I thought both Wolfers and Frank made interesting points, but one thing that Frank said really struck me. He said, "money does buy happiness but we don't buy nearly as much of it as we could because we don't spend it in the way that would purchase maximum satisfaction and life benefit," which I think is pretty good insight into the argument about whether money buys happiness or not. I personally think that to a certain extent, money can buy happiness, but in excess, money can cause more stress than happiness, as can not having enough money to fulfill basic needs. Also, like Frank said, when people have a lot of money they spend it on things that they think will make them happy on the surface, but these things don't cause true happiness; people don't spend their money in ways that are profitable for their actual happiness.
I would also like to say that I think the idea that money can buy happiness is true for some people, but for others it may not be. I think that those who are accustomed to having money are able to thrive because that is what they are used to. However, those who have never had a lot of money and live simpler lives may be much happier without it because they have been able to thrive without it and recognize the fact that they don't need money and material objects to be happy. This goes along with what Frank was saying about when he lived in Nepal and he compared their small, simple houses with his big, expensive house in Ithaca, and he said that one of the men from Nepal would think that his Ithaca house was too big and unnecessary. So, in summary, I would say that just by thinking about the presentations in this video that money can buy happiness for some, but not for others.
"people don't spend their money in ways that are profitable for their actual happiness" What ways would you reccomend that I spend my money in order to icrease my happiness? Gayton
It seems to be more of a political debate than one about happiness. My political assertion would be that economic growth is good for financial, medical, and country pride. It is also seems that relative place in society can't be avoided. Even if you eliminate categories i.e. neighborhoods with McMansions there will still be the good school and the good teacher.
It should also be stated that the "consumer tax" seems to be the liberals trickle down effect. Meaning it imposes the partisan view of the group but does not have the desired effect.
The answer is probably in the middle. So where does that leave us with happiness. I like that the 15,000 base is debunked. I also like the Darwin argument. I think the data shows and both speakers even admit that more money means greater ability to survive life. I would even say survive life happy.
I would agree with the previous comments that money can buy happiness to an extent. It all depends on what you do with the money in my opinion. If you are already happy, and you get more money, you may become happier. But if you are extremely unhappy and get money, your happiness is not going to increase as much. I believe there are factors other than money which contribute to happiness. Having these factors already, money could make you happier. I believe that as long as you have enough money to live comfortably (pay bills, have food and shelter), you have the basis to be happy as long as other factors are also present. Money alone cannot make you happy.
I would have liked for them to give me a better definition of happiness. I think the emperical side was talking about diversion. If I had the resources I would measure first off how emotionally honest a person is with themselves before testing how happy they were. I would also like to see how happy people with alot of money are by putting them in an enviornment free of diversion and then measuring their actual feeling of well being. How calm they are, measure their levels of anxiety, measure their self esteem ask them how good they feel about themselves when they look in the mirror. I personally am happier when my finances are on an upswing. I can afford new opportunites. I am not preoccupied with dropping out of school because I can't afford to pay the mortgage. Sure I am happy when I have a new toy or am planning on a vacation ect but that is not true happiness, those feelings of well being are dependent on using money to buy a diversion, much like some people would be happier after they have a couple of drinks, sex or a candy bar. Money brings diversion and not a true deep sense of peace and well being which I define happiness as.
I don't think anyone would like to say their happiness depends on money but I and obviously most people would admit that the more money you have the easier it is to attain happiness. The evidence does show that money can make you happier but not by itself. It is not just merely being rich that seems to make people happy because if everyone was rich then there would be nothing to strive for. This video seems like it's saying that people would rather just have more than others not just increasing every ones financial situation. Money is an important thing to many people because it keeps them fed, gives them a roof over their head, and allows them to do extra activities, or purchase things not necessarily needed. i think this would make anyone happy.
The video addressed some interesting factors about economics and happiness. I like how Justin Wolfers addressed happiness based on subjective well being but I am not sure what factors make up subjective well being. The data that was presented was logical however I am not sure why boredom was included in the mix. To me boredom is being in an idle state neither happy nor unhappy.
Of course a person will be "happier" if they are the big fish in the small pond but the truth is many of us know we will not be that fish. That doesn't mean that I am any more or less happy than the other small fish. Take into consideration individualization. I think this video addressed the concept that there are multiple levels of well being and I think it is great that there is data being collected. With any data, theories are important and I think that Bob had some interesting statements.
Individuals have the ability to adapt and as a society we tend to strive for the norm, but it is when we stray away from the norm that we run into questions about happiness and comparing levels of happiness. Happiness is individualized and it is something hard to measure. I am curious how this data impact future research on happiness? -Lauren Goudreau
I think these two points of view were extremely interesting. Before watching this video, I thought about my own beliefs about money and happiness. I thought that money couldn't buy happiness whatsoever - I've always valued human relationships and communication and the sense of security I feel from that much more than having additional money in my pocket to spend on things that won't promote my survival. After watching the video, I think my perception became a lot more informed - I am not really sure where I stand.
I particularly found the aspect of relativity extremely insightful, and how someone with more money in a poor neighborhood marginalizes all of his/her neighbors with his financial status, but only until they start acquiring the same level of status as him/her. Clearly, from this perspective it is easy to see that an immense amount of wealth can have no affect on happiness if that wealth is the same as everybody else's. I think, what Lorriane said, that money largely affects people only when a person is not use to having money and suddenly acquires it. I think proving this via empirical data would be extremely challenging, but from a conceptual point of view it seems to make some sense to me.
To contradict myself, I'll chime in about what can someone do to increase happiness, and say that I am quite sure studies have indicated that generosity and giving back to people who are less fortunate, or giving unexpected surprises to other people increases one's own satisfaction. In this sense, if someone who was use to having money, and acquired more - but instead of keeping it went around the community dishing it out to strangers or those who appeared in need of money, it is possible that he or she may feel happier than an individual who doesn't have money but then acquires it and uses it for whatever he or she feels like using it on. Again, happiness seems dependent on one's own values and desires.
Perhaps money only affects one's happiness to the extent of being able to provide oneself with provisional needs (shelter, food, clothing, etc)that one typically wouldn't otherwise have. Hm.
It is a tough call. Both sides present curious, well-researched points of view.
I think this video was interesting and definitely focused more on economics and economic status than happiness. It focused mostly on the money part of the 'money buys happiness' theory. I think both Wolfers and Frank made really valid arguments with research to back it up. I do not think one argument is right or one is wrong, but I think they can both be right. I think it comes down to both men giving more weight to a certain aspect of human behavior and spending relationships. Frank is more concerned with relative position whereas Wolfers is focused on absolute position, when it seems that both appear to be very important in the study of economics and happiness.
I think Frank takes his argument a step further and focuses on an interesting concept. I think he makes some extremely important and valid points about the way people spend their money, especially in the United States. There is too much spending, in the wrong places and the name of the game is excess. I think maybe relative position plays some role in people's personal feelings towards spending and "wanting" more. It makes sense that we want to feel adequate to those surrounding us in our community, that is, if you give a shit what other people are doing or how they're spending their money and judge yourself based upon that, but it is my guess that many people do. Many people highly value money and objects and materialistic things, so I think Frank's argument can stand true with that group of people. What I really like is that Frank points out an extreme excessive spending problem in this country in unnecessary areas and fashions and that needs to be changed. Cannot say I believe eliminating the income tax and creating a 'consumer' tax is the answer, but it would be ideal if all people could be happy without the constant desire to increase status and wealth. However, it is proven that being wealthier can make us happier? I think to find balance will be to understand how we can all be happy with just enough money and enough stuff, without the constant need for more. But what is happiness anyway? I think we can at least say at this point that..happiness means something different for everyone.
If I had to pick a side in this argument, it would be Frank's. I think the moderator had a great point when he argued that Wolfers was supporting Frank's argument by using a log scale. I'm so glad Wolfers clearly conveyed that he values all the data, not just means and averages. In everything I've seen on happiness research so far, it seems there is an overwhelming reliance, if not by scientists themselves then by those who are interpreting the data, on means and averages. The outliers are massively important, in my opinion, because we are studying something for which we all have a common sense of what is true; I think Jessica Hews was exactly right that happiness means something different for everyone, and yet we use one word to describe what may be for each person a hugely different phenomenon.
I would have to say that money plays a large role in one's potential happiness. How that individual uses his/her money will also effect their happiness. How that money is earned will determine how that person handles his or her money. Money earned from hard work has much more value than money passed down generationally. Individuals born into money, naturally, have a lesser appreciation for money because they have never been without it.
The more money one has, the greater the chance he or she will reach overall happiness, however that doesn't apply to everyone. Having the ability to provide for a family, live comfortably, and occasionally "splurge" can lead a steady, happy life.
Of course money matters. You cant do anything in the United States without money. money has become as important as food and water, even more so because you need money for even the essentials. you cant even hold a real roof over your head without money. along with low income you have poorer living conditions and lower educational opportunities. its not just money, its everything around it too. people world wide would be happier without money importance.
I thought the first guy ( Justin Wolfers ) made a compelling argument. It was only correlational data but he gave the impression, at least to me, that he was defending the theory that money causes happiness. I would have loved to see the second guy (Bob Frank) try to refute the claim or at least defend the theory that happiness causes an increase in money. Instead Bob Frank’s argument was that we don’t spend money in a way that would produce maximum happiness. This, in a way, is only adding to the first argument. Bob is saying that if we spend our money right, it will produce higher happiness ratings. Money buys happiness. They both defended the same side of the argument. I would also love to see data on the happiness levels of people who inherited/won a lot of money compared to data on the happiness levels of people who earned a lot of money. I wonder if there is a difference in the way in which the money was received. Do people get happier when they earn money vs. when they win money? If someone owns a small business and it takes off are they going to be happier than someone who wins the megabucks? If true this would suggest that money isn’t directly causing happiness and maybe there are other factors involved like self efficacy.
The money buys happiness is a hard sell. For some people I think it may fall true but this didn't totally convince me that it is that way for everyone.
It was hard to say much about when Frank didn't really throw back much argument or facts to try and show that the other guy was wrong. I would love to look up more data on this.
I think Jesse makes a good point in that maybe earning money makes people happier than just having it. I think I feel that way in my own personal life but who knows.
Does money buy happiness? This seems to be an age old question that I feel can only be answered individually. Everyone is different and we all have different outlooks on life and what is important to us. In the United States it would seem that the answer and a resounding YES, money does buy happiness because it buys you whatever you want. People without money or with little amounts are always wishing they had more because in the U.S. we focus on material goods and societal statuses rather than just internal well-being. We are a society driven by "keeping up with the Jonses" as economists would say. We see things that others have, and think we would be happier if we too had those things, but in actuality material goods that are bought to impress others or to define what class a person is in will not make them happy because they will constantly be trying to obtain more for the sake of what others think of them. Yes, money buys necessities and things of desire, but we can clearly see, just by looking at celebrities (for example) that it does not buy a satisfying life. And after all, isn't happiness about how satisfied you are with your life?
The thing that stuck out the most to was what Wolfers talked about. I liked that he was able to prove that income does affect overall happiness and that richer countries are overall more happy then poorer countries. What he said really tied into the idea that our happiness is tied to how we compare ourselves to those we surround ourselves. I really liked his example that explained why people don't necessarily get happier as overall income increases because those that are originally richer are still more rich and we are comparing ourselves to them. I also found it interesting that he talked about how happiness in America has largely stayed the same even though our GDP has risen significantly. It was funny when he explained that the reason happiness has not gone up is because median income in the US has not risen in 40 years. When he said that it seemed to explain the NY riots. If our happiness is tied to our how we view ourselves compared to everyone else in our society.
18 comments:
I thought both Wolfers and Frank made interesting points, but one thing that Frank said really struck me. He said, "money does buy happiness but we don't buy nearly as much of it as we could because we don't spend it in the way that would purchase maximum satisfaction and life benefit," which I think is pretty good insight into the argument about whether money buys happiness or not. I personally think that to a certain extent, money can buy happiness, but in excess, money can cause more stress than happiness, as can not having enough money to fulfill basic needs. Also, like Frank said, when people have a lot of money they spend it on things that they think will make them happy on the surface, but these things don't cause true happiness; people don't spend their money in ways that are profitable for their actual happiness.
I would also like to say that I think the idea that money can buy happiness is true for some people, but for others it may not be. I think that those who are accustomed to having money are able to thrive because that is what they are used to. However, those who have never had a lot of money and live simpler lives may be much happier without it because they have been able to thrive without it and recognize the fact that they don't need money and material objects to be happy. This goes along with what Frank was saying about when he lived in Nepal and he compared their small, simple houses with his big, expensive house in Ithaca, and he said that one of the men from Nepal would think that his Ithaca house was too big and unnecessary. So, in summary, I would say that just by thinking about the presentations in this video that money can buy happiness for some, but not for others.
"people don't spend their money in ways that are profitable for their actual happiness" What ways would you reccomend that I spend my money in order to icrease my happiness? Gayton
It seems to be more of a political debate than one about happiness. My political assertion would be that economic growth is good for financial, medical, and country pride. It is also seems that relative place in society can't be avoided. Even if you eliminate categories i.e. neighborhoods with McMansions there will still be the good school and the good teacher.
It should also be stated that the "consumer tax" seems to be the liberals trickle down effect. Meaning it imposes the partisan view of the group but does not have the desired effect.
The answer is probably in the middle. So where does that leave us with happiness. I like that the 15,000 base is debunked. I also like the Darwin argument. I think the data shows and both speakers even admit that more money means greater ability to survive life. I would even say survive life happy.
Jonathan Bellino
I would agree with the previous comments that money can buy happiness to an extent. It all depends on what you do with the money in my opinion. If you are already happy, and you get more money, you may become happier. But if you are extremely unhappy and get money, your happiness is not going to increase as much. I believe there are factors other than money which contribute to happiness. Having these factors already, money could make you happier. I believe that as long as you have enough money to live comfortably (pay bills, have food and shelter), you have the basis to be happy as long as other factors are also present. Money alone cannot make you happy.
Chelsea Craig
Nobody survives life.
I would have liked for them to give me a better definition of happiness. I think the emperical side was talking about diversion. If I had the resources I would measure first off how emotionally honest a person is with themselves before testing how happy they were. I would also like to see how happy people with alot of money are by putting them in an enviornment free of diversion and then measuring their actual feeling of well being. How calm they are, measure their levels of anxiety, measure their self esteem ask them how good they feel about themselves when they look in the mirror.
I personally am happier when my finances are on an upswing. I can afford new opportunites. I am not preoccupied with dropping out of school because I can't afford to pay the mortgage. Sure I am happy when I have a new toy or am planning on a vacation ect but that is not true happiness, those feelings of well being are dependent on using money to buy a diversion, much like some people would be happier after they have a couple of drinks, sex or a candy bar. Money brings diversion and not a true deep sense of peace and well being which I define happiness as.
I don't think anyone would like to say their happiness depends on money but I and obviously most people would admit that the more money you have the easier it is to attain happiness. The evidence does show that money can make you happier but not by itself. It is not just merely being rich that seems to make people happy because if everyone was rich then there would be nothing to strive for.
This video seems like it's saying that people would rather just have more than others not just increasing every ones financial situation.
Money is an important thing to many people because it keeps them fed, gives them a roof over their head, and allows them to do extra activities, or purchase things not necessarily needed. i think this would make anyone happy.
Jacqueline Nizer
The video addressed some interesting factors about economics and happiness. I like how Justin Wolfers addressed happiness based on subjective well being but I am not sure what factors make up subjective well being. The data that was presented was logical however I am not sure why boredom was included in the mix. To me boredom is being in an idle state neither happy nor unhappy.
Of course a person will be "happier" if they are the big fish in the small pond but the truth is many of us know we will not be that fish. That doesn't mean that I am any more or less happy than the other small fish. Take into consideration individualization. I think this video addressed the concept that there are multiple levels of well being and I think it is great that there is data being collected. With any data, theories are important and I think that Bob had some interesting statements.
Individuals have the ability to adapt and as a society we tend to strive for the norm, but it is when we stray away from the norm that we run into questions about happiness and comparing levels of happiness. Happiness is individualized and it is something hard to measure. I am curious how this data impact future research on happiness?
-Lauren Goudreau
I think these two points of view were extremely interesting. Before watching this video, I thought about my own beliefs about money and happiness. I thought that money couldn't buy happiness whatsoever - I've always valued human relationships and communication and the sense of security I feel from that much more than having additional money in my pocket to spend on things that won't promote my survival. After watching the video, I think my perception became a lot more informed - I am not really sure where I stand.
I particularly found the aspect of relativity extremely insightful, and how someone with more money in a poor neighborhood marginalizes all of his/her neighbors with his financial status, but only until they start acquiring the same level of status as him/her. Clearly, from this perspective it is easy to see that an immense amount of wealth can have no affect on happiness if that wealth is the same as everybody else's. I think, what Lorriane said, that money largely affects people only when a person is not use to having money and suddenly acquires it. I think proving this via empirical data would be extremely challenging, but from a conceptual point of view it seems to make some sense to me.
To contradict myself, I'll chime in about what can someone do to increase happiness, and say that I am quite sure studies have indicated that generosity and giving back to people who are less fortunate, or giving unexpected surprises to other people increases one's own satisfaction. In this sense, if someone who was use to having money, and acquired more - but instead of keeping it went around the community dishing it out to strangers or those who appeared in need of money, it is possible that he or she may feel happier than an individual who doesn't have money but then acquires it and uses it for whatever he or she feels like using it on. Again, happiness seems dependent on one's own values and desires.
Perhaps money only affects one's happiness to the extent of being able to provide oneself with provisional needs (shelter, food, clothing, etc)that one typically wouldn't otherwise have. Hm.
It is a tough call. Both sides present curious, well-researched points of view.
-Bianca Sturchio
I think this video was interesting and definitely focused more on economics and economic status than happiness. It focused mostly on the money part of the 'money buys happiness' theory. I think both Wolfers and Frank made really valid arguments with research to back it up. I do not think one argument is right or one is wrong, but I think they can both be right. I think it comes down to both men giving more weight to a certain aspect of human behavior and spending relationships. Frank is more concerned with relative position whereas Wolfers is focused on absolute position, when it seems that both appear to be very important in the study of economics and happiness.
I think Frank takes his argument a step further and focuses on an interesting concept. I think he makes some extremely important and valid points about the way people spend their money, especially in the United States. There is too much spending, in the wrong places and the name of the game is excess. I think maybe relative position plays some role in people's personal feelings towards spending and "wanting" more. It makes sense that we want to feel adequate to those surrounding us in our community, that is, if you give a shit what other people are doing or how they're spending their money and judge yourself based upon that, but it is my guess that many people do. Many people highly value money and objects and materialistic things, so I think Frank's argument can stand true with that group of people. What I really like is that Frank points out an extreme excessive spending problem in this country in unnecessary areas and fashions and that needs to be changed. Cannot say I believe eliminating the income tax and creating a 'consumer' tax is the answer, but it would be ideal if all people could be happy without the constant desire to increase status and wealth.
However, it is proven that being wealthier can make us happier? I think to find balance will be to understand how we can all be happy with just enough money and enough stuff, without the constant need for more.
But what is happiness anyway?
I think we can at least say at this point that..happiness means something different for everyone.
Jessica Hews
If I had to pick a side in this argument, it would be Frank's. I think the moderator had a great point when he argued that Wolfers was supporting Frank's argument by using a log scale.
I'm so glad Wolfers clearly conveyed that he values all the data, not just means and averages. In everything I've seen on happiness research so far, it seems there is an overwhelming reliance, if not by scientists themselves then by those who are interpreting the data, on means and averages. The outliers are massively important, in my opinion, because we are studying something for which we all have a common sense of what is true; I think Jessica Hews was exactly right that happiness means something different for everyone, and yet we use one word to describe what may be for each person a hugely different phenomenon.
I would have to say that money plays a large role in one's potential happiness. How that individual uses his/her money will also effect their happiness. How that money is earned will determine how that person handles his or her money. Money earned from hard work has much more value than money passed down generationally. Individuals born into money, naturally, have a lesser appreciation for money because they have never been without it.
The more money one has, the greater the chance he or she will reach overall happiness, however that doesn't apply to everyone. Having the ability to provide for a family, live comfortably, and occasionally "splurge" can lead a steady, happy life.
-Nick Randall
Of course money matters. You cant do anything in the United States without money. money has become as important as food and water, even more so because you need money for even the essentials. you cant even hold a real roof over your head without money. along with low income you have poorer living conditions and lower educational opportunities. its not just money, its everything around it too. people world wide would be happier without money importance.
I thought the first guy ( Justin Wolfers ) made a compelling argument. It was only correlational data but he gave the impression, at least to me, that he was defending the theory that money causes happiness. I would have loved to see the second guy (Bob Frank) try to refute the claim or at least defend the theory that happiness causes an increase in money. Instead Bob Frank’s argument was that we don’t spend money in a way that would produce maximum happiness. This, in a way, is only adding to the first argument. Bob is saying that if we spend our money right, it will produce higher happiness ratings. Money buys happiness. They both defended the same side of the argument.
I would also love to see data on the happiness levels of people who inherited/won a lot of money compared to data on the happiness levels of people who earned a lot of money. I wonder if there is a difference in the way in which the money was received. Do people get happier when they earn money vs. when they win money? If someone owns a small business and it takes off are they going to be happier than someone who wins the megabucks? If true this would suggest that money isn’t directly causing happiness and maybe there are other factors involved like self efficacy.
-Jesse Miller
The money buys happiness is a hard sell. For some people I think it may fall true but this didn't totally convince me that it is that way for everyone.
It was hard to say much about when Frank didn't really throw back much argument or facts to try and show that the other guy was wrong. I would love to look up more data on this.
I think Jesse makes a good point in that maybe earning money makes people happier than just having it. I think I feel that way in my own personal life but who knows.
Christina Valeriani
Does money buy happiness? This seems to be an age old question that I feel can only be answered individually. Everyone is different and we all have different outlooks on life and what is important to us. In the United States it would seem that the answer and a resounding YES, money does buy happiness because it buys you whatever you want. People without money or with little amounts are always wishing they had more because in the U.S. we focus on material goods and societal statuses rather than just internal well-being. We are a society driven by "keeping up with the Jonses" as economists would say. We see things that others have, and think we would be happier if we too had those things, but in actuality material goods that are bought to impress others or to define what class a person is in will not make them happy because they will constantly be trying to obtain more for the sake of what others think of them. Yes, money buys necessities and things of desire, but we can clearly see, just by looking at celebrities (for example) that it does not buy a satisfying life. And after all, isn't happiness about how satisfied you are with your life?
-Christi Ledwith
The thing that stuck out the most to was what Wolfers talked about. I liked that he was able to prove that income does affect overall happiness and that richer countries are overall more happy then poorer countries. What he said really tied into the idea that our happiness is tied to how we compare ourselves to those we surround ourselves. I really liked his example that explained why people don't necessarily get happier as overall income increases because those that are originally richer are still more rich and we are comparing ourselves to them.
I also found it interesting that he talked about how happiness in America has largely stayed the same even though our GDP has risen significantly. It was funny when he explained that the reason happiness has not gone up is because median income in the US has not risen in 40 years. When he said that it seemed to explain the NY riots. If our happiness is tied to our how we view ourselves compared to everyone else in our society.
stay negative that was helpful
Post a Comment