There is less happiness inequality today than in the 1970′s or 1980′s. And this has occurred despite large increases in income and consumption inequality. Betsey Stevenson and I spell out these facts in a lot more detail in a new paper, “Happiness Inequality in the United States,” forthcoming in the Journal of Legal Studies.
That’s Justin Wolfers, here is much more. This is one reason — but not the only reason — why so many moral arguments from the Left fall on deaf ears when it comes to most Americans. Of course happiness inequality is more fundamental than either income or wealth inequality because we care about outputs, not inputs.
By the way, here is a roof access cage ladder.
I preferred the puffin.
From March 3, 2008 to publication at JLS already. Nice.
As a moderate, it makes sense to me, and suggests just that the left are making (or you are hearing) the wrong arguments.
Wealth matters to happiness, but with declining returns.
Therefore when we all are more wealthy we can allocate resources to non-wealth factors (health, environment) without fear that “takings” will leave us poor and unhappy.
The puffin was better, but Tyler is thinking about your safety. If you are going to scream from the rooftop, you better get there safely… After all, not everyone has bright street numbers painted on the curb and it might take emergency vehicles awhile to locate you if you fall from a standard ladder.
What es32 says, you just need to read the summary – the main reason is not
economic at all, it is equal rights. Hold the champagne guys.
Jay: Utility was invented to capture a particular slice of happiness seeking, but the match never has been 1:1
Happiness inequality is not more fundamental than either income or wealth inequality, because happiness is entirely subjective and unquantifiable and any statistics that claim to measure “happiness” are highly suspect.
Perhaps there is just adjective inflation – So being that being “very happy” in 1970 meant you are ecstatic, where being “very happy” in 2008 means “yeah, I am OK”… Or perhaps technology has changed the type of people who respond to annoying happiness polls (caller ID allows me to ignore phone calls from some happiness poll)… Or perhaps we no longer feel comfortable telling strangers we are unhappy because it is now considered a sign of weakness.
Can we agree that these types of statistics are completely and utterly meaningless in any real scientific way?
All well and good, but the problem with this type of research is that policy advocates use it as an argument against progressive income taxes. It seems that most happiness research is funded by wealthy libertarians who want ammunition for their attempts to maintain, or even grow, inequality in our society. But look, those poor people are happy! So don’t rock the boat!
It’s the Roman empire bread and circuses to keep the hoi polloi placated. I bet the people who embrace this happiness research also favor legalization of drugs, another way to keep the hoi polloi placated and from coming after the elites’ money.
I like you, Tyler, but you get weirder by the day.
This of course is in no way readily quantifiable, but I wonder how much of the increase in happiness among the relatively less affluent has to do with the vast increase in good entertainment options. 300 channels on cable TV, an amazing array of portable video games, iPods, Internet surfing, etc. etc. etc.
In the 1970s, poor people just sat home and prayed CBS, NBC or ABC had something decent to watch.
Of course, general levels of happiness say nothing about the misery people may face at specific points in their lives. Sure, I may be as happy, on average, as an investment banker. But he has a lot less worry to about if his mother contracts HIV or his child wants to go to an out-of-state school.
Who cares about the inequality of happiness? I don’t think the average leftist would prefer if Bill Gates’ favorite football team does poorly.
In the previous comment A and B should be the ones with high school degrees making 50000$ a year while C and D are university-educated and make 100000$ a year. Sorry for the confusion.
Matt: That is really an excellent point. I wish that had appeared earlier in the thread, so that more people would read it.
Assistant: “odograph, your reference to allocating resources is unnerving, given your examples.”
I chose some quick things that are broadly accepted as public goods in the modern, democratic, market economies. We certainly have a National Institutes of Health, and an Environmental Protection Agency. It’s a bit of hand waving to argue a parallel world without those.
Assistant: “Next – we are wealthy enough as a people that most of us can choose employment on some basis other than dollars alone:
I think a lot hangs on your word “most” (in place of “all”) and the influence of luck in that. I think we’re rich enough that bad luck in hereditary disease, say, should not be fatal … or even sentence someone to serial bankruptcy.
it is a good idea
Is it realistic?
Comments on this entry are closed.