The earliest studies had data only for a few mainly developed countries. They found that richer individuals within a country were generally happier than poorer individuals, but that average degree of happiness was not greater in richer countries than in poorer ones. This led to various attempted explanations, but the most common was the claim that happiness depends on how rich a person is relative to others in the same country or region. This was supposed to be the reason why average happiness did not appear to be higher in richer than poorer countries since one’s peers also have higher incomes in richer countries. Such a relative income hypothesis was not implausible, but like many other seemingly plausible theories based on limited data, it turned out to be wrong when happiness data became available for many countries at very different stages of economic development.
Stevenson and Wolfers’ “Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being”, published in Brookings Papers, Spring 2008, is the best discussion I have seen of happiness data for a large number of countries (I comment on their paper in the same volume). They reproduce the result found with the early data that high-income persons within a country are much happier on average than poor persons. They also find, however, contrary to earlier findings, that average degree of happiness is higher in countries with higher average per capita incomes, and that the relation between income and happiness among countries appears to be about as strong as the relation within countries.
Happiness in the United States does not appear to be exceptional in these cross-country comparisons since Americans are much happier on average than are individuals in much poorer nations. The US data show the high average degree of happiness that is appropriate to its high average incomes. Technically, what I mean is that the US falls about on the curve that bests fits the relation between happiness measures and incomes –see Stevenson and Wolfers, Figures 4 and 5. They argue, correctly I believe, that it is best, as in these figures, to compare the relation between changes in degree of happiness with percentage, not absolute, changes in levels of average incomes across countries. A $1000 increase in per capita income means a lot more to persons in poor countries than to those in rich countries.
On the whole, the data also indicate that reported average happiness tends to rise over time within a country as per capita incomes rise, or falls when per capita incomes fall, as in countries after the fall of communism. One apparent exception is the United States, where reported average happiness did not increase during the past three decades even though average incomes did. Stevenson and Wolfers provide a number of possible reasons why this occurred, including non-comparable data over time, and increasing income inequality in the US during this period. Still, this result remains something of a puzzle, given all the other evidence on the positive relation between reported happiness and income.
The big question that is not answered by their results, or by those of other economists who have used happiness data, is what happiness data tell us about wellbeing. That is, about lifetime “utility” of persons who differ by income and other characteristics? Virtually all economists who have written on happiness automatically assume that it is a quantitative measure of utility, and that this provides a way to make interpersonal comparisons of utility and wellbeing. But I argue in my comment on the Stevenson-Wolfers paper that “happiness”, even if accurately measured by these surveys, is not the same as utility or wellbeing. Rather, happiness may be an important component of utility that often, but not always, moves in the same direction as utility.
I use health as an analogy to happiness. Individuals generally get more utility when they expect to live longer and are in better health. However, they do not try to simply maximize how long they live and the quality of their health since they may trade off lower life expectancy for higher income by taking jobs with greater risks to their lives, or for pleasures of food, drink, driving fast, and other activities. The same is true for “happiness. Yes, individuals generally prefer to be happier, but sometimes they are willing to trade off happiness for other behavior that gives them greater utility.
This distinction helps explain why so many persons want to immigrate, and many have immigrated, to the United States (and other richer countries). Their lives are often very difficult for a number of years since they usually come with little money, do not have jobs, may not know English, encounter discrimination, and experience other obstacles and difficulties. They may be quite unhappy for a number of years-I have not found happiness data for immigrants- but many of them stick it out, while the unhappiest immigrants may return to the countries they came from. The immigrants who remain do not believe they made the wrong decision to immigrate, but anticipate that their lives will get better, and especially that their children will have much better opportunities in the United States than they could have had in their home countries.
I am also doubtful that the decline since 1970 in reported happiness of women compared to men in many countries is an indicator that the utility of women has declined, either absolutely or relatively. Many women who work as well as do most of the housework and childcare do not report themselves as happy, but they reveal a preference for the higher income and status that comes from working compared to staying home full time.
My conclusion is that happiness data have been useful, and the relation with income is plausible. Yet happiness data do not enable us to directly measure utility and wellbeing. I admit I do not know why average degree of happiness has not risen in recent decades in the US as incomes rose. Perhaps the considerations advanced by Stephenson and Wolfers explain why, or perhaps utility has in fact not improved over time, or perhaps more likely happiness statistics are deviating from unmeasured increases in utility.
Adhering to your remarkable writings, I get hold of the idea is actually of the extraordinary theme and also successful tips.Suppose which I may undoubtedly attain exactly what specifically I learn through your views.Thanks a lot!
Posted by: nike shox | 11/08/2010 at 08:02 AM
Unhappily enough, whatever other differences there may be, a
maximally preferable state of affairs is surely preferable to a maximally happy state of affairs. This is so even if hypothetical 'regret studies' were to provide good evidence that a preferable future comes about as a consequence of acting contrary to our current preferences. Those are the key points he seems to be getting at anyhow.
Posted by: lower back pain | 11/23/2010 at 10:11 AM
This is a great blog to model mine after. I hope you don’t mind if i bookmark your site, so that i can easily find it again in the future. Cheers
Posted by: remi online | 12/06/2010 at 10:46 AM
Interesting .. Thanks for the article :)
Posted by: case de pariuri | 12/28/2010 at 03:49 AM
Reading this inspired me to lead a happier and stress free life. Thank you.
Posted by: Holiday home web design | 01/01/2011 at 10:21 AM
To learn that they shall reap what they plant~
Posted by: Coach Wristlets | 01/13/2011 at 09:09 PM
very happy to read your blog.
Thanks for sharing this nice post.I will keep your article in my idea.
Posted by: horse race betting | 01/20/2011 at 10:36 PM
You have become like a guiding light to me. When I started a project
on similar topic I could not get enough information to carry further.
But as soon as I read your article, my project is doing great and
I hope to get an A+ this time. thanks
Posted by: Golf Tips For Beginners | 01/28/2011 at 02:07 PM
We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with valuable information to work on. You have done an impressive job and our whole community will be thankful to you.
Posted by: severe back pain | 03/26/2011 at 10:27 AM
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've joined your feed and look forward to seeking more of your wonderful post. Also, I have shared your site in my social networks!
Posted by: Back Pain Relief Machine | 03/26/2011 at 10:35 AM
Happiness in the United States does not appear to be exceptional in these cross-country comparisons since Americans are much happier on average than are individuals in much poorer nations. The US data show the high average degree of happiness that is appropriate to its high average incomes. Technically, what I mean is that the US falls about on the curve that bests fits the relation between happiness measures and incomes –see Stevenson and Wolfers, Figures 4 and 5. They argue, correctly I believe, that it is best, as in these figures, to compare the relation between changes in degree of happiness with percentage, not absolute, changes in levels of average incomes across countries. A $1000 increase in per capita income means a lot more to persons in poor countries than to those in rich countries.
Posted by: true religion outlet | 04/25/2011 at 02:54 AM
Wonderful to share all this information with us! I liked reading this blog and being inspired by it I really appreciate the time and your effort you put to it. Thank you so much.
Posted by: Israel Tourist Attractions | 05/09/2011 at 08:13 AM
Thank you for sharing all this! I liked reading this blog and being inspired by it. I really appreciate the time and your effort you put to it. Thank you so much.
Posted by: Israel Tourist Attractions | 05/09/2011 at 08:54 AM
Research on happiness entered the economics literature about 40 years ago, and the number of articles and books on this subject by economists has exploded during the past 15 years. Various surveys in countries all over the world have asked individuals to indicate how “happy” they are, where they are usually given 4-10 possibilities, ranging from very unhappy to very happy. Then these answers are related in various ways to income level, age, gender, degree of health, and many other characteristics. I will concentrate on the results by income.
Posted by: Rosetta Stone | 05/21/2011 at 03:40 AM
The traveler was active ; he went strenuously in search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist is passive ; he expects interesting things to happen to him. He goes “sight–seeing”.——Daniel J. Boorstin
Posted by: Cheap Burberry Bags | 07/05/2011 at 09:34 PM
The traveler was active ; he went strenuously in search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist is passive ; he expects interesting things to happen to him. He goes “sight–seeing”.——Daniel J. Boorstin
Posted by: Cheap Burberry Bags | 07/05/2011 at 09:38 PM
The traveler was active ; he went strenuously in search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist is passive ; he expects interesting things to happen to him. He goes “sight–seeing”.——Daniel J. Boorstin
Posted by: Cheap Burberry Bags | 07/05/2011 at 09:53 PM
The traveler was active ; he went strenuously in search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist is passive ; he expects interesting things to happen to him. He goes “sight–seeing”.——Daniel J. Boorstin
Posted by: Cheap Burberry Bags | 07/05/2011 at 10:10 PM
The immigrants who remain do not believe they made the wrong decision to immigrate, but anticipate that their lives will get better, and especially that their children will have much better opportunities in the United States than they could have had in their home countries.
Posted by: huntington beach chiropractor | 07/15/2011 at 05:38 PM
With few exceptions breast feeding is undoubtedly the best way to nourish infants. One of those exceptions is AIDs. AIDs is transmissible through breast milk.
Posted by: folding umbrella | 07/17/2011 at 07:45 PM
Thank you for writing this. For the women of Niger, and for women around the world.
Posted by: lover special umbrella | 07/17/2011 at 07:46 PM
Well done, there is hypocrisy everytime we buy something manufactured overseas by workers whose lives hang in the balance with respect to safety, working conditions, livelihood and politics.
Posted by: Umbrella manufacturers in China | 07/17/2011 at 07:47 PM
This was an excellent post, so thoughtful and smartly crafted.
Posted by: Garden umbrella | 07/17/2011 at 07:48 PM
Wish I had a wheelbarrow load of those gun Pez shooters. One in the package sells for hundreds of dollars! LOL! For collectors only.
Posted by: Advertising umbrella | 07/17/2011 at 07:48 PM
One thing becomes evident upon watching these clips carefully: these three men are angry. They are angry about what was going on in our culture, knew they were in a losing battle, but fought it anyway.
Posted by: Promotion umbrella | 07/17/2011 at 07:49 PM