Economists Finally Discover - Money Isn't Everything

[EdEarl]

(phys.org) - Economists have shed light on the vexed question of whether economic development can buy happiness – and it seems that life satisfaction actually dips among people living in the wealthiest countries.

The sweet spot is, according to economists, a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $36,000 / yr.

 

(medicalexpress.com) - A panel of experts thinks the U.S. government should be more in touch with Americans' feelings.

 

By gauging happiness, there'd be more to consider than cold hard cash when deciding matters that affect daily lives, according to a report this week from the National Academy of Sciences, which advises the government.

 

The panel of economists, psychologists and other experts assembled by the academy recommended that federal statistics and surveys, which normally deal with income, spending, health and housing, include a few extra questions on happiness.

I'm afraid US politicians will continue to be gridlocked, and ignore these experts, unless they are afraid unhappy voters will vote them out of office.

[iNow]

There are different looks at data like this, though. It all depends on how you choose your definitions and measurements. Just last week, in fact, I read a similar article that suggested money DOES buy happiness, but after about $70k annually returns diminish quickly.

[EdEarl]

There are different looks at data like this, though. It all depends on how you choose your definitions and measurements. Just last week, in fact, I read a similar article that suggested money DOES buy happiness, but after about $70k annually returns diminish quickly.

The amount needed will vary for many reasons. I thought it was a major milestone that economists would think of anything but money.

[iNow]

I guess I read different economists than you do. I see economists thinking of stuff other than money every day.

[Tridimity]

It does depend on how you define happiness, as iNow has highlighted. I imagine that happiness can buy minimisation of suffering but that, at some point, the overall benefit to the happiness/unhappiness scale plateaus since it is impossible to buy self-esteem or the love of a good person.

 

I was watching this TED talk earlier tonight http://www.ted.com/talks/enrique_penalosa_why_buses_represent_democracy_in_action.html on the importance of prioritising sustainable, safe and spacious transport infrastructure for the financially underpriveleged (i.e. those whom rely on public transport), although the speaker, Enrique Penalosa, also suggests that:

 

An advanced city is not one where even the poor use cars, but rather one where even the rich use public transport

 

 

His overall message and his propositions are admirable imo e.g. designs for new cities in developing countries that involve equal road space granted per person rather than per vehicle so democratising resource allocation and granting individuals equal respect and importance, regardless of financial status.

 

It comes back to prioritising social wellbeing over wealth accumulation and finding ways to make the markets work in the interest of social outputs not just profit creation.

[michel123456]

I don't know if money can buy happiness but I can assure you that without money you feel miserable, not happy.

I also get the feeling that some medias want lay people to believe that money is not that important, at the same time when governing people have a lust for money.

[iNow]

Here's a nice article that reminded me of your thread.

 

 

Capitalism Redefined

What prosperity is, where growth comes from, why markets work and how we resolve the tension between a prosperous world and a moral one.

 

http://www.democracyjournal.org/31/capitalism-redefined.php

 

Our issue isnt with GDP per se. As the English say, It does what it says on the tin it measures economic activity or output. Rather, our issue is with the nature of that activity itself. Our question is whether the activities of our economy that are counted in GDP are truly enhancing the prosperity of our society.

<snip>

And therein lies the difference between a poor society and a prosperous one. It isnt the amount of money that a society has in circulation, whether dollars, euros, beads, or wampum. Rather, it is the availability of the things that create well-beinglike antibiotics, air conditioning, safe food, the ability to travel, and even frivolous things like video games. It is the availability of these solutions to human problemsthings that make life better on a relative basis that makes us prosperous.

 

This is why prosperity in human societies cant be properly understood by just looking at monetary measures of income or wealth. Prosperity in a society is the accumulation of solutions to human problems.

<snip>

Solving problems that benefit people is the goal, not making money. Making money might be a necessary condition for solving many problemsbusinesses need profits to endure and grow. But saying profits are the goal confuses means and ends. Treating profits as the goal is like saying that the purpose of life is to eatour bodies need food, but it is a means to other ends, not the goal itself.

[dimreepr]

"I don't know if money can buy happiness but I can assure you that without money you feel miserable, not happy"

 

Why?

 

The swapping of little green pieces of paper instead of piglets or eggs has little to do with happiness; the far more likely explanation is the disconnection of need and want.