51 replies to this topic

[Live Forever]

Here is the link to the article

Why money doesn’t bring happiness
June 29, 2006

ANN ARBOR, Mich.— The more money you earn, the more time you are likely to spend working, commuting and doing other compulsory activities that bring little pleasure, according to an article in the June 30 issue of Science that provides a novel explanation for why money doesn’t bring happiness.



For the article, titled "Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion," Princeton University psychologist Daniel Kahneman and colleagues, including University of Michigan psychologist Norbert Schwarz, analyzed the link between money and happiness, presenting new evidence showing that what they call "the focusing illusion" affects how people respond when asked how happy or how satisfied they are with their lives.

"When people consider the impact of any single factor on their well-being—not only income—they are prone to exaggerate its importance," they wrote.

Previous studies have shown, for example, that if people are asked about their marriage or their health before they are asked how happy they are with their life, their answer to the second question is linked more closely with the first question than if the question order is reversed.

"People do not know how happy or satisfied they are with their life in the way they know their height or telephone number," according to the authors. "The answers to global life satisfaction questions are constructed only when asked, and are therefore susceptible to the focusing of attention on different aspects of life."

To test the power of the focusing illusion, the authors asked a sample of working women to estimate the percentage of time they were in a bad mood the day before. Respondents were also asked to predict the percentage of time people with various life circumstances, including no health insurance and close work supervision, along with high- and low-income, typically spend in a bad mood. These predictions were compared to the actual reports of mood provided by respondents with the relevant circumstances.

Respondents overestimated the prevalence of bad mood in general, and grossly exaggerated its prevalence among people with undesirable circumstances. For example, while those with household incomes of less than $20,000 a year reported that they spent 32 percent of the previous day in a bad mood, other respondents predicted that people at that income level would spend 58 percent of their day in a bad mood.

The researchers reviewed several possible reasons why income has a weak effect on happiness, including their own explanation -- as income rises, people’s time use does not appear to shift toward activities associated with improved affect.

Citing evidence from a nationwide survey of a representative sample of people they conducted recently, they noted that people with greater income tend to devote relatively more time to work, compulsory non-work activities (such as shopping and childcare) and active leisure (such as exercise) and less time to passive leisure (such as watching TV and just relaxing).

"When someone reflects on how more income would change subjective well-being, they are probably tempted to think about spending more time in leisurely pursuits such as watching a large-screen plasma TV or playing golf," the authors wrote. "But in reality, people should think of spending a lot more time working and commuting and a lot less time engaged in passive leisure and other enjoyable activities."

Schwarz is affiliated with the U-M Institute for Social Research, the Ross School of Business, and the U-M Psychology Department. In addition to Kahneman and Schwarz, co-authors of the article include Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University and the National Bureau of Economic Research; David Schkade of the University of California at San Diego; and Arthur A. Stone at Stony Brook University.

[Live Forever]

The article is interesting in light of the recent thread here on financial independence, I think.

[eternaltraveler]

happiness can't buy you money.

[eternaltraveler]

But in all seriousness I think the following applies regardless of income level earned.

"if you love what you do you won't work a day in your life"

[Mind]

Obviously, there is an income level where you can expect to spend a lot more time in leisure pursuits. Probably somewhere over 10 million.

I have spent time very near the bottom, a few years in fact. There were some aspects that were good....few obligations....and some were bad...scrounging pennies for food. I am in the middle now and it is alright. I get to do a lot of the things I like. Could I use more leisure time....of course, but I have enough fun time to stay sane.

[zoolander]

hmmmm....

prometheus

sipping cafe au lait at a Paris cafe whilst waiting for his driver to take him and his 130+ IQ level ex-catwalk model, Harvard educated PA's to his private jet which will then fly them to the Riviera to embark on a 200' yacht where he will host some interesting meetings with the heads of state and corporations of significance.

then

comes home from work after being demoralized by his neurotic boss to eat a microwave dinner whilst his prozaced-out wife in freshly applied rollers and tattered bathrobe, cigarette hanging out from the side of her mouth complains that the landlord send them an eviction notice on account of being chronically late in their rent and his son is arguing on his cell behind a closed bedroom door about the price and quality of bud which incidentally has not dimished the pungent smell from wafting in to the loungeroom where he is sitting on portion of the couch that the cat has not urinated on recently

Which one explains you current predicament? [tung]

your first comment

Money buys happiness--indirectly

is correct but the statement that money can buy "something" is very objective. Paridoxically emotions such as happiness and sadiness are subjective experiances . The objectifacation of the subjective appears to drive one deeper into suffering caused by the desire for more of the objective. Hence your final statement prometheus

On the Fox-channel there is a story about some multi-millionaire who is hosting an event on a massive boat about life-extension medicine. Why on earth would someone want to more of this life he wonders?

[Live Forever]

Here is another article on the same subject.

This part seems to address prometheus' statement:

"People grossly exaggerate the impact that higher incomes would have on their subjective well-being," said Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and an author of the study.

The problem is that once people get past the level of poverty, money does not play a significant role in day-to-day happiness, Krueger said. It certainly can buy things, but things do not usually address most of the troubles people experience in daily life -- concerns about their children, problems in intimate relationships and stressful aspects of their jobs.

When people daydream about winning big, Krueger said, "they focus on all the things they would buy, without recognizing that does not contribute all that much to their well-being."

Also, I find this interesting:

In fact, the study noted, data from the Department of Labor show that the more money people have, the less likely they are to spend time doing certain kinds of enjoyable things that make them happy. High-income individuals are often focused on goals, which can bring satisfaction. But working toward achievements is different from experiencing things that are enjoyable in themselves, such as close relationships and relaxing leisure activities.

"If you want to know why I think poor people are not that miserable, it is because they are able to enjoy things that Bill Gates has not been able to enjoy, given his schedule at Microsoft," Krueger surmised.

Various studies have shown that people are enormously reluctant to accept a pay cut, even if that would give them more freedom, less supervision or a shorter commute -- all things that are tangibly associated with moment-to-moment happiness. The emphasis on salary is identical to the lottery ticket winner's mistake in thinking that money changes everything.

"One of the mistakes people make is they focus on the salary and not the nonsalary aspects of work," Krueger said. "People do not put enough weight on the quality of work. That is why work looks like, for most people, the worst moments of the day."

As well as this:

A wealth of data in recent decades has shown that once personal wealth exceeds about $12,000 a year, more money produces virtually no increase in life satisfaction. From 1958 to 1987, for example, income in Japan grew fivefold, but researchers could find no corresponding increase in happiness.

In part, said Richard Layard of the London School of Economics, who has studied the phenomenon closely, people feel wealthy by comparing themselves with others. When incomes rise across a nation, people's relative status does not change.

It seems that people (I do it too) expect money to produce more happiness than it actually does, but once people attain the wealth, they find that they still have the same demeanor, and happiness as before they got money.

[DJS]

This song is dedicated to all the happy people All the happy people who have real nice lives And who have no idea what its like to be broke as f*** . - Eminem

Money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy you a yacht big enough to pull up right alongside it. - David Lee Roth
-------------------------------------

Freedom produces happiness and, depending on how you utilize it, money can buy freedom.

[Athanasios]

Using expletives is the best way to explain it for sure.

This song is dedicated to all the happy people All the happy people who have real nice lives And who have no idea what its like to be broke as f*** . - Eminem

[jaydfox]

I think the point of the article isn't quite compatible with "money can't buy happiness". If you had two people who had to work the same job, same hours, under the same working conditions (including the need to be available outside normal work hours), and one made twice the money of the other, then the level of happiness would be different. As the Bible states, it's not "money", but "the love of money", that is the root of all evil. It's not money that isn't buying happiness, it's the work that goes into acquiring that money, that causes unhappiness (via stress, etc.).

The amount and type of work, that goes into acquiring the money necessary to acquire the privileges referred to by Prometheus, is beyond most people. For a given person, the amount of work (based not only on what they do, but what types of work they even foresee being available) they do should be separated from the monetary rewards, before drawing a conclusion about whether money buys happiness.

[advancedatheist]

Ask someone sipping cafe au lait at a Paris cafe whilst waiting for his driver to take him and his 130+ IQ level ex-catwalk model, Harvard educated PA's to his private jet which will then fly them to the Riviera to embark on a 200' yacht where he will host some interesting meetings with the heads of state and corporations of significance.

Excuse me. Do you mean the same France that "threatens people with guns," as libertarians say, to redistribute income (even though France has no death penalty)?

Why would a billionaire want to go there?

[FunkOdyssey]

If you had two people who had to work the same job, same hours, under the same working conditions (including the need to be available outside normal work hours), and one made twice the money of the other, then the level of happiness would be different.

This is only true if they have each other for comparison. We gauge our level of happiness (life satisfaction is the more accurate term) by evaluating how we stack up to our peers. One study demonstrated that people would rather make $50,000 in a place where everyone else made $10,000 than make $100,000 in a place where their peers made $500,000.

"People grossly exaggerate the impact that higher incomes would have on their subjective well-being," said Alan Krueger, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and an author of the study.

The problem is that once people get past the level of poverty, money does not play a significant role in day-to-day happiness, Krueger said. It certainly can buy things, but things do not usually address most of the troubles people experience in daily life -- concerns about their children, problems in intimate relationships and stressful aspects of their jobs.

When people daydream about winning big, Krueger said, "they focus on all the things they would buy, without recognizing that does not contribute all that much to their well-being."

This is due to the adaptation principle. Many conditions of life are subject to adaptation -- it was never demonstrated more strongly than in the famous 1978 study of lottery winners and paraplegics. Within a year of either winning the lottery or becoming paralyzed from the neck down, both groups returned almost completely to their original baseline levels of happiness.

Of course, Buddha, Epictetus, and other sages figured this out thousands of years ago, and have been telling people that true happiness comes from within ever since. Unfortunately, we have alot of evolutionary psychology to confront if we want to benefit from that wisdom.

The greatest external factor that is exempt from adaptation is relationships, with a spouse or significant other, friends, and family.

[Infernity]

Well you all can just send me your money, I will spare this falacious happiness from you...

-Infernity

[FunkOdyssey]

Perhaps to a limited extent, although when it comes to making happiness accessible, nothing is more important than your affective style (the balance between the mind's approach and withdrawal systems, influenced by genetics, meditation, cognitive therapy, prozac, etc). There is nothing wrong with wealth, but the unfortunate fact is that the more value you place on it, the less satisfied you will be with life. The inverse relationship between materialism and life satisfaction has been demonstrated in at least five studies (Ahuvia and Wong, 2001; Kasser and Ryan, 1993; Richins and Dawson, 1992; Sirgy, 1997; Diener and Oishi, 2000).

[stephen]

"People do not know how happy or satisfied they are with their life in the way they know their height or telephone number," according to the authors. "The answers to global life satisfaction questions are constructed only when asked, and are therefore susceptible to the focusing of attention on different aspects of life."

The point of the article appears to NOT be that "money doesn't bring happiness", but rather that happiness is very difficult to measure... and most "happiness surveys" are hopelessly invalid. I agree... a lot of the research papers you read dealing with this subject fail to control the factors well enough to make the study have any use (aside from an amusing blurb in PopSci or Time magazine).

That said, I'd postulate that a large degree of our current happiness is based on our future prospects. If earnings are trending down (ie. getting fired or demoted), we're often unhappy. If earnings are trending up (ie. raises or being hired), we're more often happy.

This has implications for life extension, as well.

[FunkOdyssey]

The point of the article appears to NOT be that "money doesn't bring happiness", but rather that happiness is very difficult to measure... and most "happiness surveys" are hopelessly invalid. I agree... a lot of the research papers you read dealing with this subject fail to control the factors well enough to make the study have any use (aside from an amusing blurb in PopSci or Time magazine).

Here's a paper for you... its a 162 page review of over 120 studies on this subject (the relationship between money and happiness).

The conclusion?

In the title of this review we raise the question of whether money will make us happy. What can we conclude? It appears that a higher income might help if we are very poor. Living in a wealthy society appears to be beneficial. On the other hand, strongly desiring large amounts of money appears likely to hinder our chances for high SWB [subjective well-being]. Gaining more income if we are middle-class or upper-class and are living in a wealthy nation is unlikely to substantially bolster our SWB on a long-term basis. Thus: our advice is to avoid poverty, live in a rich country, and focus on goals other than material wealth. What of individuals then, who reside in poor nations or who live in rich nations but remain poor despite their efforts? To these individuals we owe public policies, as well as private initiatives, to enhance their incomes in a time when the material wealth of the world is growing at a rapid pace.

A fundamental finding of the present review is that for middle and upper-income people in economically developed nations, acquiring more income is not likely to strongly enhance SWB. Indeed, some studies find that rising wages predict less wellbeing. For example it has been found that rising income led to higher divorce rates (Clydesdale, 1997), greater stress (Thoits and Hannan, 1979), lower global well-being (Diener et al., 1993), and less enjoyment of small activities (Brickman, Coates and Janoff-Bulman, 1978). It thus appears that some reorientation is needed in material goals, from acquiring money to enjoying the process of work and contributing to society. People should understand that placing great emphasis on the acquisition of wealth can be counterproductive to happiness, and that gaining increased income has dangers as well as pleasures. As the world enters a new era of material abundance, a new paradigm is needed in which greater emphasis is placed on fulfilling vocations that benefit society, and on preventing the involuntary poverty that is associated with a higher risk of unhappiness.

Even if you don't have much time, the paper is still worth skimming, as it is full of graphs and interesting details.

Attached Files

•  Diener_Biswas_Diener_2002.pdf   226.78KB   27 downloads

[Infernity]

Money is needed in order to fund anti-aging researches, I assure we all will be amazingly happy knowing we no longer will age having such a long time for everything.

-Infernity

[Shepard]

Excuse me. Do you mean the same France that "threatens people with guns," as libertarians say, to redistribute income (even though France has no death penalty)?

Why would a billionaire want to go there?

You've obviously never been shopping in Paris.

[icyT]

This article doesn't prove money doesn't bring happiness, it proves that doing more work can be demoralizing if you don't naturally enjoy it, or find a way to. So what if you have a long commute? Read a book. Public transit baby Or, ride a bike, cardio. But yeah, it proves long car commutes suck.

[maestro949]

Living a purpose driven life brings happiness. Sometimes money too. Though being miserable has the advantage of never being dissapointed.

[JohnDoe1234]

A Massive amount of money would certainly make me happier, Not only in the way that Infernity described, but also I would not have to work, I woud have 100% of my time left to my research and my lover (still single [wis] )... what else is there?

[william7]

Jesus said you can't serve both God and money. Apostle Paul said the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Socialists say abolish money and private property. Pink Floyd says money it's a crime. The Beatles say money can't buy me love. And now scientists say money doesn't bring happiness. May be we should start listening to them.

[DukeNukem]

I've been at both ends of the scale, and there's no question which end has the least stress and most happiness. Money has also significantly improved my health, in that I can afford better (organic) foods, supplements, HRT, and working with a longevity doctor. I probably spend $50,000 related solely to health alone each year, including food.

[Mind]

Wierd Al: "If money can't buy happiness, I guess I'll have to rent it"

[william7]

(dukenukem)

I've been at both ends of the scale, and there's no question which end has the least stress and most happiness.  Money has also significantly improved my health, in that I can afford better (organic) foods, supplements, HRT, and working with a longevity doctor.  I probably spend $50,000 related solely to health alone each year, including food.

But how much better might we be able to live without money if some way of living can be successfully devised where it's not necessary? May be a new way of living without money could give us better conditions, more resources and extra time to focus on the practice of longevity. It might be the next major step in man's cultural evolution.

[bender]

Money is what will ultimately guide the research for immortality. If you gather the top 10 richest/ most powerful people on earth and have them invest all of their resources/energy into funding for immortality research, I am pretty sure it would be accomplished within 20-30 years. If it hasn't been accomplished yet...

[william7]

Sounds like one of those blends of "social sadism" with twisted "spin doctorism." Dubya's "party" more than likely.

I think the problem is that some highly motivated, educated, professional types can make money work for them to a degree and without suffering too much of its negative side effects. The masses can't do this and this is holding back true progress towards immortality. For example, too much precious time and valuable resources are being wasted in the fight against diet-related diseases that are being wildly exacerbated by junk food capitalists and consumers with too much money to spend on addictive substances. Notice this thread on the problem.

The whole thing is starting to sound alot like Bible prophecy come true. Notice James 5:5.

[mikelorrey]

Edgar,
I hear that this attraction to the smell of money is known and studied. There is allegedly a scent on the market, called CA$H - The Scent of Money, which has the chemicals found in dollar bills that are known to arouse.