The Economics of Happiness

Consider this bit of startling finding: once people have an annual income of about $10,000 per capita, more money doesn't go far in making them happy. (We're talking about worldwide per capita income, not US).

Indeed, a growing number of economists are realizing that consumption is not equal to happiness. So they're asking: what makes people happy?

What is different is that these economists are revisiting old assumptions and asking new questions. They’re not taking the neoclassical model of rational economic man for truth. They have been willing to learn from their colleagues in psychology. They have given up on the old assumption that the more you consume, the better off you are; instead, they are actually looking at the question empirically. Most importantly, they are bravely asking, “What factors make people happy?” It’s another sign of the coming revolution in economics.

Consider this: once people have an annual income of about $10,000 per capita, further income does little to promote happiness. Worse yet, economic growth in most industrial nations, which has tripled or quadrupled our wealth since 1970, hasn’t made us noticeably happier. In some countries, despite all this vast increase in wealth and consumption, folks are less happy than they were a generation ago.

Here's an interesting article by Tom Green of Adbusters: Link

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

Money, like every else can be corrupted, when people see money itself as the end, instead of the means to an end. That is why it can not produce happiness, but it can serve the means of attaining happiness, if used wisely. So, I see it as a tool. Sadly, people are misled and confuse the issues, trying to force it to do things it was never intended to do.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
happines is a state of mind.
U cant buy or be told to do it because it just comes to u
but people are very good at being unhappy so it dosn't last.

O this is intresting go google it:
the hierarchy of human needs
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The premise of the article should be fairly obvious to most folks. But the author makes some bizarre claims as to the solutions.

I doubt that taxing 90% of a man's $50 million would keep him happy, as the author suggests. However, if the man used 90% of his money to help feed the poor, I think he might feel good about himself and feel happier.

That is one of the most glaring differences between liberal and conservative thought, in my opinion. Both of us think that the man should share his wealth, but the conservative tends to think he has the choice, while the liberal tends to think he shouldn't.

Disclaimer: Yes, I know not all liberals think the same way. This is a generalization of the majority.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Email This Post to a Friend
"The Economics of Happiness"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More