How exactly do economists measure happiness? Sure, we look at utility, and opportunity costs, but these are imperfect measures. A philosophically oriented article from The Economist.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Economics finds its Feelings
How exactly do economists measure happiness? Sure, we look at utility, and opportunity costs, but these are imperfect measures. A philosophically oriented article from The Economist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It helps one to become happier when their is more productivity. It seems that the more productive our economy the happier everyone is as a whole. I do believe that hapiness can go beyond the realms of economics with the experiances one has had in their lives. But ones experiances are greatly affected by the amount of money they posses if someone is wealthy the experiances tend to be better than those of someone who is homeless. To judge happiness one can look at the ecnomic status of an area as a whole and understand more about what they are going through and how happy they probably are. And we know that the more productivty the better off the economy will be.
I agree with Jonathan. it just so happens that money is associated with happiness. life would be a lot harder if you couldn’t pay the bills or buy food. so you work for the money to pay the bills and buy the food so you can enjoy life. sometimes class gets me down with all this complicated financial stuff and I think about how much nicer it would be if we didn’t have to worry about it all. but then i look up at Mr. Rood, and I feel a little happier. (how was that sandwich? I know it was the best Christmas present you got.)
i totally agree with jonathan's point. we should all do what makes us happy, but unfortuantely, not all of us are given that luxury. there are many of us who are forced to work for "just dollars and cents." but this article does make a good point, we should all at least try to do what makes us happy, becuase in the grand scheme of things, we dont have that much time on this earth. id rather work for a little money and be happy with what i am doing, than make a lot of money doing something i hate. however, a majority of americans seem to be in the middle, working mediocre jobs for mediocre wages so they are relatively happy. its too bad we dont get paid according to how much we enjoy our jobs. wed all be a lot happier.
I think a large part of the problem with happiness is that no one can ever be fully satisfied with what they have. It's human nature to want more, and to strive for the best, because if people were satisfied with what they had, then we would never have evolved. I thought it was interesting and true what the article said about finding a "flow" in work with clear goals and unambiguous rewards. I find that when I know exactly what I have to do, and I'm being challenged but not overwhelmed, I actually enjoy doing certain work, including school work. I don't happiness can ever be truly and accurately measured because happiness isn't a physical thing. A person's happiness changes every second, and they could be happy for a number of different reasons from material to emotional.
money may not buy happiness but.... it sure does help alot when our economy is doing well the happier everyone is. money allows people to explore any things in their lives that they have wished to accomplish though he fact that our time on life is short we should focus on what truly makes us happy even if that means that we're not the wealthest person on on earth
I agree that because we only live for so long, we must do what makes us happy. money doesn't buy happiness but being able to pay bills on time or buy the flat screen tv that you want(or whatever it is) does make life more enjoyable. i think like everything it is a trade off.
Money does not buy happiness. However, money makes it possible for people to live comfortably. Because of this, many Americans find themselves in jobs they dislike just because they are paid well. The article makes the argument that people should choose the jobs that give them the most utility instead of the jobs that pay the most; after all, we are alive for such a short time that it is not worth it to be rich and miserable. When people are old and dying, the last thing they think is "I wish I made more money."
There is a definitely a direct connection between money and happiness, but one does not necessarily guarantee the other. There are plenty of examples of wealthy people being unhappy and dissastisfied with their lives, probably just as much so as middle class people (maybe not people around the poverty line). This is emphasized in the article however, with the line that says to value "“experiences” over commodities, pastimes over knick-knacks, doing over having." Additionally, there is the example of the people who fight to climb the ladder in their career, only to lose out in free time and at times hurt themselves and others. Overall, it is about a balance between what you do to make money, and what you do once you have it. I'm not sure I agree with whether or not economists can accurately judge this, as at any given time an individual's opinion on their status can fluctuate based on many other factors.
People say Money doesn't buy happiness.. but can't it help? I mean granted, someone who has nothing but family may say they are happier than ever, but does that make people who do have money less happy? The article makes the point that people should choose the jobs that give them the most utility instead of the jobs that pay the most; after all, we are alive for such a short time that it is not worth it to be rich and miserable. I think this argument is only half correct. True, I would rather take a job that i enjoy, but people who need to make money for their families im sure aren't thinking wiether or not they will be happy in that job; they need that job.
For my birthday I got Season 1 of Beverly Hills, 90210 on DVD. After reading the quote "A rising tide lifts all boats, but not all spirits" I realized how much this quote makes sense when applied to the 90210 characters!
Just look at Brandon and Brenda Walsh. They moved to Beverly Hills from Minneapolis, MN and although they aren't monetarily wealthy they have a different kind of wealth. They are part a loving family and are always there for each other. Now let's look at Dillon McKay. He lives in the glitzy suite his parents keep at a local hotel, while they're living in Paris and have seemingly forgotten he exists. He has the money, but does he have the happiness? Anyone who's seen the show knows he doesn't. Once again, proof that money doesn't necessarily buy happiness...even if it can buy a mansion in Beverly Hills. This proves that there is no standard measurement for happiness, as well.
Also, this example touches upon another important point: rarely is a person absolutely content with what they have, and that is a societal problem. As soon as Brenda gets a feel for the lifestyle of a typical 90210 teenager, she wants to have a wallet full of "plastic", too. And Dillon, poor Dillon. He doesn't really care about his nice crib and his sweet whip. He just wants his parents to care enough to leave a message for him, with the receptionist at their hotel in Paris.
Oh! and proof of how "Generally, people can say how they feel at a given moment, on a scale of zero to ten": Health class with Mr. Stewart.
Money does cannot buy happiness. But, money makes it possible for people to live a better life. Because of this, many people find themselves in jobs they dont like just because they are paid more. Money and finannces paly a major role in all of our lives weather u like it or not.
Post a Comment