The "Price" of Happiness: Some Things Can't be Commodified
Can money buy happiness? Some social scientists in the UK took a look. And they discovered that the primary factors that make for a happy life aren't money, but strong social connections.
The researchers created a "life satisfaction scale," that ranged from one (miserable) to seven (euphoric). They then tried to put the unquantifiable in money terms, figuring the "extra money the average person would have to earn every year to move up one point on the scale to another. They also worked out how far life events and changing social relationships on their own could move someone up the satisfaction scale." The results don't surprise me but are worth considering. From the story:
By comparing these two types of information, they were able to put a "price" on social and lifestyle factors. So, for example, they found that having excellent health was worth the equivalent of a £304,000-a-year pay rise in how happy it made you feel.If one is broke, money becomes a bigger factor, of course. But some of the unhappiest people I have known have also been the wealthiest.Marriage increases happiness levels by the same amount as earning an extra £54,000 a year, although, surprisingly, living together was worth more, at an extra £82,500. Meanwhile, chatting to your neighbours on a regular basis would make you as happy as getting a £40,000-a-year pay boost.
The scale also works in reverse, however, so that the grief of becoming widowed decreases your satisfaction-with life by the same amount as your salary dropping £200,000 a year.
Dr Nattavudh Powdthavee, one of the main researchers, said: "One of the things we wanted to find out was the answer to the age-old question--can money buy the greatest amount of happiness for us?"
What they found, he explained, was that the results showed the importance of social relationships. "One potential explanation is that social activities tend to require our attention while they are being experienced, so that the joy derived from them lasts longer in our memory," he said. "Income, on the other hand, is mostly in the background. "We don't normally have to pay so much attention to the fact that we'll be getting a pay packet at the end of the week or month, so the joy derived from income doesn't last as long."
Still, I think the good professors missed the most important factor. This is Smith on life, so take it for what it is worth, but I have come to believe that the primary factor for our happiness--or even more important, joy--is love, the ability to love others, to be loved, and for those of a faith persuasion, to give love to and experience love from, one's concept of God. Get the love part right, particularly when it is experienced as a two-way street, and chances are you will be joyful--even in times of stress, grief, dying, and turmoil. As the Beatles put it, "Love is all you need." The rest is details. And that truly is priceless.Labels: Love. Happiness.


4 Comments:
I'd agree in part. Love amounts to a lot, but only after the basic needs are met - food, water, shelter, and clothing.
I won't generalize, but for me, I doubt I'd be happy if I'm starving or thirsy, irregardless if anyone loves me.
Love itself has been redefined to be something more like "what I like" instead of the deeper, moral, "what you should do" meaning that it used to have. Unless we get it back from the individualized modern definition, it's not going to bring the satisfaction that comes from doing good and respecting morality.
The love we need is not the gooey feeling of affection. It is the understanding in the marrow of our bones that we are here to care for and support each other, and the willingness to engage in radical self giving when the need arises.
Agreed, but that deep feeling of caring doesn't come from the marrow of our bones, even if it feels like it does. It comes from culture and experience. Our culture is changing the meaning of love to be a mix of selfish desire, "gooey affection", fear of loneliness and jealous possessiveness, and if you feel those, that's love. Those of us that practice unselfish caring for someone we ought to care for even if we don't want to are picking up very archaic and vestigial remnants of morality that we no longer teach today. We teach the opposite now, that morality is best when it is thrown off and duty is a dirty word and people should be free to do what they want without anyone trapping them into obligations, and soon that will trump the old understanding.
I love every opportunity I have to post this poem, and this explains the difference between affection and love:
If thou must love me, let it be for nought
by Elizabeth Barrett Browning
If thou must love me, let it be for nought
Except for love's sake only. Do not say
"I love her for her smile—her look—her way
Of speaking gently,—for a trick of thought
That falls in well with mine, and certes brought
A sense of pleasant ease on such a day"—
For these things in themselves, Beloved, may
Be changed, or change for thee,—and love, so wrought,
May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
Thine own dear pity's wiping my cheeks dry,—
A creature might forget to weep, who bore
Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
But love me for love's sake, that evermore
Thou may'st love on, through love's eternity.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home