Does money buy happiness? [Archive] - Discussion World Forum

Michael

Oct 19th 2008, 04:05 PM

Here are a few recovered replies to this thread...

That was a great article! I think the most important thing mention is how much more a dollar is worth to a poor person vs a rich person. (questionable statistics aside) It's funny that when I saw the title of the thread, I was like "of course money buys happieness, it buys the things that make you happy." For instance, it talks about walking around a place to smell flowers and baking pies (sarcastically, but nevertheless.....) The thing that comes to my mind is that you need money for a car and gas in most cases to find the field of flowers and you need ingredients for pies. I suppose I'm only for the "money buys happieness" arguement when its of the nature of being flat change-scraping broke vs a nominal sum in the bank. The tables turn when you stop caring about the things that make you happy because they just do, and instead you begin to feel happy when you feel like you're in the running with or above your fellow man. The question goes back to how much you let status and the Jones' inground pool shaped like a dolphin affect you, and then it becomes a question of "does status and the things it brings buy happiness." That question's answer could be yes and it could be no. It all depends on how satisfied you are, and the love of money and status seem like black holes of dissatisfaction. Concerns of money when it comes to appearences seems fatally tied to jealousy and unrest. Happieness is directly related to your ability to be content. And I think that's a little of what the article was saying, that a little money gives a poor person a beautiful taste of freedom, while a lot of money can just make a rich person call out for more money, telling their neighbor about their 5th vacation home purchase and get the temporary rush of feeling like they're on top of things. Oh, until Mr. Rogers gets his 5th vacation home, and it's in Paris, then you get that sinking feeling in your belly and that craving starts to kick in. Hey, that's almost like a description of a crack head Obsession of a game you can never permanently win, or obsession of anything at all, does not lead to happieness.

While economics does help with understand markets and can give some insight to why people make certain decisions it does usually seem to leave out the fact that people do not always act rationally and do value some things that can't be measured in dollars and cents. At least not in terms that are universal to everybody anyway.

I think the most important thing mention is how much more a dollar is worth to a poor person vs a rich person.
Yes, the relative value of money is very important and it is the reason that money doesn't actually buy happiness after one gets enough money to survive and meet the basic necessities. Any additional dollar that helps you get 'up' to the basic level of sustainance and security is going to bring happiness. Any dollar after that level, much less so.

Personally, I've always asserted that 'money doesn't buy happiness, but it can sometimes buy freedom from things that make you unhappy'.

Unfortunately, a 'lack of unhappiness' does not constitute happiness!

... The question goes back to how much you let status and the Jones' inground pool shaped like a dolphin affect you, and then it becomes a question of "does status and the things it brings buy happiness." That question's answer could be yes and it could be no.

In other words, one's own happiness seems dependent upon one's ability to make a good assessment of one's own best interests...

As for money itself, I think it fits in with the idea of the "heirarchy of needs" concept where "oxygen, water, food, shelter" are the bottom levels. If one lacks these things, then this becomes the #1 need. If one has these things, then one moves up the heirarchy of needs to a more sophisticated 'need' such as friendships, freedom/security, sex, etc. When those needs are satisfied, we start 'needing' luxury items, ego-boosting and 'affirmations' of our aspirations.

Obsession of a game you can never permanently win, or obsession of anything at all, does not lead to happieness.
Aristotle addressed this long ago... everything in moderation. Obsession is immoderate by definition.

While economics does help with understand markets and can give some insight to why people make certain decisions it does usually seem to leave out the fact that people do not always act rationally and do value some things that can't be measured in dollars and cents. At least not in terms that are universal to everybody anyway.
Indeed, Homo Irrationalis is entirely ignored by the study of economics and this is probably the greatest failing of that 'science'.

I have long argued that humans are a mixture of rational and irrational elements and that neither can ultimately supplant the other.

Money buys freedom from unhappiness....I like that much better, that sounds perfect. And, yes, how funny that in a rational math-based system that humans devised (economics), it's the irrational human element that can throw it off....

An interesting article on a subject that's been hammered by sociologists for a long time. I do have to throw in the the other axiom 'If money can't buy you happiness you're shopping in all the wrong places'.

Great article. I am not too surprised it's posted on an anti-capitalism activist site/magazine, this story just don't get you advertisers if you're for-profit corporate media.

Laissez faire economic policies are generally not aimed at promoting happiness of the majority of the society. I think the Chicago boys know this very well given the results of their Latin American adventures, although they like to say the contrary because they have a vested interest. Laissez faire economic policies are designed to increase the power of the proprietors, or mega corporations. Whether power gives you happiness is another subject, but it certainly isn't for everyone.

Another interesting point I'd like to make, iirc on another article while ago, is that people who are poor but self sustaining are generally much more generous in terms of giving for a cause, than people who are very wealthy. I think the line is roughly as this article, $10,000 per capita, and the measurment is in terms of the percentage of their income given away rather than gross total. So assuming the OP article is correct, then it's safe to say that people who are more happy gives more to others.

I think money can create a space for happiness to flourish. Of course, it does not have to be money, it can be any resource. I.e., in the modern industrial world people who would otherwise be happy people might not be happy if they can't eat, buy gas, pay for health needs, etc...

I think people experienced happiness before there was ever 'money' though. They had their need fulfilled by the tribe and the land.

Andrew

I think money can create a space for happiness to flourish. Of course, it does not have to be money, it can be any resource. I.e., in the modern industrial world people who would otherwise be happy people might not be happy if they can't eat, buy gas, pay for health needs, etc...

I think people experienced happiness before there was ever 'money' though. They had their need fulfilled by the tribe and the land.

Andrew
After the Spanish invasion of Mexico number of horses became of prime importance to many native American tribes, especially if one desired a wife. Beads were also coveted.