It doesn't take all that much reading of a high end publication like this to know that money does in fact buy us happiness. After all, who doesn't peruse the advertising sections and lust after one or another of the things on offer? Contrary to this is of course several millennia of philosophic tradition insisting that money doesn't create such happiness and if it does well, it certainly shouldn't, not in a good and sensitive person at least.
We've also got the evidence from the Easterlin Paradox which comes from the observation that after a certain level of income then happiness among the population doesn't seem to rise much in general. One useful interpretation of this result is that once we've conquered the lower, physical, levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs then it's the non-monetary things that increase happiness. Another possible interpretation is simply that Easterlin was wrong because happiness does increase in general with rising incomes, just slowly. And a final theory is that it's not actually the level of income that makes us happy but the direction of travel. Rising incomes make people generally happier and falling ones unhappy. The rich nations are, almost by definition, the ones that have had rising incomes for generations which is why they're the happier ones. And anyone growing at 2 or 3% is going to have that same happiness level.
There's a reasonable explanation for this as well: we know that happiness levels adjust to new circumstances pretty quickly. People who have lost a limb do indeed become more unhappy but 6 to 12 months later they seem to be about as happy in their new circumstances as they were when whole. Much the same is true of those who marry, receive a pay raise and so on. To increase happiness above this standard level (one that is different for each person of course) there thus needs to be a constant stimulus of new whatever it is to raise that level permanently. Outside some of the more interesting byways of religion multiple marriages are rather frowned upon (and does one want to imagine multiple mothers in law?) but continued growth in GDP and thus income and living standards is possible leading to that maximal possible happiness.
However, we've another report out today that tells us that happiness does indeed top out it's just that it's at a much higher level that Easterlin posited:
Money cannot buy you happiness, the old saying tells us.
But having enough money to live comfortably will help, according to new research.
It is the pursuit of great riches which can lead to misery as it distracts people from more fulfilling aspects of life such as their relationships and personal development, the study found.
Feelings of wellbeing rose up to an income of £45,000 a year ($75,000) but then stalled beyond this point, according to the research presented to the American Psychological Association.
The point there that sparks my interest is that pounds sterling number. For £45,000 a year is about the entry level into the top 10% of income earners in the UK (individual incomes, not household). The $75,000 translated value gets you into the top 30% or so in the US (household incomes). And that gives us yet another possible method by which money does buy happiness. For we humans, we know that we're pretty interested in status. And if we can see that our income is such that it puts into that top level of society, around and about that top 30%, then it wouldn't be a great surprise to find out that that's something that makes us happy.
At some point someone's going to have to tease out which of these possible explanations is correct. For what we do about happiness and our plans for the future does depend upon which of the possible explanations of our observed facts is true. I think I would plump for a joint explanation: that rising incomes makes everyone happier in general but there's also a competitive, or relational aspect to it as well, meaning that getting into the top 30% of any particular society's income distribution is in itself pleasing. The one I don't believe though is that there's some low level of income at which more adds nothing to happiness. But do understand that's belief there, we simply don't have enough information to be sure either way.
