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

51–60 of 264 posts

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#51

Post by conception »

rexpop wrote: post #40
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.

Please, please direct me to such a housing market. I am desperate to find such a home.

Do you just want a house in a old neighborhood or an affordable one in an old neighborhood? San Diego has quite a few of the former.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#52

Post by fenwick67 »

ianai wrote: post #45
technobabble wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further your analogy, it sometimes feels that the Maslow's hierarchy of needs is "hollowed out" at the bottom of the pyramid, and to keep the hollowing out disguised, companies and advertisers divert attention to the top of the pyramid i.e. "look how everything's awesome! Take your complimentary beer".

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

I think they have it flipped

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#53

Post by Retra »

randomdata wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #14

The title is a little out of date. Prosperity has been increasing in the 20th century, but has not increased for a few decades. Sure, crap like gadgets is now cheaper, but buying a house, giving your kids an education, and so on have increased. In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Such a house now would be on the verge of bankruptcy. A…

> In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Has that really changed? A manufacturing business in my area is currently hiring everyone who shows up to an interview. They pay they are offering isn't wonderful (at least if you concept of money has been warped by the IT industry), but you should expect to make around $40,000 per year to start.…

Then you decide have your first child and every reasonable thing you said suddenly looks impossible.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#54

Post by toasterlovin »

maxxxxx wrote: post #20
toasterlovin wrote: post #3

Humans are social animals. One of the primary drives of most social animals is to get as high up in the status/dominance hierarchy as possible, since this improves an organism's access to mates. Status and dominance are relative to other members of the species and, thus, unrelated to the absolute level of an organism's access to food and other resources.

"get as high up in the status/dominance hierarchy as possible," I don't think that's true. A lot of people are OK with getting high enough to have a life they view as decent. Only very few want to get as high as possible.

Everywhere I look, I see people struggling to drive a nicer car, have nicer clothes, live in a better neighborhood, etc. That is all status seeking.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#55

Post by randomdata »

Retra wrote: post #53
randomdata wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Has that really changed? A manufacturing business in my area is currently hiring everyone who shows up to an interview. They pay they are offering isn't wonderful (at least if you concept of money has been warped by the IT industry), but you should expect to make around $40,000 per year to start.…

Then you decide have your first child and every reasonable thing you said suddenly looks impossible.

I don't see why? The three times income rule already carries the assumption that you have children. When you get out to the five times income rule you are probably right that children are out of the question, but we're only sitting at 3.4 times income. With the potential to earn more with a little effort, bringing us closer to the ideal three times income.

Not even in the 1940s or 1950s could you buy a house with a week's pay. Housing has always been a substantial cost.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#56

Post by antidesitter »

opportune wrote: post #24
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are also security focused rational animals, and if we can believe that there really is enough for us and no one will take it away, then happiness might be for all. Perhaps UBI will make us all happy

UBI will make us a huge proportion of people serfs unless it is accompanied by wealth transfer. It is at best a temporary (on the order of 100-200 years) solution.

What’s a permanent solution, in your view?

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#57

Post by thedufer »

petermcneeley wrote: post #33
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.

Nobody is questioning the economic growth from 40s to 80s (Golden Era). Its the growth (and inequality) after that period that is in question. The concern now is the economic prospects for the millennial and future generations.

The first post in this thread explicitly compares the present to the 40s. It seems somewhat unreasonable to expect ams6110 to foresee you moving the goalposts.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#58

Post by ryandrake »

Retra wrote: post #53
randomdata wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Has that really changed? A manufacturing business in my area is currently hiring everyone who shows up to an interview. They pay they are offering isn't wonderful (at least if you concept of money has been warped by the IT industry), but you should expect to make around $40,000 per year to start.…

Then you decide have your first child and every reasonable thing you said suddenly looks impossible.

Or you get a major illness, or you ever want to retire...

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#59

Post by paulpauper »

In a poor country with low inequality, rising national income should make people happier, and of course reducing poverty is a good in and of itself. But in a wealthy, unequal country like today’s America, gains in national income can decouple from well-being.

The problem is the individual cannot perceive this. The typical person cannot perceive unemployment falling a few tenths of a percent or personal income rising a quarter of a percent. if income is rising as fast an inflation, then it may be impossible to notice. You can buy a bigger Iphone and Netflix, but healthcare, rent, and tuition keeps going up.

Re: Why Prosperity Has Increased but Happiness Has Not

#60

Post by torpfactory »

randomdata wrote: post #49
coldtea wrote: post #14

The title is a little out of date. Prosperity has been increasing in the 20th century, but has not increased for a few decades. Sure, crap like gadgets is now cheaper, but buying a house, giving your kids an education, and so on have increased. In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Such a house now would be on the verge of bankruptcy. A…

> In the 40s and 50s a middle class household could get by just fine (and the house be bought) by a single income earner. Has that really changed? A manufacturing business in my area is currently hiring everyone who shows up to an interview. They pay they are offering isn't wonderful (at least if you concept of money has been warped by the IT industry), but you should expect to make around $40,000 per year to start.…

I think folks are spending quite a bit more on things they need which used to be much cheaper. Healthcare and higher education come to mind as expenses which have started to eat the average family's budget much more than in the past. The medicine is much better today than in the 50's of course.

We ought to include a full picture of required spending in relation to housing costs.

Post reply on HN