11–20 of 172 posts
The cynic in me says such graphs are (figuratively) propaganda by the 1% (of 1% in wealth, not income), in that now we can define what the masses are "ok" with while we, the 1% of the 1%, can accelerate our gains further. Let the rest of them have crumbs and be content.
Of course what self reported happiness really measures is another matter...
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.
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.
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.
A 7 in Brazil might not be a 7 in India, for example.
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.
Why not Australia or Canada?
It just wasn't in the chart.
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.
"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.
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.
In regards to subjective happiness and income, I like to pose the question: Would you rather earn $80,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $100,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 and live in a neighbourhood of those earning $80,000. Money and happiness is entirely subjective according to your environment.