Money does buy a lot of things that enhance well being and many of lifes problems can be solved if you have enough money. But past that point, scientific evidence suggests, more money may not make you happier. Though still the quality of life is better, and id rather be rich and miserable than poor and miserable. 160 yet wanting more is labeled greed and wanting more, globally, in the form of economic growth, likewise gets tarred 160 as a kind of greed.

There are even those like climate activist bill mckibben who deem 160 economic growth a bad thing. But thats 160 supercilious in a world still far from the point where everyone has enough to live decently. Indeed, theres evidence that on average theyre stingier, less charitable, and just less nice.

Its not clear whether wealth makes one mean, or being mean helps make one richer. But either way, many though not all rich people feel 160 superior and disdainful. However, if lefties then arguably have a point that wealth tends to go to the wrong people, that seems to be a basic fact of human society that cannot be undone without destroying the sources of economic growth and progress that is, people striving to better their personal situations that have meantime made the world as a whole so much richer, especially in the last century, eliminating so much squalor and misery. Getting back to happiness, what the word actually means is a big and difficult question.

But people generally seem born with or to develop a set point along the happiness/unhappiness spectrum, to which they tend to revert eventually after the impact of any vicissitude. One element of a happier personality is a sense of gratitude not taking ones blessings for granted. A related key reason why, beyond a certain point, added wealth doesnt increase happiness is what social scientists call the adaptation effect. One adapts psychologically to a new higher living standard the surprise wears off and the new normal becomes what you now expect and take for granted. Also relevant here is a set of kenyan socioeconomic experiments reported by the economist.

In small villages, sizable cash grants were given at random echoing the typically unequal distribution of economic growth. But notably, as the economist explained, it was not inequality in general that bothered the unlucky, so much as a decline in their own wealth relative to the mean. That is, their sense of well being was governed not by their absolute wealth levels but, rather, by the comparison against their peers. The cash grants raised a villages average wealth, making the non recipients poorer compared not just to the recipients but to the average. keeping up with the joneses is a very real psycho social force. As the economist further says, in evaluating ones relative position one tends to look at those above rather than below so, when our own lot improves, we shift our reference group to those who are still better off. In other words, we are never satisfied, since we quickly become accustomed to our own achievements. perhaps that is what spurs people to earn more, and economies to grow. my emphasis.

Dissertation In Law

Conclusion: to keep people from getting rich would not be good for the poor, but bad. In today's materialistic world, the phrase that money can't buy happiness' is tending to be proved hence otherwise. Social research and surveys have shown results based on an individuals income, health and the political scenario which is dominant in his or her region. It is quite obvious that the gap between the privileged and the not so is growing into a great divide giving rise to different class and status, thus defining ones social circle. It should therefore be understood how an individuals economic status affects their personal happiness throughout all aspects of life. Many tend to refer to this age old quote especially when they tend to belong to sector of people who can't afford the modern day luxuries of life.

What they do not realize is that money, might in fact do just that, buy happiness. On the other hand, those who have pockets as heavy as themselves think that money is nothing but a burden and a complication in life, which is too networked to figure out, let alone solve. Whether it rsquo s wall street bankers earning lavish multi million dollar bonuses or two bit city managers in los angeles county bringing in higher salaries than president obama the recessionary economic climate has helped spur outrage and revulsion at those of us collecting undeserved lucre. Sure, there are philanthropists like warren buffet and bill gates, who have given billions of their net worth away and have made the world a better, healthier, safer place. American families who make over $300,0 a year donate to charity a mere 4 percent of their incomes. The statistic should not be surprising, as studies by university of minnesota psychologist kathleen vohs and her collaborators have shown that merely glimpsing dollar bills makes people less generous and approachable, and more egocentric. An international team of researchers led by jordi quoidbach report in the august 2010 issue of psychological science that, although wealth may grant us opportunities to purchase many things, it simultaneously impairs our ability to enjoy those things.

Their first study, conducted with adult employees of the university of li ge in belgium showed that the wealthier the workers were, the less likely they were to display a strong capacity to savor positive experiences in their lives. Furthermore, simply being reminded of money by being exposed to a picture of a huge stack of euros dampened their savoring ability. Participants aged 16 to 59 recruited on the university of british columbia campus were entrusted with the not unpleasant task of tasting a piece of chocolate.

Before accepting the chocolate, however, they were obliged to complete a brief questionnaire. For half of the participants, this questionnaire furtively included a page with a picture of canadian money allegedly for an unrelated experiment , and for the other half, it included a neutral picture. Although the ostensibly irrelevant photo was unlikely to have elicited more than a cursory glance, it had a pronounced effect on the volunteers rsquo behavior.

Those ldquo primed, rdquo or subconsciously reminded, of money ended up spending less time consuming the chocolate and were rated by observers as enjoying it less. How to explain these results? the researchers argue that because wealth allows people to experience the best that life has to offer, it ultimately undermines their ability to savor life rsquo s little pleasures. Once we rsquo ve had the opportunity to drink the finest french wines, fly in a private jet, eat foie gras with edible gold leaf, and watch the super bowl from a box seat, coffee at starbucks with a friend, a sunny day after a week of rain, or an unexpected reese rsquo s peanut butter cup on our desks just doesn't provide the same jolt of happiness it used to. Indeed, a landmark study of lottery winners showed just that: people who had won between $50,0 and $1,0,0 in 1970s dollars were less impressed by life rsquo s simple pleasures than people who experienced no such windfall. Maybe seeing banknotes triggers feelings of disgust due to associations with greed or just with germs or stirs up our money worries, and those feelings of disgust, anxiety, or unease may be enough to lose our appetites just a little and curb enjoyment of the chocolate bar. In a book i'm writing, i devote an entire chapter to the costs of materialism and wealth.

The single biggest culprit, i argue, is that having money raises our aspirations about the happiness that we expect in our daily lives, and these raised aspirations can be toxic. They say you can never go back to holding hands, but it's also hard to go back to economy class from business , to sleeping on a futon with a bunch of roommates from your comfortable master bedroom in a split level , or to eating at chain restaurants after regularly partaking of the cuisines of mario batali and bobby flay . Unfortunately, raised aspirations don rsquo t only lead us to take things for granted and impair our savoring abilities. They steer us to consume too much, tax the planet's resources, overspend and undersave, go into debt, gamble, live beyond our means, and purchase mortgages that we can rsquo t afford. Not long ago, i read a newspaper article that quoted the shocking statistic that 20 percent of americans trade in their automobiles every two years.