Protein^®

If you’re like almost half (49 percent) of Americans, you’re “thriving” on rung seven through 10, according to the most recent Gallup World poll. Another 47 percent of us are “struggling” on rungs five through six, and four percent are “suffering” below rung four.

Looking into the backstory behind the overall estimates of “thriving” vs. “suffering,” we learn that the vast majority of Americans surveyed (84 percent) experienced enjoyment the day before participating. In comparison, only 38 percent experienced stress, 30 percent were worried, and 23 percent felt physical pain. A large percent (67 percent) ate healthy food the day before, 60 percent did something interesting, while only 33 percent worried about money. It’s these factors—not feeling pain, not worrying about money, and having options to do and eat what we enjoy—that are associated with happiness.

As we learn just what makes us happy and how reliable our happiness polling can be, researchers and policy makers are trying to decide just how much our happiness can and should affect policy and vice versa. First, the ultimate question: does money bring happiness?

Money = Happiness
In the 1970s, Richard Easterlin, then an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, argued that, once basic needs are met, more wealth doesn’t mean greater happiness. Recently, the Easterlin Paradox, as it’s termed, has been challenged. Betsey Stevenson, assistant professor of business and public policy, and Justin Wolfers, associate professor of business and public policy at the University of Pennsylvania, argue that money does bring happiness. The Gallup World Poll, Stevenson argues, shows that over 132 countries, happiness per capita and average income are correlated at .82 (a perfect correlation is 1.0). “That tells us that income is actually a much better metric for happiness than we ever thought it was,” says Stevenson. It appears that the wealthier we and our countries are, the happier we are, overall. And, says Will Wilkinson, research fellow with the Cato Institute, double the income per capita in a country and you’ll get a significant increase in happiness.

One exception to this rule: the United States. According to Ed Diener, distinguished professor of psychology at the University of Illinois and Martin Seligman, director of the University of Pennsylvania Positive Psychology Center, in the past five decades, while income has increased and gross domestic product has tripled in the U.S., overall life satisfaction has stayed the same.

The reason? Americans may have gotten used to wealth. Wilkerson points to the habituation effect; as expectations and standards change over time, the bar by which we measure our happiness is constantly raised, canceling out any relative increase in happiness. Or, we could just be experiencing larger trends that have little to do with wealth. “The things that could keep happiness from rising could be an increase in uncertainty that people feel in preparing for retirement, health care, people are more mobile, they’re marrying at later ages, getting settled later, all those things could have a negative impact,” says Stevenson. Or, we could be expressing the negative outcomes that accompany wealth; in the U.S. rates of anxiety and depression have increased 10-fold in the past 50 years, according to Diener and Seligman.

Whatever the cause, the researchers agree on one thing, the link between wealth and happiness isn’t about consumption. As Stevenson points out, it’s not about going out and buying more, but about having freedom from pain and worry, and having more days of enjoyment and more choice about what you do with those days that’s associated with happiness. So, what policies would give us less pain and more fun?

Happiness As Policy
The U.S. already has some of the facets of happiness: a wealthy, liberal democracy. But Diener and Seligman outline aspects of our lives that bring us more happiness, and they’re not really that surprising: fostering community and relationships, and supporting policies that help us manage health and work. Or, given that the more we have the more we want, learning to live with less could adjust our happiness baseline. Gregg Easterbrook, author of The Progress Paradox, suggests that we relearn how to live in cities, make use of public transportation, and live on less (Worldchanging's Alex Steffen wrote previously on this topic here). “If we were ever to reach a point where the economy calmed down and nobody worried about resource exhaustion,” says Easterbrook, “then it would be possible for people to step back and say, 'as long as I have a roof over my head,' and maybe other things are more important.”

Samantha Cleaver studied public administration at the University of Delaware. She currently works as a freelance writer in Chicago, IL. Read more of her work at www.samanthacleaver.com.

Photo credit: flickr/Daniel Y Go, licensed by Creative Commons.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!
(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Columns at 10:08 AM)