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

Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 264 posts

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#101

Post by randomdata »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #100
randomdata wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, essential costs like food and clothing have dropped substantially over time. In the 40s and 50s food and clothing accounted for approximately 50% of one's disposable income. Now it is closer to 30%. But your comment does raise an interesting question: If I were to hypothetically spend $100,000 for an optional status symbol like a Ferrari or higher education and can no longer afford to own a home du…

Spending on food, clothing, and housing does not factor into "disposable income".

Where would you factor it in then? "Disposable income is total personal income minus personal current taxes"[1] Where else would the money come from?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_i...

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#102

Post by aylmao »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #29

Prosperity is a proxy for consumption. We measure it and then we pursue it. We are so convinced that we've shortened financial wealth down to wealth, and have completely forgotten there are different type of wealth. For example, spiritual wealth. Happiness is subjective. And if the science is correct, it's independent of consumption. Western culture and power structure is wired to create financial wealth, not dismiss…

> Happiness is subjective. And if the science is correct, it's independent of consumption.

This is true after a certain point. It's independent of consumption, but there's an amount of wealth we need to attain to meet a baseline of material needs that's are simply necessary.

As the grandkid of a woman who couldn't afford shoes, a living space or sometimes even food when she was young, I can attest that my grandma's (and my family's) life got much better and happier once they were able buy food, clothes and a house. My grandma is very happy now that she can travel and get to be marveled by the beauties of our home country with money she saves and my aunts/uncles give her.

As much as we shouldn't pursue material wealth for the sake luxury, superficiality and consumerism, we shouldn't dismiss it as completely unliked from happiness because up to a point it is the source of lots stability and security.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#103

Post by robmiller »

phil21 wrote: post #90
ams6110 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever compare a 1940s middle-class house to a middle-class house of today? They're tiny. They probably have one bathroom. The bedrooms will be small. The garage, if there is one, is probably not attached to the house. The household probably had one car. Maybe had a phone, maybe not. Such a lifestyle could still be afforded buy a single income earner if they would really live the way a 1940s family lived.

My father's house was built in the 1940's and is as you described. It's now going for over $225k in a flyover state. He bought the place in the 80's for $72k on a $40k/yr salary - and the job he held to pay for it pays $44k/yr today. The exact same house is out of each for the exact same job today. Housing has skyrocketed by all available metrics. The one that matters most of course is % of after tax income spent, an…

Mortgage interest rates were about 12% in the 80's, and as high as 18%(!) in 1981. At 20% down, the 30yr fixed mortgage would have been $600/mo at 12% vs $900/mo today at 4.5%.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#105

Post by ianai »

technobabble wrote: post #85
ianai wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused by “hollowed out Maslows pyramid of needs”

I see the confusion. Based on Maslow's hierarchy (pyramid) of needs, one needs to start at the bottom (physiological) and build up from there like a foundation. Because factors, both internal and external to ones lives, erode at access to basic needs, ones life loses stability, hence the "hollowing" out part. A better metaphor would be turning Maslow's hierarchy/pyramid instead into a tower. (in retrospect this wasn'…

Oh yes, I think I agree. It’s all very ego based but minimal long term or stability.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#106

Post by solitus »

lutorm wrote: post #35
lordnacho wrote: post #26

It would be weird for happiness to increase with prosperity. Think how much more stuff we have than people in the stone age. We should all be delirious with joy, all the time, if we expected happiness to increase with material wealth. Any description of happiness that makes sense would have to say that it's some sort of local comparison, across various axes: how am I doing compared to previously/expectations/other pe…

This is why happiness can only be reached by learning to appreciate what you have. You're much better off pondering how lucky you are to have, and how miserable you'd be without, the things you already have, rather than how happy you'd be with things you don't. The latter is an illusion.

Sounds like Stoicism.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#107

Post by nemo44x »

phil21 wrote: post #90
ams6110 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever compare a 1940s middle-class house to a middle-class house of today? They're tiny. They probably have one bathroom. The bedrooms will be small. The garage, if there is one, is probably not attached to the house. The household probably had one car. Maybe had a phone, maybe not. Such a lifestyle could still be afforded buy a single income earner if they would really live the way a 1940s family lived.

My father's house was built in the 1940's and is as you described. It's now going for over $225k in a flyover state. He bought the place in the 80's for $72k on a $40k/yr salary - and the job he held to pay for it pays $44k/yr today. The exact same house is out of each for the exact same job today. Housing has skyrocketed by all available metrics. The one that matters most of course is % of after tax income spent, an…

Interest rates is mainly the issue. Money is insanely cheap right now (and has been for many years) making assets rise in value. Bump a mortgage to 14% like it was in the early 80’s and you’d see the home price cut in half.

I remember being a kid in the 80’s and getting 5.4% on a savings account!

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#108

Post by ahallock »

Taking breaks from social media, particularly Twitter, has increased my happiness. Social media platforms are blackholes of negativity. They're also addictive and very empty because of lack of real interaction. Sometimes I feel like I'm living life vicariously through other people's photos, videos, and memes. It's uncanny.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#109

Post by icantdrive55 »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #86
baxtr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately you’re right. Nowadays, many people here in Germany can afford a house or an apartment in the big cities only if they get some money from their (grand)parents. I think one major reason for this is the free flow of capital globally. The effect in its extreme form: people get evicted, buildings get built/renovated (“Luxusbeton”), int’l investors buy hoping for ever increasing prices, apts stay empty. Insa…

As I walk around my Los Angeles neighborhood, I see about a dozen houses that appear to be completely unoccupied.

The wealthy of the world are buying up houses.

And why not?

They will be great investments for the next few decades.

Their will always be poor/middle class individuals that need a room, especially in the desirable realestate areas.

I'm almost ready to go back to Bush's liberal policy on banks, and mortgages.

Right now, I have the house to my right is empty, supposedly owed by a Chinese guy who supposedly hasn't even been in the home physically. He bought it from China.

The house to the left was just bought by a tech worker. A millionaire dollar house he uses on the weekend. (I'm glad he's not there all week, but it doesn't seem fair. A loud, passive aggressive guy at that. The guy moves in, and knocks on my door. He said, he like to do Google searches on his new neighbors. Yea, I was beyond astonished. A few years ago, I might have turned the fat guy upside down, but age has caught up with me.)

Across the street, an industrious little dude, befriended a very old, lonely lady. She ended up leaving him the house. Her kids got nothing. He's renting out five rooms for over $1700-2200/month--each room.

This is the Bay Area, but it just doesn't feel right.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#110

Post by eric_h »

randomdata wrote: post #101
InclinedPlane wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending on food, clothing, and housing does not factor into "disposable income".

Where would you factor it in then? "Disposable income is total personal income minus personal current taxes" [1] Where else would the money come from? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_and_discretionary_i...

Huh. I'd always considered the definition of disposable income as the income that I would literally consider to be disposable, e.g. the money left over after I've covered everything I need (including housing, clothing, food and taxes) that I could set on fire and not change my current condition.

Per the wikipedia article of disposable income, I could afford a Ferrari (on a payment plan), but I would generally say I don't have the disposable income to afford a Ferrari because I still have to pay rent and feed myself.

Obviously the article defines that as discretionary income, I've always considered them to be equivalent terms.

Post reply on HN