The Economics of Happiness

http://www.usc.edu/dept/pubrel/trojan_family/winter07/happiness.html

I love the new movement by researchers to answer the age-old question, “Does money really buy happiness?” The answer we’re all dying to hear is “no.” But would that actually free us from the pressure of trying to continually improve our standard of living? Would it take away our worries of securing a solid financial future for our children and ourselves? I doubt it.

The article linked above mostly provides the background and beginnings of Richard Easterlin, an economist heralded as the founder of “happiness economics.” It’s an interesting exercise to review the Easterlin Paradox and think about how it applies to your own life.

“Once a society’s basic needs – food, shelter, employment – are satisfied, the accumulation of greater and greater wealth does not generate greater collective or personal happiness over the long run, aside from the temporary uptick over new possessions, like a nice car.”

So now the research has been done to at least partially dispel the myth of the American dream, which is most commonly presented to us in a way that suggests the pursuit of happiness has an end point - lots of money. Once you get there, you live happily ever after.

All of the results mentioned in this article are not surprising, however, I feel these reports are flawed from the foundation. The surveys conducted to reveal the happiness quotient asks participants to rate themselves as “very happy”, “pretty happy,” and “not too happy.” I don’t understand what those terms mean. It reminds me of the scale of pain used by paramedics with the emoticons: Does your face look like this :) ? Then you are “pretty happy”. This :( ? Then you are “Not too happy”. It is crap.

The first time I was asked to rate myself on that type of scale was during my first miscarriage. I was in the back of an ambulance that had just picked me up from the gate of the Dallas/Ft Worth airport after a 3 hour flight where I struggled to maintain consciousness amidst continuous, crippling contractions, losing what appeared to be gallons of blood, after having fought an epic battle with the flight crew to even let me on the plane in the first place so I could get from the small tourist village in Mexico to somewhere in America in order to find out if I was losing my baby, all the while blaming and hating myself for having perhaps eaten a salad or an ice cube which may or may not have caused this entire devastating event. When the paramedic held up the chart to me and said, "Where would you rate your pain on this scale from 1 to 10?" I told him my pain was a 12.

Where you are on the scale – happiness or pain - all depends on the context of that moment.

I imagine these surveys were conceived by even-tempered men without fluctuating levels of estrogen sneaking up on them at any given moment because my happiness is generally too dynamic to measure. If you asked me 2 days ago, I would have rated myself "not too happy." PMS prevailing, I was sinking into the worry pit of my husband's job uncertainty and my 18 year-old getting a D+ her first semester into college. However, ask me today - Pilates prevailing, job prospects looking up, both young children back in school full time - I would rate myself as "Very Happy Indeed."

Research reliability notwithstanding, this article does provide the key to happiness right in paragraph 5:

“Another researcher found that two factors with a measurable and permanent effect on individual happiness are PLASTIC SURGERY (a positive effect) and NOISE (a negative effect).”

I read into this that turning off the kids’ TV and lifting my eyelids is the key to an increase in permanent happiness. Hooray! Finally someone has given me scientific justification for telling my kids to shut up and spending my savings on a mini-face lift and tummy tuck!

Rebuttal from a Toxic Wife

This article irritates me:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/01/16/ftwives116.xml&page=1


It is interesting how the men in this article seem to feel the money coming in belongs to them and not to the family. I'm sure these men don't drive around in economical, practical little SMART cars while their wives spend extravagant amounts of money on nannies and house cleaners. They don't empty their trash at work or clean up after the lunch that they did not prepare for themselves during the day. They do not have primary responsibility for their children. Why do they resent their wives for treating themselves to the same lifestyle?

They seem to think that they didn't choose the life they are living, and, more importantly, don't get anything out of it. I'm sure the shoe polisher used as an example in this article as a superfluous expense also polishes the husbands shoes. (If not, then I believe he would be justified in asking for a divorce and an exemption from spousal support.) Did these men honestly think that marriage meant they would be living with Mary Poppins by day and Tracy Lords by night? Were their mothers like that? Or were they raised by hired help?

They are oblivious to the fact that the "emptiness" of their wives is most likely due to the empty life they have provided by focusing on their egos and financial liquidity and disappearing into work. What woman wouldn't be empty when money is thrown at her to replace attention, affection and respect?

Women also have fantasies about marriage that get quickly shot down. You believe that you will continue to have a boyfriend who will organize and be emotionally present on fantastic dates instead of having to resort to girls nights out just to talk to other adults who view you as an equal. You believe you will have input and influence on your life together instead of finding the reality that his career path is now the compass for your life. You believe that marriage will not change how you crave and relate to each other physically. That he will continue to respect the boundaries of your body and thus seduce you with love and understanding instead of merely coming to bed naked and being upset that you aren't physically present every time that happens.

If they think for a minute they would feel life was more equitable if their wife worked, they would be shocked by the responsibility they would have to themselves take on or hire out to somebody. How could they take business trips or work late every evening if their wife had her own busy career and might be traveling or working late as well? They'd have to at least get someone to water the plants and let the dog out. No matter how much money you make, you still need someone to do the basics tasks such as make sure the money is accounted for and bills are paid, doctors bills are submitted to insurance and the subsequent non-payments by insurance are followed up on repeatedly. Who gets to be home for any contractors or deliveries? Who does the grocery shopping so that there are at least ready made meals on hand? Who keeps the house staff from stealing from you? This doesn't even include the responsibilities to the children. What happens when the kids are sick or get suspended from school? Who steps in as caregiver when the Nanny quits or sends you a text that she's not showing up today? Even the most staffed household needs a responsible leader and backup person.

Getting married and having kids is an expensive thing to do both financially and emotionally, but there is some reason that we are driven to it. There must be something we get out of it that makes up for all of that. We're willing to put endless amounts of effort into attaining cars, houses and bank accounts. Companionship. Support. Comfort. Friendship. Love. Are those things in life these men feel they don't need to work for?

Any man over 35, married or single, still needs someone to depend on for those basic elements of life. Perhaps these poor, put-upon, rich men are better suited for sharing their life with someone more selfless, someone willing to put their needs on hold, provide them with clean clothes, warm meals and comfort while they enjoy the fruits of their white collar labor. Actually, I'm sure a few of their mothers would be more than happy to take them back.