Can money makes us happy?
One big argument for slowing down and working less is that more money doesn't always make us happier. The roots of this thinking lie in a 1974 study by Richard Easterlin at the University of Southern California. He found that the happiness of a nation's inhabitants rises in tandem with growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) but only up to a certain point. Thereafter, getting richer stops making us any happier. This, of course, calls into question our obsession with maximizing economic growth. But over the last 30 years the boom in happiness studies has encouraged other academics to revisit the data. Apparently, two researchers at the University of Pennsylvania are about to publish a comprehensive survey of the literature which shows that happiness and per capita GDP continue to rise more or less in unison. In other words, making more money does make us happier. I haven't read the study yet, but already it raises some intriguing questions. What does it mean for the Slow revolution if working longer and earning more does in fact make us happier? How much does our happiness depend on the kind of work that we do? Do we need to build other criteria, such as health, education and the environment, into any measure of economic growth? How do we even define happiness? Lots to think about here....
And The Happiest Place On Earth Is...
Morley Safer On Why The Danes Are Considered The Happiest People On Earth
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minute...
For example, in the states, home is considered an investment. First time middle class buyers get a "starter home," build equity, and then sell it and repeat the process. This never really struck me as profound until I understood a middle eastern perspective on home. Home isn't about investment or even ownership. For many in the middle east, the land doesn't belong to them, they belong to the land. They have a deep sense of place. Thinking of home as investment robs homeowners of a sense of place and leaves neighborhoods cold and uninviting. It's hard to form meaningful community when houses are changing hands all the time. I think this is just one small example of how an economic measure of happiness undermines the wonder and richness of life.
A naive dualism will resolve the apparent paradox. For example, consider that we will want something if either (1) we think it will make us happy, or (2) we think it will make our lives richer. By richness I mean expanding the choices and options in life, some of which grow with income. And by happiness, I mean meeting our simplest human desires, for: food, sleep, friendship, etc.
Happiness and Richness are often linked, but quite different. For example: having warm clothes on a cold day is an issue of happiness. Having a selection of sweaters to wear is an issue of richness.
Thus, from a dualistic perspective (of, say, Persig's Quality) there is no reason to think that money (beyond a bare minimum) should provide happiness.
--------
This type of dualism is what convinced me to "retire" after only 4 years as a professional physicist. Fourteen years later, I have not yet come to regret my decision. After travelling for some ten years, I am still living on the money I saved during that time. Indeed, I am now raising a family of five children.
Yet, the dualist perspective, however helpful, is naive.
--------
After all my (slow) travels, I've come to understand that nothing in life matters more than being "spiritual positive," ie, maintaining a glass-half-full perspective as often as you can. There is a deep contentedness to be found in that old Aran sweater (a gift from a widow) on a cold Saskatchewan spring morning.
-----------------
My wife & I have travelled slowly now for many years. We'd be pleased to hear from other slow travellers, about your journeys and hoped-for-destinations.
Lwpk5@Auracom.com -or- Lenzo@Auracom.com.
Larry & Patty from Saskatchewan, Canada
Great work on the new site, by the way. With best as ever. Sam