Posted on 02/06/2013 6:26:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
For years, many economists agreed, arguing that economic growth doesn’t generate more well-being for ordinary folk, a conclusion which came to be known as Richard Easterlin’s paradox, after the academic who first described it in the 1970s. Yet it turns out that once again the economics establishment got it spectacularly wrong.
Economic growth – and the higher gross domestic product (GDP) per person and improved wages that usually accompany it – does actually improve happiness and well-being, according to several recent papers by top economists, drawing on far more data than their predecessors ever had access to and using novel statistical techniques.
The truth, it turns out, is that the aspiring classes were right all along. The richer we are, the happier we are. It’s (almost) that simple, and the evidence is now overwhelming.
One especially brilliant piece of research – by Daniel Sacks, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, all US academics – demonstrates that happiness improves as incomes rise. The paper shows that richer citizens report higher well-being than their poorer compatriots, at any given point as well as over time; that people in richer countries are happier than those in poorer countries; and that GDP growth boosts well-being. Most remarkably of all, there is no maximum wealth threshold at which point higher incomes cease to boost well-being: quite simply, the richer, the better, with no upper limit.
These findings are confirmed by an excellent paper from Ruut Veenhoven and Floris Vergunst. Using statistics compiled as part of the World Database of Happiness (yes, there is such a thing), they discover a positive relationship between GDP growth and improving happiness. GDP and happiness have gone up in most countries, and average happiness has risen more in nations where the economy has grown the most.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
"I've been poor and I've been rich, believe me, rich is better."
..can’t buy happiness, but can rent a lot of fun.
...reminds me of the Rabbi and the ham sandwich...*grins*
Money can’t buy happiness but it can sure make the down payment. I’d like to see if that’s true.
it can’t buy happiness but it doesn’t hurt
it can buy misery and self-destruction too
Happiness buys riches.
On average this may be true but happiness really is an inside job to a large extent. Once you get above poverty and can support yourself, I don’t know if its true that “rich” strongly correlates to “happy.” I know a lot of driven rich people who are rich because they are never happy with what they have. For most people, once they achieve a certain level of income, they relax and live life a little. This is no knock on rich people — I respect them and admire their accomplishments (unless they were handed their money like that fat drunken murderer Kennedy). Its just that you can’t assume that the rich are able to be content in the same way a middle class person is.
The term “Money can’t buy happiness” is usually used by losers or people born into wealth. Earning it and having fun with it is the way to go. Very fun! Sharing it with loved ones is satisfying and fun!
Obama is attempting to take that “fun” away from the earners and the people born into it. The earners will know how to deal with less since they probably already have at one point. The others will be lost.
I don’t buy it.
Wealth is more hassle than its worth to me.
I often say I've been poor and I've been comfortable, and comfortable is better. I've always thought studies saying otherwise were a lot of hooey. However, I would say that there does come a point where having more money doesn't really make you happier. It's at that point that you give it away.
For instance, I couldn't afford to keep horses, but you know what? I don't want to keep horses. We can't afford to jet around the world, but we don't want to do that either. If we could, we'd probably just give the money to our adult kids to spend on the grandkids.
Those who say “money can’t buy happiness” obviously don’t know where to shop...
“Less is More” proven false.
MORE is more.
Duh.
Money can’t buy happiness. But a complete lack of it can buy you a hell of a lot of unhappiness in a hurry.
There is an optimal balance of wealth that will bring people the most maximum amount of happiness (misery avoidance). Such a model does fall apart at the extremes--no wealth, or maximum wealth does not necessarily mean zero happiness.
This curve probably varies person to person, as wealth is relative.
Much of the confusion is the inabilityl of many to distinguish between pleasure and happiness. True happiness is most often only recognized in retrospect. (”looking back, I’d say those were the happiest years of my life”)
Money can’t buy happiness... but neither can poverty.
I’ve always said that money can’t buy happiness but it CAN buy a big ol’ yacht and park it RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
“I’ve never been a millionaire but I just know I’d be darling at it!” ~ Diana in Wisconsin (Dorothy Parker)
Something very useful would be a Laffer Curve on population density vs. happiness. Many people that live in extreme high density go nuts, and so do some at the other extreme. What population density leads to maximum happiness on average? The peak value is likely between rural and semi-rural, although it may vary by age. It should influence government policies, such as more new road building to the outskirts of town. Using technology it might be possible to simulate less population density in the city, although it's probably cheaper just to move away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.