Sorry, idealists, but I'm gonna have to agree with the New York Times on this one. Unfortunately I've had quite the internal struggle with myself over prospective future income and future careers. I may save that discussion for a later time. Take a look at this article in Economix about the happiest states in America which contains a graph correlating Median Household Income to some happiness Index.
If you're a little low on cash though, you could try making it up by watching more porn (no, that link does not go to a porn-site!), or move to a gayborhood and see if that helps at all (gay does mean happy, after all. I should know that after going to an elementary school named Gayhead for 6 years).
If those suggestions still don't tickle your fancy, try watching other forms of copulation. It sure as heck raises the happy meter for AJ. Yum, slug sex.
This is the second time in a week that someone has tried to convince me that slug sex is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteMoney doesn't buy happiness. But it makes it easier for you to be happy (i.e. you don't have to worry about paying for things or argue with loved ones about paying for things).
ReplyDeleteIf money can buy your worries off of you, isn't that almost buying happiness?
ReplyDeleteThe inherent question in there is: What else does happiness consist of?
Ample research going the other way.
ReplyDeleteWhere's the evidence?
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on your standards for happiness and how you prioritize your wants. This is easier for me to say having not yet entered the real world and become poor, but if money can buy happiness for a person, then he would probably equate happiness with being able to do (for the most part) whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
ReplyDeleteThat's really not enough for me. For example, suppose I were to become a VP of some corporate giant (hey, let's say AIG since they get big bonuses all the time!). I would have tons of money and a big house and could go on sweet vacations and everything else. As long as we are not receiving bailout money (and maybe even if we are), I'm pretty worry-free. But if I were to look back on my life at that point, I don't think I'd really be happy. I think I would much rather make a lot less money and be doing something in the public service, whether it's teaching, non-profit work, government work, or some other cause. There is certainly a different reward there. Granted, this means I have financial worries in the traditional sense, but even these don't have to be worries. It just matters how you prioritize things and what you're more willing to sacrifice.
As per the article, economic growth in a national sense obviously has some impact on the more local effects of wealth, but given a certain minimum economic condition, I think the criteria for happiness start to become much more specific to a person and cannot be generalized.
"the criteria for happiness start to become much more specific to a person and cannot be generalized"
ReplyDeleteI'd like to add that a lot of our own criteria is actually not our own and imposed by society (which could be a bad or good thing! I mean, maybe we need guidelines as to what is best for us.)
Ok, I'm just being obnoxious now. Anyways, Nick, here are proof of the evidence going the "other way" -
This article provides a more complete picture than the one you have, or at least, it's a good follow-up:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2006/08/01/8382225/index.htm
And, also, this is a classic study that is always referenced in this "happiness" and "wealth" debate:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/36/8/917.pdf
lol Vichij I finally took a second to read this even though its from like 2 months ago.
ReplyDeleteFunny how our most recent talks have been about the same subject.
But anyway, doesn't your reasoning only apply if you're a real cynic? I'm trying to classify the type of person that feels like when they look back at their life they'd hope they did something good. I feel like it only applies to cynical people or maybe just to young people since they're all bright eyed and dreamy about changing the world somehow and have yet to experience other pleasures such as raising a family or being with a spouse that makes everything okay anyway. And what makes you think that even if you did do something humanitarian, it would be enough? Wouldn't these types of people never be satisfied with how much good they've been accomplished since the world's always gonna be a terrible place and more could've been done?
I don't remember what I was saying anymore so I don't know what you're talking about.
ReplyDelete