Short interesting article - listen or read:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/12/wilkinson_happiness/

But the corollary for politics is that economic growth and public happiness tend to move in the same direction. The political choice to put a brake on growth is not the social equivalent of choosing a lower-paying, but more meaningful job. It’s the choice to make tens of millions of people slightly less happy than they otherwise might have been.

Maybe something is worth that cost. I just can’t imagine what it might be.

Do you mean situations where the drop in growth would be a good choice?. Maybe in situations where the growth is a threat to the environment and the human life, to reduce the growth is not only a good choice, but it is the only choice.

Of course wealth is not irrelevant to happiness. Only the people who never saw a impoverished person in his or her life and never felt the anguish of a empoverishid future can claim the opposite.

I agree Barto.  That is the one example I thought was worth the cost.  I hope it was obvious to other listeners as well.  It sort of offers an explanation for why people refuse to look at the bigger picture and choose to satisfy their short term desires.  It could be argued that we can make economic growth while, or by, focusing on a long term successful future.

This is from a guy who is a research fellow at the Cato Institute.  Probably should be taken with several large grains of salt.

For those who measure happiness in terms of material possessions, perhaps this is true.  For those who measure happiness in stability of their environment, health and welfare, their may be an another outcome.

Economy measurements in the US are based on criteria that is not necessarily applicable in other areas of the world.  Here we tend to value things differently and our perspective is warped by our circumstances, just in the same way it is in other places around the world.  Venture outside the US and you can find a wide variety of perspectives, many having little to do with “economic growth”, especially the way it is measured here.

From what I can see Economic growth as it is measured here in the US, has more to do with placing more resources in the hands of a few than it does with metering out the benefits to the population as a whole.  So a “strong economy” does not necessarily translate into more wealth for more people. 

If we are suggesting that economic growth means more happiness for more people, then the statistics would fail to support this premise.  If it means making a few people happier, then I would agree.

Nice topic. I have a pretty strong view on this matter. I think this is one of the big lies we believe in the west. There’s a major movement afoot in social science that is studying happiness, and there’s, beyond the need for the basics, very little correlation between wealth and happiness. In fact, one would expect extraordinary happiness in the wealthy countries like the US. Nothing could be further from the truth. Levels of misery, mental illness, malaise, etc. that rivals the worst places to live on earth. There’s a very good book on this topic I recommend to any of you called “Status anxiety”. I was going to add that one often reads about lottery winners who after a predictable time return to levels of happiness very similar to the pre-winning state. It seems that happiness, or life satisfaction, is something of a thermostat in the brain that is pretty resilient to external conditions over the long run. Apparently one way you can change the setting is through some serious meditation. I think this is very good news for the planet and the greater than human world; if this is indeed true, it means that we are laying waste to the planet for no corresponding appreciable benefit to humans as such. I think the Cato institute is reacting to these sorts of reports, because it could mean very big changes especially to the wealthiest. I predict this sort of news could have civilization altering consequences in the long haul. Maybe it will be more significant in the Second try at this thing we call civilization.

Charles - 13 March 2008 10:24 AM

If we are suggesting that economic growth means more happiness for more people, then the statistics would fail to support this premise.  If it means making a few people happier, then I would agree.

As I see, the opposite is true: the economic collapse means less happiness for more people. When the unemployment reachs 25%, and the average salary only covers the 80% of the basic good a family needs just to live the average happiness is low.

Charles - 13 March 2008 10:24 AM

From what I can see Economic growth as it is measured here in the US, has more to do with placing more resources in the hands of a few than it does with metering out the benefits to the population as a whole.  So a “strong economy” does not necessarily translate into more wealth for more people.

I think I see your point.  The US government is concerned with the US economy & the US happiness and not the Worlds.  As long as individual governments are fighting to maximize their own gains we end up with a global “Tragedy of the Commons”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons’

This is the message I assumed the article was calling to attention.

Barto - 14 March 2008 05:52 AM

Charles - 13 March 2008 10:24 AM

If we are suggesting that economic growth means more happiness for more people, then the statistics would fail to support this premise.  If it means making a few people happier, then I would agree.

As I see, the opposite is true: the economic collapse means less happiness for more people. When the unemployment reachs 25%, and the average salary only covers the 80% of the basic good a family needs just to live the average happiness is low.

I agree with Barto here.  The few are getting rich during an economic crunch, while the many suffer.  The few have the resources to weather the storm and the funding to take advantage of other peoples losses.  When an economy is experiencing economic growth the many are in a stable condition and are more likely to reach out to support others and look to solving bigger picture problems.

philosopherdog - 13 March 2008 06:04 PM

There’s a major movement afoot in social science that is studying happiness, and there’s, beyond the need for the basics, very little correlation between wealth and happiness… …I predict this sort of news could have civilization altering consequences in the long haul. Maybe it will be more significant in the Second try at this thing we call civilization.

Here is a good lecture explaining Philosopherdog’s point: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/97

I agree that raising our consciousness to this observation has the potential to refocus our concerns to the greater good, beyond our short term desires.  I certainly hope we can figure this out the first time and not have it come to a second try.

I believe it was Ogden Nash, who stated (probably paraphrased here) in one of his poems, “They say money can’t buy happiness, but did you ever try to buy happiness without money?”

Occam

Money is important only to societies that depend on monetary exchanges to survive.  Prior to it’s existence, happiness did exist.  Surprising as that might seem.

What we are speaking of is power, not wealth.  The power to command any resource you desire.  More power, more theoretical happiness.  However, I think even that has proven to be untrue.

More power, breeds more contempt.  A never ending source of frustration for the powerful is resistance.  If they have the power to stamp out resistance, there is still the nagging paranoia associated with hanging on to power.

This is why those in power always like to emphasize police, defense, while undermining oversight and regulation.  The freedom to do as they please, with the saftey and comfort of knowing that their property and well being are protected.

These are the concepts that the CATO institute would have us embrace, and the only way they would see freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as a possibility.

On the other hand, there is a different mentality that can generate happiness. 

Some would suggest that individual happiness is not possible in a society where some are disenfranchised.  Great happiness can come from looking after the welfare of others, and the world we live in.  Satisfaction of knowing that your contribution to society has not only provided safety and security for yourself and your family, but also to the greater population.

My happiest moments in life are when I brought joy to others.

This discussion reminded me of that famous expression by Bhutan’s king at the UN, which he termed “Gross National Happiness”. I hate to point you to a wikipedia piece, but there’s a little one explaining the idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness . It boggles the mind that GDP is the measure of well being, when it seems that psychological measures of well being are, beyond certain base levels, often inversely proportional. This is another one of those big lies that continues to serve the fat cat interests. Notice that much of the connection, if there is any, between wealth and happiness is due to cultural conditions that suggest that we need to have wealth be a somebody. Why on earth would anyone bother otherwise? Have you ever tried to buy things to make you happy? How long does it last? Don’t forget to calculate all of the disappointment, frustration, wasted time and energy, etc. in your calculation. Again, I recommend a most excellent book on this topic called “Status Anxiety”. It blew my mind.