If you've grown up in suburban America, it's hard to completely escape the consumer culture that is so pervasive. It seems that one can prove her rejection of "materialism" by showing off an I Phone more than one version old. While this is certainly a generalization with plenty of exceptions, it is easy to see that most of the people we interact with-if not ourselves-seem to place great value on "stuff" and the money that buys that stuff. And while it is easy to agree that "money isn't everything" it is hard to see where we actually seem to follow this old adage.
In your blog post of about 2 paragraphs, you will want to address some of the concerns below and perhaps add some of your own.
1. What is the "conventional wisdom" with respect to money and happiness? Have you experienced this view?
2. What is the author's thesis and how does it relate to the conventional wisdom?
3. The author gives a lot of attention to a critical "income threshold" for understanding the money/happiness relationship. What is this all about? What do you think of this assertion?
4. Evaluate the author's thesis. Is she correct? To what extent? What flaws, if any, are present in your view?
5. How are the views on money expressed in the article compatible with the views expressed by your family? Yourself? This is a great opportunity to discuss at home!
6. To what extent has money/income affected your college and career choice? If salary was not an issue, would you pursue a different major? Is this a valid criterion in the decision?
7. You own questions or comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Everyone is different. Money helps fulfill some of our infinite wants. In a society where we can see how the elite live there is always something bigger and better that we just have to have, our wants continue to swoon. Access to the internet allows us to access a catalog of resources to be distributed digitally or right to your door. We can see what's hot and what "you need to have". Money definitely leads to happiness, however, how much is debatable.
People with money would be expected to live better lives, they can do what they want because they have resources to back it up. My friend’s father is the head doctor at a local hospital who's constantly working or on call. However, he comes home goes out somewhere new constantly and has experiences that regular people can’t have. His family can visit non traditional places and take part in all sorts of culture. He goes with the conventional wisdom I believe. Money can help give more fulfillment to your life and meet wants, that's why money is happiness.
Money has dictated nothing for me as I’d be just as happy with $10,000 than $5,000,000 dollars as long as i’m doing what I love. While being a cop may not lead an extravagant lifestyle, I will feel fulfilled knowing that women and children can walk these streets without a fear of being killed, stolen or raped. Money does not mean happiness when people expect it to just like that, like the author says you need to be a happy person and find passions to create wants which you meet with money. In my house we all agree that more money would be nice, debt free and fixed up our home could fulfill more wants as a family unit raising overall happiness. Stress from bills and mouths to feed would leave my parents from arguing. We are middle class especially to live here in Saint James and yet I believe more money could make us even happier.
I believe Begley does not emphasize the role money plays and is very non materialistic or attempts to appear so. “If you want to do your part for your country’s economy, forget all of the above about money not buying happiness.” sounds very pretentious to me as I am someone who believes it does. This thesis implies that we’re mindless pawns in the economy and is wrong. Individuals strive for their own happiness, especially when she covers how American hours working get longer. There's a reason past generations worked 9 to 5 jobs. Those that can excel in the workplace can excel in anything as they’re motivated individuals. Hey Sharon people are holding onto their money and selling goods for top dollar for a reason! There’s so much more to do when your above average income, the fun doesn't stop there unless you want it to.
Conventional wisdom dictates that money can indeed buy happiness, as both parts supposedly gain some sort of happiness, as the seller gains money to further his business, and the buyer gains that product, to which they can be satisfied. However,the author believes that money DOES buy some happiness, but as you increase your social class, the less happy you generally are. Essentially, if someone was impoverished, but then come in to a financially successful period, they become much more happy with their life. However, if someone were to come into fabulous wealth, there would be a significant decrease in how happy they would've become. I believe that this is the case, as wants and needs start to somewhat blend together, causing a person to fuss over their wealth , and overall be less happy in their life. However, happiness can still be bought with money, as the rich have access to many new luxuries, such as much more expensive, more "fun" vehicles, as well as enjoy opportunities such as vacations to fancy destinations. Overall, wealthier people do have a life that isn't much better off than most people thing
Within my family, money isn't too much of an issue, however we still believe that more money would buy us more happiness. My father and my mother both work two jobs to try to keep us all satisfied with income, and has shown, as this year alone, we've taken two vacations, and have even took our dog with us. However, I personally think that if we were to become much more wealthy, that It may corrupt us all and would lead to less than satisfying life. Income is not too big of issue with me, although my college choices have been mostly catering to those inside New York, especially SUNY schools. However, even if I went to the best school in the country, my major would probably not change. There's money to be had in my possible major, and I enjoyed taking courses involved in it.
I still believe that money, especially in our economy, buys happiness in life, including education, overall upkeep, and our own personal needs and wants. However, there is a threshold to which people can keep being satisfied with money, to where it dullens to unhappiness.
The conventional wisdom regarding money and happiness is that the more money you have, generally speaking, the happier you are. In other words, "money buys happiness". However, the author's thesis throughout the article refutes this statement. She states that while money may increase the happiness of an individual to a certain extent, having more money does not always equal being more happy. She argues that wealth only truly increases happiness when it pulls them out of a detrimental situation. A rich person who gains more money simply wouldn't be that much more happy than they already were. She also argues that during supposed times of grief like after World War II, the average happiness of an individual is very similar to what it is today.
I strongly agree with the authors thesis throughout the article. While there are always new inventions and technologies to buy with money, there comes a point where an individuals' needs are completely satisfied. I believe that technologies are becoming a need in this new generation, but there comes a certain threshold where having the latest and greatest technology doesn't make an individual and happier. I also believe that the economic situation at large of a certain country can greatly impact a person's happiness. For example, the cattle-herders mentioned in the article are happy because their country, in this case Kenya, is not very wealthy. These kinds of people, therefore, do not know any different from having little money for so long. Money has not affected my college choice and I do not think that having more money would change my thinking on what I want to do for the rest of my life.
The conventional wisdom is that more money will make your happier because it would give you more buying power and would be less stressful in insuring security. The author's thesis is that more wealth isn't all that it's made out to be by conventional wisdom. I think she is right with her income threshold because once you have enough money to do everything you want and need, more money won't change anything and won't be able to increase happiness. My family and I would agree with her theories and support what she says, my parents have always told me to find something I enjoy to pursue as a career and the money will find its way to you. Money has slightly affected my college choice as I am looking into state schools over private schools for tuition reasons but it hasn't affected my career choice as I believe that having a job you enjoy is a necessity for something you will do for most of your lifetime.
Money/income has personally affected my desired career path. I would like to go into the accounting/finance department due to the large amounts of money I can potentially earn. if money was not an issue, I would most likely choose a career more interesting to me, such as a detective. Money can be tight sometimes in my family, so some extra money would most likely increase the overall morale in my household because my parents would not have to stress as much about paying bills on time.
After reading the article, I have come to the conclusion that money does buy happiness, but more money does not necessarily. People in poverty would love to have extra money to achieve a more stable and "normal" lifestyle. However, once you become very wealthy, many people tend to become greedy. They will never be satisfied until they have more than everyone, and many people will become very stressed and depressed over this. All things being equal, or ceteris plabius, I believe that people would rather have money than not have money.
How often have you asked yourself if you would be happier if you had more money? You would be able to buy all the cars and fancy things that you want, and still have enough money left for you and your family to not have to work another day in your lives. Your children could go to their dream college, regardless of the amount of scholarships they receive. There are many people who believe that money does indeed buy happiness. The more money they have, the more things they can do, which leads to them being happier in the end. I, too, have contemplated this view. It would be great to have the money to do what I want whenever I choose. At the same time, however, if there was something that I wanted to do that I wasn’t able to, it would be a letdown.
Some of the aforementioned money would go to charity to help make other peoples lives better. If there was someone I knew who was suffering from a disorder that does not have a cure, I would donate money to a group that researches that disease. Of course, happiness means different things to different people. To the Inuit of northern Greenland, that might be enough food and shelter to make it through the winter without dying. They, when asked to rate their happiness on a scale of 1-7, rated themselves at around 5.8 – the same as an average American multimillionaire. So, money is not the only thing that leads to people being happy.
At the forefront of our nation since its beginning, happiness is something every American strives for. All too often, this happiness is intertwined with material gain. But the presented research illustrates a different picture. According to author Begley, money only positively affects happiness if it raises individuals out of poverty. Otherwise, it has little to no effect. I concur. And I believe it is for this particular reason: In the global economy, scarce resources are distributed to fulfill needs and wants. For most, needs are finite so when an individual is lifted from a state of destitution to the middle class, almost all of his needs are met: a house with electricity, food, clothing, etc. Since additional needs can't be created(an iPhone is not a need), happiness increases. However, when it comes to increasing wealth from upper middle class to rich, all needs are met at both levels so increasing wealth at that level only fulfills wants. But new wants can be easily created as the old are achieved. For example, you got a new Audi, but now you want a Lamborghini. Since new wants are created at roughly the same rate they are fulfilled, net happiness remains the same. The author backs up my argument with a number of studies, which makes this thought reasonably valid.
I don't know to what extent my parents are worried about finances, but I surely demonstrate some tendencies that support the Begley's thesis. I have all my needs met: food, water, housing, access to the internet. But I do have a number of wants, mostly acquiring new articles of clothing. Even if I was bestowed $1000 of gift money, I'm sure I could always contrive more that I would want. However, when it comes to choosing a major, I am simply picking what interests me. If my interest was philosophy, I might be in a rough spot, but fortunately, I'm passionate about mathematics, which has good job prospects. Even so, my main reason for choosing math is because it intrigues me.
At the forefront of our nation since its beginning, happiness is something every American strives for. All too often, this happiness is intertwined with material gain. But the presented research illustrates a different picture. According to author Begley, money only positively affects happiness if it raises individuals out of poverty. Otherwise, it has little to no effect. I concur. And I believe it is for this particular reason: In the global economy, scarce resources are distributed to fulfill needs and wants. For most, needs are finite so when an individual is lifted from a state of destitution to the middle class, almost all of his needs are met: a house with electricity, food, clothing, etc. Since additional needs can't be created(an iPhone is not a need), happiness increases. However, when it comes to increasing wealth from upper middle class to rich, all needs are met at both levels so increasing wealth at that level only fulfills wants. But new wants can be easily created as the old are achieved. For example, you got a new Audi, but now you want a Lamborghini. Since new wants are created at roughly the same rate they are fulfilled, net happiness remains the same. The author backs up my argument with a number of studies, which makes this thought reasonably valid.
I don't know to what extent my parents are worried about finances, but I surely demonstrate some tendencies that support the Begley's thesis. I have all my needs met: food, water, housing, access to the internet. But I do have a number of wants, mostly acquiring new articles of clothing. Even if I was bestowed $1000 of gift money, I'm sure I could always contrive more that I would want. However, when it comes to choosing a major, I am simply picking what interests me. If my interest was philosophy, I might be in a rough spot, but fortunately, I'm passionate about mathematics, which has good job prospects. Even so, my main reason for choosing math is because it intrigues me.
The conventional wisdom between money and happiness is that money buys happiness. But as one looks closer one can clearly see that this is not always the case. The authors thesis is that money buys happiness but to a certain degree. It relates to the conventional wisdom that money buys happiness but the thesis says it effects somee people more than others. The author points out that money affects people coming from the poverty line and into the middle class more than any other group. I agree with this because its a much different change in life style from being poor and homeless and then going into the middle class. Then being a millionaire to a multimillionaire ones lifestyle doesnt change as much. I think she is correct that money does impact our lives and happiness to some extent but no where near the extent that we believe it to be. Some people are just as happy in different parts of the world in a poor lifestyle as multimillionaires are here and i agree with that. My views on money are expressed in this article because i believe money does not always by happiness. It depends on the person and the person's values as to how much they let money impact the happiness in their lives i believe. Money has greatly impacted my college choice because i have to take into account how much it will cost to go away especially out of state. It has made me explore more affordable in state options.
The author's thesis makes the claim that once a person gets past a certain income threshold, their satisfaction does not increase. A person's conventional wisdom would tell them that money can buy happiness, making the argument that while money cannot buy happiness itself, it can be used to buy more expensive or a greater quantity of "things". However, even that argument is false. The article says that with the large number of options accessible to the wealthy person, he or she is overwhelmed by the number of choices, while the average person would know which few they would choose from. When they do choose, they are constantly in fear that they could have made a better decision, and it is no wonder that people with higher incomes more often suffer from anxiety and depression, which is scientific fact that contradicts the belief that money can buy happiness.
I think that the media is responsible for the desire for wealth. Ads on the TV and radio and pop music that glamorizes fancy mansions and trophy wives pushes people to buy the latest models of gadgets, only for them to feel behind the curve when the next model comes out. Also, since they are satisfying what they think is a "need", it does not give them the same satisfaction as satisfying their wants. The counterargument is that constantly pouring money into the economy benefits it in the whole, but it's important to see the negative consequences it has on the individual.
The conventional wisdom with respect to money and happiness is that having more money leads to choice. The author, Sharon Begley uses the example "if you have $20 in your pocket, you can decide between steak and peanut butter for dinner, but if you have only $1 you'd better hope you already have a jar of jelly at home." This concept shows how choice leads to happiness. The authors thesis is to give reasons why money doesn't buy happiness. The author gives attention to the income threshold for understanding the money/happiness relationship to prove that people with money aren't always happy. For example, " depressed debutantes, suicidal CEOs, miserable magnates and other rich folks aren't the only ones giving the lie to this." The author is giving examples of rich people who prove the statement "money buys happiness" false. I think the authors thesis is somewhat correct because I'm sure there is people in this world that are happy because they have money but, there is also people who have money that aren't happy.
My family and I both believe that money doesn't buy happiness. Yes, were in the upper middle class but, what makes us happy is the times we spend together and the things we do, not everything we do involves spending money. For example, going to the beach or the park. Money has placed restrictions on things i can do. For example, going to college i can't go to a school that cost 60,000 because that is too expensive and unrealistic. I also don't want to be stuck paying off student loans for the rest of my life therefore i don't want to go through 8 years of schooling to be a doctor or maybe even more than 8.
There’s an established drug problem in the United States, and every country has fallen victim to its treachery. I would argue it is the most commonly used drug on the planet, and that drug is money. Money can provide an illustrious high with all the material items we can buy, however, once this short-lived high is over it leaves its victims feeling worse than before. Money is commonly associated with happiness, when the two couldn’t be further apart. As Americans we live in a hypersonic renaissance, meaning, goods and services are altered so quickly, that in most cases, last year’s model is seen as obsolete. This idea that the newest item can buy us the most happiness is ultimately what will destroy us as a nation and a world. In her article, “Why Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness,” Sharon Begley explains that money cannot buy happiness, unless it is rescuing someone from poverty. It is suggested, passed the basic needs being met, money cannot increase the amount of happiness a person is feeling. It is only when a person is significantly improving their quality of life that a significant growth in happiness can be measured. For example, a low income family finally being able to put nutritious meals on the table would significantly increase their happiness. However, as we move up in the socioeconomic food chain the happiness gained becomes smaller and smaller. Think of it as a graph that increases rapidly, but plateaus off at an income of around $100,000 a year because, “Americans who earn $5 million a year aren’t much happier than those who make 100,000 a year.” Which is a dramatic change in monetary, but an underwhelming change in morale.
Begley also suggests that it is not the “stuff,” that is providing us with our happiness. The Inuit Native Americans in Greenland rated their happiness to be a 5.8 out of 7, as did the “cattle-herding Masai of Kenya who do not have access to electricity or running water,” which contradicts the 7 year old American child crying because he couldn’t get a new iPhone 6. Life is all about perspective. I would argue that money, although it serves many pivotal purposes, has actually been detrimental to society as a whole. When the Dali Lama was asked what surprised him the most he said, “Man surprised me most about humanity. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.” This is what money has made us as a society, and everyone is victim to it. Young adults cannot even pursue their dreams in fear that there will not be enough money waiting when they get home. Money has significantly influenced my decision in career choice. I wanted to be a marine biologist when I was younger. I thought it would be amazing if I could study in a lab near the water and just enjoy my job. When I excitedly presented this idea to my parents it was met with, “there is no money in that Juliana,” and my dreams were crushed. There is no way to escape the pull that money has on our life which is what frightens me the most about this dangerous drug the world is dealing with.
The conventional wisdom is that money doesn’t buy happiness. However, this is constantly questioned by people in all areas of study. The author of this article claims that money can buy happiness to an extent. If the money in question is bringing someone out of poverty or allowing one’s needs to be met, then yes, they will be significantly happier. However, the author stated that there is very little difference in happiness between someone making $100,000 and someone making $5 million. This makes a lot of sense because someone who is having their needs met is surely more content with their life than someone who is not having their needs met. Additionally, someone who is able to meet their needs and their reasonable wants is probably almost as happy, if not equally happy, as someone who can afford whatever they desire. The views of this article are relatively similar to the views in my family. My family believes that money doesn’t buy happiness, but it does make happiness easier to achieve. I tend to agree with that, but I also believe there are different paths to happiness and not all of them require money. I always hate being asked if money has affected my decisions for my future, but not because it is a bad question. It’s actually a very thought-provoking question. I hate it because I hate my answer to it. The unfortunate truth is that if salary and job availability were not a factor, I would pursue an entirely different major.
Sharon Begley explores the age old question "Does money buy happiness" from an economic standpoint in her article, "Why Money Doesn't Buy Happiness". She explains that - as expected - money increases happiness but only when it helps you rise out of extreme poverty (homelessness) into a more comfortable lifestyle (middle class). Once you are in the middle class money does little to nothing to increase happiness. This was a very interesting standpoint on the question because the conventional wisdom is that the more money you have the happier you will be. I have personally seen that every adult - and many kids nearing financial independence - in my life has chosen their career based on the prospective earnings of lucrative jobs after schooling. The paradox here is that we are all working for more money because we believe it will make us happier; yet, in reality it only makes us more miserable because we are working harder, longer and less enjoyable jobs.
Although being financially stable is a goal we all should strive towards, we should also focus on enjoying our jobs and valuing friendship and family - factors proven to increase happiness.
In this article the theory that money can buy happiness is tested. The typical thoughts on this matter is that money does indeed buy happiness for people. The author does talk about her thought regarding the theory and her main point is that it can make your happier if it propels you out of poverty, but going from the middle class to millionaire status will not help increase your happiness. An example that shows her thoughts on the theory is when she shows how a person earning a middle class wage is about the same as someone earning millions of dollars. My view on the author thesis is that money can not buy happiness for everybody, I believe a normal person with the correct mental state will be much happier with more money. If you are content with your life and then more money is added to it I believe that it will make most people more happy. In my family and I personal life i believe that the more money my parents earn does have a direct influence on how happy we are. Like the article stated money gives you choice and for myself I want many choices for my family. Although money is an essential part of life, it has not affected my choices in life at all, this might because of the income bracket my parents are in but it has not personally affected me.
The conventional wisdom with money and happiness is that most people think the more money that someone has, the happier they are. It is the age old argument that money can (or can't) buy happiness. The author believes that only when you are in poverty and then pushed into the middle class does money make you happy. If you go from the middle class to the upper class, research shows it will not make a huge difference in your attitude. In the world today, we may think having the newest iPhone is a big deal, but does it really make a difference? The answer is no. Apple and other companies just want to make money for themselves. The author presents the information in a very organized manner and divides paragraphs based on different subjects and subtopics.
In my family, we believe money is definitely an important asset, but it is not everything. Social relationships and who we are as people are both more important. Everybody has different needs and wants and money can only support so many of each. Money has slightly affected my college and career choice. However, it just so happens that I enjoy finance and there is plenty of money to be made there. I did not pick that major solely because of money. Money is not the only thing that makes me happy, as it probably is with most people. The most important thing is that you are truly happy, not just making a lot of money.
In the article, Begley portrays the idea that money is not directly correlated with happiness. She writes that money can buy happiness if it lifts you from poverty to the middle class, but after that, general happiness within that demographic seems to flat line. For the most part, this is what most people have been told all of their lives. That life isn't about the material things, it's about the people around you. The author's thesis also relates to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. At the lowest level, one can find their most basic needs of food, water, and shelter. Someone living in poverty might be struggling to have these needs met, which wouldn't lead to a very happy life. In fact, the homeless in Calcutta rated their lives an average 2.9 in a scale out of 7.Someone in the middle class would have all of these things and more.
Money is always in our thoughts. And as high schoolers, we can never seem to have enough of it. This, of course, leads most to want to pursue a career in a well paying field, as nobody wants to struggle later in life. We all want our needs to be met while having enough discretionary income to purchase the wants so many of us confuse as needs. However, many aren't necessarily happy with their career choices. I'm sure if salary were not an issue, many people would be flocking back to college in search of a more self fulfilling degree. We may see more English and art majors than ever before. Maybe more people would even look into receiving a degree in puppet arts from UConn, simply because it would make them happy. However, as explained in the article, the economy grows and thrives off of those who believe that an influx of wealth will make them happy, which is why they strive to keep producing wealth. This is where we get our lawyers, our accountants, our doctors. If America were filled with puppet arts majors, one could imagine the economy wouldn't be doing so well.
The conventional wisdom in regards to money and happiness is that "money buys happiness". I have certainly experienced this view to a certain extent. Whenever I purchased a product, a pair of shoes or clothing for example, I felt delighted in comparison to if I had not done so. The author, Sharon Begley, is opposed to the conventional wisdom within society. Begley portrays the idea that she believes the contrary is true: Money does not indeed buy happiness. More specifically, Begley states that there is a concept which is fundamental to understanding the relationship between money and happiness, known as the "income threshold". The income threshold explains that money affects happiness, but it is confined to a boundary. For example, as an individual approaches a certain amount of monetary gain, that person will cease to experience increased elation. I believe that this concept is somewhat true. Sure, money is always nice to have, but once an individual consists of a significant amount of cash, he is prone to build a "tolerance". Cash will slowly bring less and less happiness due to this aforementioned tolerance.
I slightly disagree with Begley's stance. I feel that money does not buy happiness, but it has the ability to incite it. I believe that it all depends on the individual's attitude, if he is optimistic, then it can be assumed that he will enjoy the supplement of cash. On the other hand, if the individual is a pessimist, then it can be assumed that he will feel indifferent towards the cash. The views expressed within the article is untrue for my family and myself. My family and I always appreciate any increase to our wealth. We value the monetary gain because we believe that nothing should ever be wasted. We also believe that money is always earned in a rightful, and hardworking manner. Income has slightly affected my career choice. I feel that due to certain restrictions in wealth, it is not possible to go to certain colleges or universities. I also fear accumulating an immense amount of debt that could possibly haunt my entire life. If salary was not an issue, I would most definitely try my hand at a variety of professions. I would be able to possibly attend colleges that were previously out of reach. Income is undeniably a valid criterion in the decision in regards to college and career choice.
Grant Herrmann AP ECO Per. 6
The saying money cannot buy happiness has become a cliche. It has seemed to find its way to any good saying like “location, location, location?” or “When life gives you lemons…” where they become played on. Now the general wisdom is the money cannot buy happiness, however now I have been told, by my father none the less, that it can buy luxuries and those luxuries can buy happiness. But is that really the case? I don’t think so. The articles describes how being just above poverty does not make you any more happier than if you are in poverty. Those cattle herders of Africa and the Inuit tribes live perfectly content lives. They have all the necessary live needs but do not have luxuries. Luxuries can make one happy. I would be a lot happier if I knew I could go to college and emerge debt free though I do not have that luxury.
Money has not affect my college choice very much. All the colleges I am applying to have scholarships, financial aid, and student loans. I plan to fully utilize any means of financial support to complete college with the least amount of debt. Though I have refined my college search now to 10 schools, with tuition ranging from $30,000 to $70,000. From that I have applied for school specific scholarships. My parents believe that I should apply to any school that interest me because I should be able to enjoy and appreciate where I go to thus make the most of my time spent learning.
Grant Herrmann AP ECO Per. 6
The “conventional wisdom” in regards to the money/happiness relationship, is that money can’t buy you happiness. This is a common phrase/idea and has even been enforced in famous works of literature, such as The Great Gatsby. People such as Martha Stewart and Andy Fastow from Enron, went to great lengths and schemes to try and make more money, only to end up in jail. Individuals such as these only reinforce this common idea. Author Sharon Begley adjusts this view, stating that although money doesn’t on its own have the ability to “buy” happiness, in order for an economy to thrive, people must work as though it does. “Economies thrive when individuals thrive,” and when people believe they will be gaining some sort of joy as a result of their effort, they are more likely to work harder.
The author talked about an “income threshold,” saying that if you make 2 million one year and five million the next, you aren’t going to see an obvious change in happiness. But, if an increase in income changes your socioeconomic status, there is a correlation with increased happiness. I agree, if someone is already rich and simply becomes richer, they are already accustomed to a comfortable life style and probably won’t notice that big a difference. I don’t believe that it’s the money itself that causes happiness. I think its the security that comes with wealth that causes people happiness. Individuals whose whole lives are consumed with work and making money are not going to be happy, and neither are the people whose entire lives are consumed with the hardships of poverty. But, the person who makes enough money to satisfy their needs and wants and still is able to enjoy life, is the person who is going to the happiest.
Our society is extremely focused on wealth, however in other parts of the world, less-fortunate people are leading happier lives because money is not the focus of their existence. Whenever money is the focus of someones life, on either end of the rich or poor spectrum, it brings unhappiness. The happiness that can be bought from wealth has it’s limits.
The “conventional wisdom” in regards to the money/happiness relationship, is that money can’t buy you happiness. This is a common phrase/idea and has even been enforced in famous works of literature, such as The Great Gatsby. People such as Martha Stewart and Andy Fastow from Enron, went to great lengths and schemes to try and make more money, only to end up in jail. Individuals such as these only reinforce this common idea. Author Sharon Begley adjusts this view, stating that although money doesn’t on its own have the ability to “buy” happiness, in order for an economy to thrive, people must work as though it does. “Economies thrive when individuals thrive,” and when people believe they will be gaining some sort of joy as a result of their effort, they are more likely to work harder.
The author talked about an “income threshold,” saying that if you make 2 million one year and five million the next, you aren’t going to see an obvious change in happiness. But, if an increase in income changes your socioeconomic status, there is a correlation with increased happiness. I agree, if someone is already rich and simply becomes richer, they are already accustomed to a comfortable life style and probably won’t notice that big a difference. I don’t believe that it’s the money itself that causes happiness. I think its the security that comes with wealth that causes people happiness. Individuals whose whole lives are consumed with work and making money are not going to be happy, and neither are the people whose entire lives are consumed with the hardships of poverty. But, the person who makes enough money to satisfy their needs and wants and still is able to enjoy life, is the person who is going to the happiest.
Our society is extremely focused on wealth, however in other parts of the world, less-fortunate people are leading happier lives because money is not the focus of their existence. Whenever money is the focus of someones life, on either end of the rich or poor spectrum, it brings unhappiness. The happiness that can be bought from wealth has it’s limits.
The “conventional wisdom” in regards to the money/happiness relationship, is that money can’t buy you happiness. This is a common phrase/idea and has even been enforced in famous works of literature, such as The Great Gatsby. People such as Martha Stewart and Andy Fastow from Enron, went to great lengths and schemes to try and make more money, only to end up in jail. Individuals such as these only reinforce this common idea. Author Sharon Begley adjusts this view, stating that although money doesn’t on its own have the ability to “buy” happiness, in order for an economy to thrive, people must work as though it does. “Economies thrive when individuals thrive,” and when people believe they will be gaining some sort of joy as a result of their effort, they are more likely to work harder.
The author talked about an “income threshold,” saying that if you make 2 million one year and five million the next, you aren’t going to see an obvious change in happiness. But, if an increase in income changes your socioeconomic status, there is a correlation with increased happiness. I agree, if someone is already rich and simply becomes richer, they are already accustomed to a comfortable life style and probably won’t notice that big a difference. I don’t believe that it’s the money itself that causes happiness. I think its the security that comes with wealth that causes people happiness. Individuals whose whole lives are consumed with work and making money are not going to be happy, and neither are the people whose entire lives are consumed with the hardships of poverty. But, the person who makes enough money to satisfy their needs and wants and still is able to enjoy life, is the person who is going to the happiest.
Our society is extremely focused on wealth, however in other parts of the world, less-fortunate people are leading happier lives because money is not the focus of their existence. Whenever money is the focus of someones life, on either end of the rich or poor spectrum, it brings unhappiness. The happiness that can be bought from wealth has it’s limits.
The subject of money and whether or not it leads to happiness can be quite controversial. The "conventional wisdom" among economists and even a large portion of society is that money does lead to happiness; why else would Americans be working hard every day to earn more and more money to satisfy their needs and wants? If earning a lot of money does not make you happy, then why not just stop working when you have a substantial amount of money in the bank? Why would you go through years of schooling in order to get a high-paying job when you can just get a mediocre job that will provide you with just enough? Perhaps it is because in American society, the economy "thrives when individuals strive," therefore society forces the misconception on us that the more money we have, the happier we will be. But in places like Kenya, where there are certain areas that do not have electricity and/or running water, people are satisfied with their lives because they are not living in a society where money consumes their lives and are not surrounded by the constant pressure to earn more and more.
The author also discusses the economic theory that there is a certain “income threshold” where if a certain amount of money has the ability to bring one/a family out of poverty and into the middle class, it can bring them happiness, for they will no longer be struggle to survive. However, once one reaches a certain point in earning money, for example once “a millionaire becomes a decamillionaire,” money will no longer cause them any happiness since they have much, much more than needed to survive. I never wanted to believe that money can bring people happiness, but money is somewhat of a necessity in American society, and if a family is below the poverty line and barely surviving, I do believe that some money can bring them happiness. They will no longer have to struggle everyday just to feed themselves and fulfill other basic needs, and in my opinion, that's something to be happy about. However, I do also believe it is possible for people in our society to be extremely poor and be happy and satisfied with their lives; it truly depends on whether or not they let the amount of money they have affect their happiness. And if they do not, I envy them, for they have defied American society.
1. Buying an item for its lowest cost creates a sense of human happiness due to the satisfying the consumer's needs, wants, and desires. I haven't experienced this view.
2. His thesis is that more money is better than less, and the only way more of something is better than less of it is if it brings you greater contentment. Hence, satisfying wants and desires at a low cost is the key to most happiness Ito humans.
3. The more income you have, the happier you are because you can obtain items that you wouldn't be able to obtain if you were in middle class or poverty. I believe this is true because many families that are rich experience more aspects of satisfying their desires than a middle class or poverty family.
4. I think the author's thesis is valid because in order to things to be bought, you need to have some desire to buy it and if the price is too high, no one will buy it, therefore creating a sense of no satisfaction needed. The price competition creates a more desire for the consumer to buy their product.
5. My family is financially sound and I believe it is somewhat true because we experience many opportunities together that other families might not. That being said, I also believe it's because we spend these trips as a family, creating a happiness in that aspect as we'll.
6. I do not need to apply for financial aid so my college choices aren't limited, but I'm not looking at expensive schools because it can be a struggle to pay $60,000-$70,000 a year for college. That being said, this hasn't altered my options of choosing my major, but looking at my future income level alters my major along with my interest to what to pursue as a career in life changes frequently.
Post a Comment