Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Money can buy happiness

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 172 posts

Re: Money can buy happiness

#41

Post by rtpg »

adwf wrote: post #24
volume wrote: post #11

I may sound like a conspiracy theorist but oh well: 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.

The cynic in me is actually thinking it's interesting that the Scandanavian countries are left off the charts. They are usually touted as being amongst the happiest countries in the world, despite rather aggressive tax regimes to pay for it. Perhaps there is some cherry picking going on here? Either as propaganda to show that the US is the happiest, or to show that money equals happiness - which might not be true in…

The paper is linked, available here (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1)

The graph they have included the 25 most populous countries, and is already a mess (lots of overlapping things). The Scandanavian countries didn't even make the cut on that one, the Economist probably took the ones that were the furthest apart. Maybe if all the Scandinavian countries fused together they could have made it?

Re: Money can buy happiness

#42

Post by marquis »

rtpg wrote: post #37
marquis wrote: post #4

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.

Depends on where you are. After all, living in a rich environment might get you better public services. And it's not like you exchange salaries with everyone you meet.

It's a thought experiment. Assume that both neighbourhoods provide the same services.

Re: Money can buy happiness

#43

Post by edanm »

danielharan wrote: post #19
edanm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Fair enough; mentioning it in passing is not completely ignoring it. 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.

I think you misunderstand the context of the article. It's not "here's interesting information about wealth vs. happiness".

It's "remember that theory about wealth and happiness that is generally accepted as true by everyone? Well, guess what, it's wrong". Which is a lot more interesting/important than the other questions the article raises, although they are of course also important.

Re: Money can buy happiness

#44

Post by paulovsk »

aidanbrandt wrote: post #40
scottfr wrote: post #34

Abstract of the cited article ( http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu... ): Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple defini…

Full Paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...

thanks!

Re: Money can buy happiness

#45

Post by ig1 »

rtpg wrote: post #36
billyjobob wrote: post #28

The participants were not asked how happy they were, they were asked where they stood on a 'satisfaction ladder' with the best life they could imagine at the top. Many people may be perfectly happy, but they know their position on the wealth scale and imagine that they would feel more satisfied at the top of that scale.

people are actually pretty bad at defining where they are on the wealth scale. For example, loads of very rich Americans seem to think they're middle class (the WSJ once portrayed a middle-class family as earning $100000 a year, which actually places them in the top quintile). This article describes how it is a relatively universal factor though (everyone thinks they're kinda in the middle)( http://economix.blogs.nyt…

You seem to under the misapprehension that middle-class refers to a median income grouping when that's not actually the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class

Re: Money can buy happiness

#47

Post by ritchiea »

rm999 wrote: post #26
leoedin wrote: post #3

The income scale is logarithmic, so the apparently linear lines that you see are actually curved. The returns in happiness per $ earned fall off significantly towards the top of the scale (which incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000). I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point.

>I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point. The article shows a logarithmic trend (i.e. doubling your income increases your happiness by a fixed amount), which is a straight line on the log plot. This insinuates ( if the trend continues, which is assumed from the results) that there is no point at which increase…

The data I've seen shows the income where happiness flattens is around 100k rather than 70k so cutting off at 128k doesn't seem high enough to disprove the established research.

Re: Money can buy happiness

#48

Post by [deleted] »

ForHackernews wrote: post #7
leoedin wrote: post #3

The income scale is logarithmic, so the apparently linear lines that you see are actually curved. The returns in happiness per $ earned fall off significantly towards the top of the scale (which incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000). I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point.

> incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000 Maybe they don't have data for people making more than that? There are relatively few people with incomes that high, and their time is probably valuable enough that they're disinclined to waste it filling out happiness inventories.

[deleted]

Re: Money can buy happiness

#49

Post by 11thEarlOfMar »

The slope of the lines indicates how big an impact different incomes have. Contrast India and Nigeria, for example. A Nigerian needs a lot more to have the same incremental in increase in satisfaction as an Indian. Interestingly, Germany, Russia and India seem to be about parallel, even though the income ranges are different. Is that just coincidence? Or is there an underlying cause? Also, how well does the question itself translate among different languages and societies? Can the same concept be put across effectively?

Re: Money can buy happiness

#50

Post by raymondh »

There appears to be a single main diagonal that includes China, Russia, Italy, France, and Germany.

Above that diagonal are countries where it takes less money to achieve that same satisfaction as those on the main diagonal. Apparently, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Nigeria get more satisfaction for the same level of income. That leaves Japan and Iran as the outliers where you get far less satisfaction for a given income level.

The slope of the lines is also interesting. Nigeria and Brazil stand-out as two places where income matters less it does others. The US and UK are also flatter (less income elastic) than the main diagonal.

Post reply on HN