http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n22/story5.html
Please add an intelligent comment (minimum 5 sentences) in response to the linked article. Be sure to use a minimum of one quote in your response. Optional: Comment on a classmate's post in a second post (minimum 3 sentences) *Use only your first name, last initial and class period.
I found this interview interesting because, through the question and answer format, Lane was able to cover many aspects of happiness. Lane mentioned some very important points in his interview. One point was the level of happiness wealth actually contributes. Lane explained how gaining wealth brings temporary happiness, more things and less problems, but does not have long lasting effects on happiness because people adjust to their improved economic situation. “If you won a lottery or if you get an increase in pay, it does have a momentary, important effect. You feel better. You're happier. That's short term. Very quickly you adjust to that, and the effect is dissipated, in the sense that you've set your standard higher.” Another important point Lane made was the benefit affluent countries have over their people. “Then you go back to the psychology of the developing countries where money has greater effect on well-being. That's the paradox of my message. I think we should try to stay as prosperous as we can so that we can then engage in and enjoy the nonmaterial parts of life.” Keeping a certain level of wealth, enough to not worry and low enough find enjoyment in life, is a balance that cannot keep people happy without the correct mindset. I believe being wealthy does not always cause less enjoyment of small joys as long as the person does not become materialistic.
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Caitie Perricone
Jackson Mariotti
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
Robert Lane makes the argument we have all heard; money doesn't buy happiness. That is straight forward, and somewhat true. He argues that once money buys your basic needs, it can't make you happier. As a whole this might be true. He provides facts saying that, "The safest thing to say is that after you've arrived above the poverty level, levels of income have no relationship to happiness." This struck me as odd, however. To me it is simple; one must use their money in the right way to have it increase their happiness. A pile of money just sitting there will not make anyone happier, but using that money to buy a cruise for you and your friends will. If people used their excess money on experience and others, I guarantee they will be happier. Also, while it is not a guarantee that having money will make you happy, it is much easier to be happy than if you didn't have any money.
I do not feel that money is the success to a happy life. If you have money, but other key factors to happiness is missing such as an enjoyable job, a feeling of purpose, and friends and family, money cannot substitute all that is missing. But, if these key factors are a part of your life, money could raise the level of happiness someone has. Professor Lane states, "If you enjoy what you're doing, it really doesn't matter how much you're earning, provided you're not poor." I think that as long as you have people in your life that make you happy, a feeling of purpose, and enough money to support yourself, whether or not you are rich should not determine if you are happy or not. Lane states, "Companionship is a word I use to cover friendship and family. The evidence is quite strong in every study of subjective well-being that a good family life contributes more to high subjective well-being -- happiness, if you like -- than anything else, and that doing things with friends contributes more." Its how you spend time to enjoy yourself with others that really matters. Money should not be the only key to happiness.
ReplyDeleteClaire Paterson
Class 3
A statement that stood out to me from the article was, ""Money, once it has satisfied people's basic needs, does not buy happiness." I would disagree with this idea. I think that when people's basic needs are satisfied such as food and shelter it is easier for them to live a happy life. Without the stresses of a lack of basic needs one will have a greater ability to enjoy life. Happiness in some cases is a lack of worry or ill thinking. Circumstances in your life may make you unhappy even with an abundance of money but it is easier to be happy with access to basic necessities.
ReplyDeleteCassidy M.
Period 6
Everyone would like to think that having money can't make you happy. We'd all like to think that we are nice people who love each other and would turn away from money because, "Money does not buy happiness." However, to be honest with ourselves it really does help! Now just having material possesions and having no one around to share them with may not make you happy but, if you looked at a very poor family and a very rich family both loving each other equally then the rich one would easily be happier. Money cannot purely bring happiness on its own but when used as an addition to a healthy family life, great job that you love, and plenty of stress relieving activities is what I truly believe can make you happy. "It is an elusive concept. It is a feeling of subjective well being, and that doesn't always have an objective reference, doesn't leave a trail of evidence." This quote pretty much sums up this entire matter, in that you can't actually ever tell how happy a person is. Only they can know what is going to make them smile and you cannot judge them for that opinion.
ReplyDeleteSonny G. Pr. 6
Money is not the success to being happy. To me the key to happiness is, if you have good friends, a likable job, and overall an enjoyable life. The article states, "Economics is a discipline or study of wealth, not of happiness or utility, even as they define it: getting what you want, preference ordering." Happiness shouldn't come from wealth, it should come from your amusement in life.
ReplyDeleteTeagan
We all grow up with the saying that 'money can't buy happiness' repeated to us over and over again, and I think this article does a very good job of describing why people get the idea that it does. I think the way he described that the happiness you are talking about doesn't come from economic gain "but from what other people think of you", you do have to admit that most people are happier when they know others respect them, like them, and believe that they've done well for themselves. They feel happy when people say are impressed by what they've got and where they are in life. Also the way that the author answered the question of if doing something you enjoy for a living affects happiness. I like how he said that "If you enjoy what you're doing, it really doesn't matter how much you're earning, provided you're not poor.", because I think this talks about a different kind of happiness, much like the kind that comes from people liking you and respecting where you are in life, but instead it's the fact that you are content with what you have accomplished and what you are doing with your life.
ReplyDeleteLeah B Period 6
This article is very interesting to me. I though it was interesting that Lane divided the difference in happiness based on money between developed and developing countries. He says, "Actually for long term there is no way that you can show that the rich are systematically happier than the not-so-rich. At least you can't in advanced countries." I found this interesting because I don't really understand how happiness can even be measured. Happiness to me seems like something that a person chooses to be no matter how rich or poor. For example, you can be the richest person in the world but also you can be the most unhappy person in the world or you could be the poorest person in the world and be the happiest person in the world. I don't think happiness is dependent on money and the amount of people you know and other factors like that but rather the way you see everything and how optimistic you are; is the glass half full or half empty?
ReplyDeleteJessica M. Period 6
Ahmad Zaidi
ReplyDeletePeriod 6
In this article the author makes the point that money cannot be a cause of prolonged happiness. For example he said “Very quickly you adjust to that, and the effect is dissipated, in the sense that you've set your standard higher.” This shows that even though a person feels really happy when he gets a lot of money but after a few times he gets used to it. I agree with the author when he says that money is not the most important factor in happiness. I also think that money can only be the cause of the happiness as long as it fulfills basic need but other than that no amount of lavish things can make a person happy because you can get used to them. Even though money is important but it is still not as important in making a person happy as a nice family or other factors. For example even if a person is rich but still has a dysfunctional family or if they are alone they still wouldn't be happy.
Michael Caminear Period 6
ReplyDeleteThis article/interview was enjoyable to read because it brought up a lot of concepts about economic happiness that I had never really pondered before. The main point that stood out to me the most was the fact that there is no concrete definition of what economic happiness is. It is very ambiguous and doesn't last long once it is instilled into peoples' lives. Professor Lane, himself, said, "It is a feeling of subjective well-being, and that doesn't always have an objective reference, doesn't leave a trail of evidence..." This further emphasizes the idea that economic happiness can never be officially designed. It also shows how people constantly set a higher standard for themselves once they achieve their financial goals. I don't know if this is a cause of natural human greed, or a result of a natural instinct to improve one's quality of life. Either way, it is interesting to think about why we can never really be economically "happy". Part of it definitely stems from the fact that we can't define happiness or success based on one common set of criteria.
I believe this article, as well as the connection between our economic status and happiness, really supports the idea that happiness is all relative. What I mean is that I do believe money brings happiness, its just less and less happiness as more and more money is acquired. Think of it this way: if I have a dollar and I find ten more, I'm going to be pretty satisfied. If I have a thousand dollars and I find ten more, its not so special anymore. When Professor Lane talks about having people rate their happiness on a scale of "Very happy, somewhat happy, to not happy," he also emphasizes the fact that our happiness is always based around how we are feeling at any given moment. I'm as happy finding a quarter on the ground as some people are making a million dollar profit day trading. For that reason, like Lane said, money can absolutely grant happiness, but once it fulfills our necessities , its effects will wane quickly. I'm not so sure I agree with Adam Smith's point that we are happy with more money because of how it makes other people see us. If I was filthy rich, I'm not sure I would even want that many other people knowing. If there is one type of conflict brought about by having too much money, it would definitely be caused by other people knowing you had said money. But, then again, some people would do anything for fame, and sometimes money is all you need to connect the two.
ReplyDeleteCameron O.
Period 6
I liked the point that Robert Lane makes in this article. He acknowledges that money does buy happiness to some extent, that it is needed to satisfy basic needs. People aren't happy when they're insecure, and they won't be happy. He says, "Once they are plunged into a situation where they're unsure about the next meal, the job or someone they know who is unemployed, they're not at their best." He realizes that money is an essential component of happiness, but only to a certain degree. Once people begin to have an excess of money, buying things that they don't really need won't make them much happier. He says, "I think we should try to stay as prosperous as we can so that we can then engage in and enjoy the nonmaterial parts of life." This is saying that we should remain a wealthy, powerful country because the wealth allows us to have the freedom to be happy, and to enjoy our lives. The excess money that we do have should go towards things that will truly make us happy, not be wasted on meaningless material objects. Jessica L. Period 6
ReplyDeleteGrowing up I've learned a few things regarding the economy and happiness and how they are correlated. "Money doesn't buy love." A man or woman can shower you with gifts, but in the end, a good relationship isn't all the jewelry, teddy bears, flowers or chocolate you get, its love. Happiness is the same way; money doesn't buy happiness.You can have all the money in the world and be alone and miserable. As through lots of movies and books these days, a happy person isn't just rich. A happy person has friends, family, someone they love, an occupation you look forward to, etc. A person who has a cumbersome job and works 24/7 comes home everyday to the same lonely apartment; they aren't happy. In a way, happiness beats money. If you are poor, but you have all the puzzle pieces, maybe you'll grow to be successful. As a wise proverb said, "No pain, no gain." If you don't have to fight to get to a high economic status, then you haven't experienced failure. Failure is the key to success. A person with many failures can gain success. As Professor Lane explains, "...'Taking all things together, how satisfied are you with your life?' That means you're appraising your life, not just how you are now." People who are happy don't have the wealthy life, some are poor and struggling, but happy with what they do have. Money doesn't buy happiness, only the people around you and your environment can determine if your truly happy.
ReplyDeleteMiranda S
Period 6
In this article, Professor Lanes discusses the correlation between happiness and the amount of money that people have. His argument is, "Actually for long term there is no way that you can show that the rich are systematically happier than the not-so-rich. At least you can't in advanced countries." The last sentence of that quote is what I find most interesting because in a country like the United States the rich are billionaires and the not-so-rich could be considered the middle class. The only differences between these to classes are the amount of material items that a person can afford and the amount of other services and luxuries that they get to experience. In this case Professor Lane believes that happiness does not correlate with wealth because material objects and luxeries don't equal happiness. While in less developed countries the rich are those who can afford to put food on the table and have a regular source of income to support their families verses those who live pay check to pay check and worry about where their next meal will come from. In this case happiness can be found in money because the economic security a family feels can make people happy.
ReplyDeleteHannah Beatty
The author, Dorie Baker, brings things to the next level after "money can't buy you happiness", a statement that I have always hated sue to the vague matter. Although, her points are very clear and precise in saying "People are better people when they're secure, when they're well taken care of and have adequate resources. Once they are plunged into a situation where they're unsure about the next meal, the job or someone they know who is unemployed, they're not at their best. Then you go back to the psychology of the developing countries where money has greater effect on well-being. That's the paradox of my message. I think we should try to stay as prosperous as we can so that we can then engage in and enjoy the nonmaterial parts of life."
ReplyDeleteI have always thought that money is a very important part of being happy because it can prevent people from crossing the poverty line into wondering where their next meal will come from, as stated above. But along with this, I believe that when we try to make ourselves happy it will always end up poorly. As a society, I think that we can agree that we value happiness more then almost anything else. I believe that this is why we feel satisfaction when we give happiness to others. This is what I believe leads us to find companionship and what the feeling of loneliness stems from.
However, I also believe that boredom is one of the main causes of people being unhappy. The author touched upon this briefly when she mentioned the book about finding happiness in the workplace. She stated that people who use their minds and think find themselves much happier then people who have repetitive jobs. From this I would be lead to believe that people who have things to do are the happiest. Although there is a fine line. I know that during the Summer their always comes a point in time where I find myself wishing that I was in school because I needed something to do. Although there also comes a point in time when I wish it were summer because my schedule is too full for me to get any sleep.
This leads me to my key point; there are many ways to be happy in life but they all come in moderation. Family time is just as important as an isolated walk in the woods or sleep and a good economic standing is just as important as filling time with activities.
Shoshanna Longo
Period 6
swag
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to be poor, and to be happy, and it is possible to be rich and miserable, poor and miserable, rich and happy. To an extent, money may nor factor into happiness, aside from the security of knowing that neither you, nor your family will work themselves to the bone to die in squalor. Given my only near-seventeen years of life, and my own personal situation, maybe I'm not the best one to speak on the subject, maybe I shouldn't speak at all on it. I recognize that.
ReplyDeleteBut, as the acclaimed band of philosophers, the Beatles, once sang: "I don't care to much for money, money can't buy me love." Can it buy happiness, though? With a sufficient amount of money, one need never work, or xe could hold a stable, well-paying job, and wouldn't have to worry about money at all. Is that happiness? Long amounts of time, in one could do anything?
Or nothing at all?
The thing is, there's no exact formula for happiness (and I'm not talking about dopamine, yes you scientific folk, I know it's got it's own chemical formula) Some people are made happy by surrounding themselves with people and lively chatter, other's are at peace in a dark room, reading about the murder of an ancient duke. Some feel a distinct satisfaction when clipping paper with a pair of scissors, or smelling candles. Sometimes, all we need to be happy is a walk in the woods on a warm spring day. Sometimes, all we need is the satisfaction of having dueled The Elite Four and Champion, beating them all.
However, too much walking might wear the scenery out, and The Elite Four can only remain challenging for so long. Happiness wears down, and too much of one thing that makes you happy could leech the enjoyment out of it. When I was younger, I absolutely loved marshmallows, I snuck into my parent's pantry and took the bag, and I would eat them because, hey. Marshmallows were like, the best thing ever. Then, I had too many, and got sick of them. It works a little like that, happiness. Eveantually, if we pursue it hard enough, if we wear down the journey to eternal enjoyment enough, we might just exhaust all of the little happy things in life.
'"Taking all things together, how satisfied are you with your life?"' They had asked, but is satisfaction happiness? If you look in the thesaurus, they're synonyms, but are they really the same? What's the difference between a satisfied smile and a happy one? Perhaps what's to be striven for here isn't happiness, perhaps it's a feeling of accomplishment, of having done something. Perhaps it's meeting frustration, and anger, and the bitter misery that can only come from the most dire of mistakes—maybe it's not about meeting those with a high-five and an unconcerned whoop of joy, but it's about meeting each, wrestling them, and eventually overcoming them.
They're right, happiness is an elusive concept. So maybe we shouldn't really search it out at all, and just let it be a by-product of life, just a kind beam of light to shine down on us occasionally.
i forgot my name again whoops
DeleteT Fryer,
Period 6
I found this Professor Lanes discussion between happiness and the amount of money that people have to be very interesting. The main point that stood out to me the most was the fact that there is no certain definition of what economic happiness is. He continued by saying," Actually for long term there is no way that you can show that the rich are systematically happier than the not-so-rich. At least you can't in advanced countries." I found this to be helpful in stating his argument. Proving that the rich aren't anymore then the normal class. Being rich doesn't always bring you the joy and happiness you believe.
ReplyDeleteRachel C per.6
This was a really interesting interview to analyze because it was different to any other perspective I have heard. Usually there are two sides to the debate on how money effects happiness. Many people believe that happiness is a choice, and no matter your socio-economic position, you can be happy. I believe this to a certain extent, but I also believe that is is naive to say there is no influence. A statement I thought summed up the combination of the two beliefs was when Prof. Lane said "I think we should try to stay as prosperous as we can so that we can then engage in and enjoy the nonmaterial parts of life." This is important because it highlights the fact that the important parts of life are not about money or possessions, but some money is still necessary to enjoy those aspects. For example, if you are living paycheck to paycheck, life is filled with stress and obstacles, and enjoying a walk with your best friend on a nice day just isn't feasible. His points about happiness were valid to me, and reinforced the idea that happiness is both a state of mind and body.
ReplyDeleteEmma P per.6
Professor Lanes discussion about money and happiness was quite interesting, but I was brought up with the phrase "Money can't buy happiness" and I strongly believe this. "If you enjoy what you're doing, it really doesn't matter how much you're earning, provided you're not poor." this is completely true, as long as your are not poor and living on the streets you should be able to enjoy life to the fullest with your friends and family, if you are poor you wouldn't like the situation you are in and would need money to live a more quality life, but once you get a steady job, money no longer becomes a necessity for happiness.
ReplyDeleteAodhan Dunn
Period 6
Professor Lane said, "Taking all things together, how satisfied are you with your life?."
ReplyDeleteThis seems like a standard quote, meaning when you count your victories and tally your losses, did you come out on top. For many people, this equates to a monetary figure, a tradition that Lane is trying to get away from. See, Money does not, and cannot buy happiness. While it is true that you can be dirt poor and be miserable, it is also very possible that you can be one of the top 1% and be equally dissatisfied with life. Sure, it might make it easier to be happy when you are "Rolling in the Benjamins", but it isn't a guarantee. I like to think that Money and happiness are slightly related, but far from dependent.
Ben Greenvall
Period 6
In the end, having money is not going to make you particularly sad. I would say the best situation is to have money, but be in the situation where people dont know it, so that they are still with you because you are you. Robert Lane brings up this point that I can relate to a lot. "Money, once it has satisfied people's basic needs, does not buy happiness"? What he does is not that makes a statement and saying this is the truth, but he makes a question out of it. The thing is, I bet a $100000 that you can find someone who are happy, and also have a tremendous amount of money. Its not like there is a definition to this, because there are always exceptions.
ReplyDeleteChristian F period 6
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy family has a free ask police where we are aloud to ask our parents anythings and they will respond to it the best they can and they wont lie. It makes for a nice relationship (not the point). IN our families because of this police we have lots of talks about different topics. Wealth and the flaunting of it has come up a lot. Also we have talked about if money makes you happy. And as Robert Lane says, "If you won a lottery or if you get an increase in pay, it does have a momentary, important effect. You feel better. You're happier. That's short term. Very quickly you adjust to that, and the effect is dissipated, in the sense that you've set your standard higher." If you get money that money makes you happy but only for a few second and then you want more bigger better. We watched The Joneses the other day and really it was just people with to much money buying more stuff to prove that they had more money sadly no one was happy. and so even though they had all this money no one was happy.
ReplyDeletesam period 6