000) / 4.9
Illinois Amish / 4.9
Calcutta slum dwellers / 4.6
Fresno, California homeless / 2.9
Calcutta pavement dwellers (homeless) / 2.9
Respondents used a scale of 1 to 7 to rate agreement with the statement, "You are satisfied with your life."
Apparently I should read the NY Times article before shooting off my mouth. Nevertheless, I think embracing the conclusions of one article because it's new may be a big mistake. It cuts against almost everything I've read in the Hedonic Psychology field. But if Danny Kahneman buys it, I don't know what to believe any more.
The poll measures whether people say they're happy. That is interesting, I guess, but not nearly as interesting as whether they actually are happy.
Dani Rodrik has an intersting post on that subject here:
http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/02/poor-and-happy.html
The happiest people in the world are: the Danes.
This is nice, but doesn't do a lick to disprove the Easterlin paradox. It shows that high incomes are correlated with high happiness. It doesn't mean that high incomes cause happiness ("correlation does not imply causation"). I could just as easily note that the countries on the right tend to be Christian and those on the left are not, so Christianity causes happiness.
There are a number of other possible dependent variables that could be causing this pattern. For example, less democratic regimes tend to be on the left, more liberal regimes on the right. So maybe happiness is in fact correlated with political freedom.
A number of former-Soviet republics are low on the scale, so perhaps change in standard of living over the last 20 years is a major contributor (if things are getting better, you tend to be happier).
In short, you need to control for possible dependent variables to make this graph conclude what you want to conclude.
Gary, the evidence from social science polling of happiness suggests that the numbers people provide are ordinally accurate but do not represent quantities(that is, someone who says her happiness ranks 8 is not twice as happy as someone who ranks 4, but is almost certainly happier). Self-ranking is reasonably predictable and stable. I would hesitate to say that they can always be accurately compared internationally (Americans, who strive for happiness, versus the French, who believe that only stupid people are happy). However, these numbers are widely agreed to be quite usable.
Would I be happier if I were rich? Perhaps not.
But I guarandamntee I'd have a lot less stress, since 90% of the stress in my life is centered around how to pay off all my medical bills (two surgeries since '03 and another coming soon), student loans, and our car.
And that's part of the problem with polls like these -- namely, how individuals (as well as societies) define happiness. I'd say I'm pretty happy, but have quite a bit of stress. A bit of a conundrum, I know, but it's accurate.
Regardless, I'd seize the opportunity to find out whether being rich makes me happier, as would most folks, I think.
Maybe money can't buy you happiness, but lack of money can buy you unhappiness.
It's less that money buys you the things that make you happy than it is that money buys you out of things that make you miserable: lack of opportunity, poor health, nasty living situations.
What money buys is freedom: to be as miserable or as happy as your character permits. I paid taxes yesterday and believe me... I'm pretty poor. But my happiness threshold is low enough that it mostly doesn't matter. I'd explain my whole theory on this, but it's a gorgeous day in New York today, so I'm going out for a bike ride instead.
Matt, I really don't think there is much evidence that, after a certain point, money can buy you things that make you happy. That certain point is the true necessities--food, shelter, etc. On the other hand people that think it can buy you happiness do tend to end up unhappy. This isn't a snark--I have seen evidence that you don't believe it yourself: your recent comments that while you could be being paid more you are being paid enough, you like your job, etc. These I would say are signs that you don't really believe that by getting more money you will become happier.
The poll measures whether people say they're happy. That is interesting, I guess, but not nearly as interesting as whether they actually are happy.
Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?
'Respondents used a scale of 1 to 7 to rate agreement with the statement, "You are satisfied with your life." '
Considering the large number of languages this was translated into, I wonder how many people were in fact responding to, "You'd like to continue living."
while money can't buy you happiness, it can buy you stuff that makes you happy
I'm waiting for Petey to chip in a sentence including the phrase 'trust fund scumbag' around here.
Re: less democratic regimes tend to be on the left, more liberal regimes on the right.
Huh? I can think of tyrannical governments, past and present, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Freedom and democracy are a "Golden mean" phenomenon. Ideological extremes are toxic to liberty no matter what their nature.
Comments closed April 30, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Nice title.
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 16, 2008 1:43 PM