Can Money Buy Happiness

Can Money Buy Happiness?

Economists use the term utility to represent a measure of the satisfaction or happiness that individuals get from the consumption of goods and services. Because a higher income allows one to consume more goods and services, we say that utility increases with income. But does greater income and consumption really translate into greater happiness? In this paper, I will be showing how greater income and consumption does not really translate into greater happiness and how marginal utility is diminishing as income gets higher. However, consumption effect tells us that more consumption of good and services will increase happiness. At least to a degree, we see that money can buy happiness. But what, if anything, does research on consumer satisfaction tell us about the relationship between happiness and the concepts of utility and marginal utility?

Based on the research, I found that money does not increase the happiness because as income increases the oneЎЇs behavior of preferences or satisfaction changes and will result in diminishing marginal utility.

Sociologist and psychologist would say based on the definition of marginal utility, when additional satisfaction obtained from consuming one additional unit of a good, the oneЎЇs happiness will increase as their income rises. And because of consumption effect, people are happier when they consume more goods and services. Studies by psychologists and socialists show that, both within a country and across nations, the happiness level of people increases with the income level, but only slightly. For example, using regional and cultural classifications, the Northern European countries with high incomes score top on happiness, followed by the group of English- speaking US, UK, Australia, and Ireland. Central and South American countries including Brazil come next, followed by the Middle East, the Central European, Southern and Eastern European, the Indian Sub-continent, and Africa which does not, however, come last. Southern and Western Europeans score significantly lower than Africa. And the last group is East Asia, including the country that leads in income, Japan. Singapore has an income level 82.4 times that of India. Even in terms of purchasing power parity instead of using exchange rate, Singapore is still 16.4 times higher than India in income. However, the happiness scores of both countries are exactly the same, both significantly higher than that of Japan. This is due mainly to the inter group difference between the high-income and high-happiness within either of these two groups. Economist would see that there would a diminishing marginal utility, a principle that as more of a good is consumed, the consumption of additional amounts will yield smaller additions to utility. Combination with relative income effects, environmental disruption effects, and over-estimation of the excess burden of taxation, results in the over spending on private consumption and under provision of public goods and may make economic growth welfare reducing. Limitations of the existing research is that they exempt the demographic factors, including income, age, gender, race, education, and martial status, There is also evidence that the more materialistically inclined are less happy. People whose goals are intrinsic, for example, oriented toward self-acceptance, affiliation, and community felling, are happier than those whose goals are extrinsic such as oriented towards some external rewards such as financial success, popularity, and attractiveness.

As illustrate above, when oneЎЇs customary consumption level is indicated by the point A, the welfare curve is X. When oneЎЇs customary level increases to B, the curve moves to Y. Thus, the welfare level does not increase BBЎЇЎЇ but only marginally to BBЎЇ. However, the marginal welfare of consumption may increase. This makes the individual feel that having more money to spend becomes more important. However, the long-run welfare curve is the curve that passes through AЎЇBЎЇCЎЇ which has a much lower marginal welfare of consumption. ( Ng 315). This tells us that higher income and consumption may increase the preference for even higher levels but they may in fact decrease the happiness level if the consumption level remains unchanged. Higher consumption makes us adapted to the higher level and makes us needing even higher consumption to remain at the same welfare level. To maximize happiness in the long run, one should start with not too high a consumption level so as to be able to gradually increase the level over time. In this perspective children of the rich may really suffer a disadvantage. They start off being accustomed to very high levels of consumption which they may find difficult to surpass, hence suffering in happiness terms.

Individual irrational choice, including the rat race for making more money. At the individual level, higher incomes increase not only the absolute but also the relative income and consumption levels and hence are perceived to be very important. However, at least certain minimum level, higher incomes do not really make the individual significantly happier. Although there is evidence that the more materialistically incluned are less happy. People, whose goals are oriented toward self-acceptance, affiliation, and community feeling, are happier than those whose goals are oriented towards some external rewards such as financial success, popularity, and attractiveness. Most people are sacrifice things more important for happiness in order to make more money. This irrational materialistic bias influenced by both nature and nurture. A more rational people are those behavior is controlled relatively more by the reward penalty system than by automatic, inflexible, and hard-wired responses. In other words, our behavior is affected by genetically. And also an individual may prefer something without liking it and wanting it.

We are also brought up in a consumption oriented society with incessant and omnipresent advertisements encouraging us to consume more good and services. This advertising and facilitators favor of consuming goods and services is because people can only profit by selling good and services, not by selling leisure or happiness as such. The animal spirit and the influence of a materialistic society interacted to cause a vicious cycle towards insatiable demand for higher incomes. For example, it seems that no income group is contented with their income level, as judged from the answers to the following question by Americans in 1980 ÐŽoWhat would be the smallest incomeÐŽ¦your family would need to make ends meet?ÐŽ± (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 1986). As Lebergott comments, ÐŽ®the more one has, the