Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, I read in the book "The Difference" by Jean Chatzky that money can buy more happiness...to a point. But it also works the other way around....happiness can bring money. This actually makes sense. It turns out that people who tend to do well at work are those with good social skills. Obviously, you have to know how to do your job, but if other people don't like you, you are much less likely to advance. People tend to like happy people and not like/want to be around unhappy people.
about the only thing i agree with suzie ormann on is her saying "i spend more than,because i think less than.
people who are unhappy with themselves tend to spend more then those who do and hense being happy can give you more money.
What about people who have been both very poor and very wealthy? I am thinking of my social group of business owners who have gone from being millions in debt to becoming multi-millionaires. Or, those who once owned very successful companies, but are now bankrupt and losing their homes.
I have known these people through all wealth stages. And many (though not all) were happy as poor, struggling students sleeping on couches, happy going into major debt to grow their businesses, and even relatively happy about starting anew after complete financial failure. There is a happiness mindset despite the circumstance. I am one of those people BTW. I have chosen happiness even in the most dire financial circumstances. Maybe that seems idiotic to some people. But I consider it a survival skill.
Well, there's no doubt that some people's personality changed after they obtained wealth and it can make them miserable.
Keep in mind that because of jealously and envy, after some obtained wealth, friends and relatives tends to distance themselves from them, because they feel that you are not in the same group as them, something isn't your fault but it can make you unhappy at times.
If nothing changes, meaning your personality and behavior don't change, you are just who you are except now you got all that wealth and no one knows but you. I am almost guarantee you will be happier than you were poor.
Money isn't the problem, it's human behavior that is.
I agree with the general tone of your post but it seems to me that money can also buy a strong family...to a point. It seems to be the poor who have the most unstable relationships...although it's one of those chicken and egg questions that's hard to sort out.
I agree about money not buying true friends.
And you are right...money cannot buy immorality, but it does seem to buy longer life spans. The rich tend to live significantly longer than the poor. Another chicken and egg question, though.
I think if you're comparing the polar opposite ends of the wealth spectrum, you could find your statements supported because the poor cannot afford to eat healthy food or get proper healthcare.
I do think if you're comparing the upper-class versus the middle-class or even lower-middle class, the lifespan and other things would be comparable. As you go up the wealth latter, the law of diminishing returns kicks in.
Money can alleviate some of the stresses of life such as worrying where your next meal will come from, having proper shelter, proper clothing, and being able to afford basic living expenses but above those, money can't cure cancer, prevent a heart attack, or make family bonds stronger.
We should be clear: the claim that income exerts a strong force on well-being is a claim
about the size of β, which we refer to as the well-being–income gradient. It is possible for this
gradient to be large, even if the correlation between well-being and income is small. That is, if
factors other than income account for much of the variation in well-being, then the correlation
may be low even though income has a quantitatively important effect on well-being. None of the
theories that we have discussed rule out other factors influencing well-being.
I'd also note that the paper attempts to argue that GDP growth improves well-being for all, not that rich people are happier than slightly less rich people which is the conclusion the author of the telegraph article is trying to make. The concept that the rich are happier than the poor is not novel.
The paper only argues that the average citizen does in fact benefit from rising GDP. Not that there's a statistically significant difference between being rich and being very rich.
And anyway, the measurement of happiness is in of itself, not a particularly easy thing to do. See for instance Daniel Kahneman's talk below:
You can't aggregate an individual level variable and imply causation.
Happiness is an individual level construct. There is no evidence that a country can be happy, only a person.
So you are aggregating a construct that does not exist on a country wide level and comparing it to GDP.
This is the part I find most relevant.
Quote:
[SIZE=2][SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][LEFT]The distinction between composition and compilation forms of emergence is best[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]illustrated with examples. Consider the composition model for psychological and[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]organizational climate (James, 1982; Kozlowski & Hattrup, 1992). It indicates that both[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]constructs reference the same content, have the same meaning, and share the same[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]nomological network (Jones & James, 1979; Kozlowski & Hults, 1987). For example, an[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]organization's climate for service is a reflection of organizational members' shared[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]perceptions of the extent to which organizational policies, procedures, and practices[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]reward and encourage customer service (Schneider & Bowen, 1985). An organization's[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]climate for service-whether positive or negative-emerges from the shared, homogeneous[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]perceptions of organizational members. Thus individual and organizational climates are[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]essentially the same construct, although there are some qualitative differences at higher[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]levels. Organizational climate is more inclusive and may have some unique antecedents[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]relative to its lower-level origin in psychological climate (Rousseau, 1988). Composition[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]models based on isomorphic assumptions have been the primary means of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]conceptualizing emergent phenomena (Brown & Kozlowski, 1997; House et al., 1995).[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]We describe collective phenomena that emerge through composition processes as shared[/LEFT][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]properties, and we discuss them in more detail in a subsequent section.
Sometimes lower-level characteristics, behaviors, and perceptions may not coalesce.
Quote:
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Instead, lower-level characteristics, behaviors, and/or perceptions may vary within a[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]group or organization, and yet the configuration or pattern of lower-level characteristics,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]behaviors, and/or perceptions may nevertheless emerge, bottom-up, to characterize the[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]unit as a whole. Consider, for example, individual and team performance. The[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]compilation model for individual and team performance references performance as a[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]functionally equivalent domain but specifies different antecedents and processes at[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]different levels (Kozlowski, Gully, Nason, & Smith, 1999). Individual performance[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]entails task-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities. Dyadic performance entails[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]coordinated role exchanges. Team performance is a complex function of specific[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]individual and dyadic-networked-contributions. Thus, in compilation models, the higherlevel[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]phenomenon is a complex combination of diverse lower-level contributions[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2](Kozlowski, 1998, 1999). The form of emergence described by compilation is not widely[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]recognized and yet is inherent in many common phenomena, including the domains of[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]learning, performance, norms, power, conflict, and effectiveness, among many others.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Compilation-based emergent processes are relatively little explored from a multilevel[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]perspective in the organizational literature.
[/LEFT][/SIZE]
The main point is that we can't just assume that individual level phenomena aggregated to the group level represent the same thing they did at the individual level.
Last edited by mizzourah2006; 02-08-2013 at 01:50 PM..
Yes, indeed, Socrates said it well....
"He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature."
Now look at How products and services are marketed to the majority of people. How much of it is really a value proposition, versus playing to real or mostly pseudo fostered 'discontent' to prompt a purchase?
Mathjak107 is spot on, in that money is important to the degree in which it allows you choices in life, particularly, the option to NOT have to prostitute yourself in some manner in the corporate world or bend and fawn to another to curry favor. This is a form of freedom from persecution.
The other more important things: stable close knit family / community of friends, interests to keep the mind sharp etc... are more important for overall happiness.
I'm reminded of a quote in an interview with Colin Powell, regarding his leaving the political arena and doing the book - speech circuit. One of his comments that stuck with me as very telling was (And I'm paraphrasing) that, "everyone needs 'F*** you money' - that is, enough so you can be free from prostituting yourself to stay in the 'powers that be's good graces, or the repercussions of following your 'beliefs / ideals', when they may put you on the outs or in the crosshairs of those in power or control. "
There was also an article a few years back, in Fast Company, I believe, that gave an estimate of how much money does it take to make / bring happiness and I recall that particular study / finding to be $1.5 million. Above that range it didn't seem to matter. I wonder if this is the continuation of it, as it seems the 75k / year figure ties in to a 5% return on $1.5 million.
i learned early on about how important money was for choices in life and that motivated me to never stop trying.
like i said i grew up in a nyc housing project and my best friend was accused of a crime he did not do but was going to plead guilty since his family was just over the limit for legal aid and they had no money for a lawyer.
imagine pleading guilty to a crime because you had no choice, even though you were innocent.
i knew he was not guilty because him and i chickened out and did not go with the rest of the crowd.
well at the last minute a relative mortgaged their house and got him a lawyer and he was found not guilty.
that was a powerful lesson about why i wanted money in life. i wanted choices .
This article/study claims the poor are not happy. The rich are, and:
Most remarkably of all, there is no maximum wealth threshold at which point higher incomes cease to boost well-being: quite simply, the richer, the better, with no upper limit.
I am reminding myself of all the posts that I have read in which people claim that they would be happy with just a modest amount more. I have been guilty of thinking that, once you have your basic needs met plus have some more money for discretionary spending, and there are no stressors for mortgages, retirement and tuition savings, a person could be very happy. Evidently, even that person could be happier.
No wonder that the rich just seem to want to accumulatemore and more.
There are exceptions, though, like Bloomberg who takes no salary and gives huge amounts to charity.
If they were truly happy and content, why would they need to?
The article seems to infer power instead of happiness.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
