think carefully on this: are you more or less happy today than a year ago? it might seem an absurd question. in america as in much of the world, stock and house prices have plunged over the past year and jobs have grown scarcer. yet 35% of people surveyed in mid-april described themselves as “very happy.” that’s the same percent as a year earlier.
the pollster, harris interactive, draws a tempting but wrong conclusion from the results. “money and happiness really may not be tied together” reads the title of a report issued friday. don’t suggest that to a jobless parent collecting the last of their unemployment checks as their health insurance lapses and their mortgage payments back up.
there’s an important relationship between wealth and cheer, but it’s tricky. in 1972 economist richard easterlin, then a professor at the university of pennsylvania, reported an odd finding from happiness studies compiled from 19 countries since world war ii. within single countries, the rich are generally happier than the poor -- little surprise. but as a whole, rich countries aren’t much happier than poor ones, at least among countries with enough income to meet basic needs. moreover, as a country’s overall wealth increases, its average level of happiness does not.
the easterlin paradox has since defined the direction of happiness economics, a chipper-sounding but contentious branch of the dismal science. researchers have a couple of explanations. one holds that people care more about relative wealth than absolute wealth. for suburbanites, whose success is put on naked display for the neighbors, household income of $150,000, triple the u.s. average, seems meager if the joneses make $400,000. that would explain why poor countries are as happy as rich ones (so long as they aren’t subjected to too many images of them, perhaps).
another theory holds that people adjust their ambitions with remarkable speed following improvements in economic circumstances, as in the case of the lottery winner who develops a taste for exotic cars. this “hedonic treadmill” helps explain why more gross domestic product per head doesn’t necessarily bring more smiles per head.
some economists insist the easterlin paradox is a flawed finding, and that changes in absolute wealth indeed drive happiness, but with diminishing returns. politics threatens to creep into the research. if relative income influences happiness more than absolute income, the dutch might be sensible for forfeiting half their pay to the state in exchange for universal healthcare, pensions, daycare, textbooks, vacation funds and more. if not, low taxes and few social programs are better.
assuming relative wealth is at least a significant determinant of happiness, america’s “very happy” 35% might be poorer than a year ago, but no worse off than their neighbors. after all, few investment classes and vocations have been spared a downturn. if you’re not already a member of this fortunate bunch, ponder people who’ve got it worse, which, perversely, might make you feel better. average income in america was $38,615 in 2007. smartmoney’s marketers tell me readers of this column likely make well more. average net worth for american households led by persons age 45 to 54 is about $94,000. if you’ve got more, great. if not, think about what you haven’t lost: that figure is down 45% since 2004.
even if you don’t stack up well on u.s. measures, consider how things look for some peer nations about now. u.s. government debt will soon pass 80% of gdp, but italy and greece already owe more than gdp and japan owes almost double. america is borrowing like mad at the moment, so its net government bond sales will total 12.7% of gdp this year. britain’s will total 17.9%, reports barron’s. america’s economy is shrinking, but starting with last year’s downturn and running through 2013, it’s expected to grow by 0.7% a year after inflation, according to the economist intelligence unit. the economies of japan, germany, italy and the u.k. are expected to shrink over the same period.
things are grim all around. so try your best to have a happy memorial day weekend, relatively speaking.
原文链接：
仔细考虑一下：与一年之前，你是否更幸福了？这也许是个荒唐的问题。在美国和世界上的其他许多地方，在过去一年里股价和房价猛跌，工作机会也越来越少，然而，4月中旬的调查发现，涉及人群的35%都认为他们自己“非常幸福”。这个比例和去年一模一样。
harris interactive民意调查从中得出非常有吸引人但并不正确的结论，一份题为“金钱与幸福也许并不紧密相连”的报告将在周五公布。对那些丢了工作、拿着最后几张失业保险支票、且健康保险失效，失去抵押支付金的父母，可别提这回事。
财富与幸福之间有着重要的关系，但很复杂。1972年，经济学家richerd easterlin，后任滨州大学教授，在“二战”之后19个国家进行的“幸福调查”中得出了奇怪结论。在单个国家里，毫无疑问，富人一般来说比穷人幸福。但是总体上，富国并不比穷国幸福，至少对那些拥有足够收入能够满足基本需求的国家来说，的确如此。再者，当一个国家的总体财富增加时，它平均的幸福水平并没有随之增加。
easterlin悖论一开始就界定了幸福经济学，一门喋喋不休且富有争议的沉闷学问。研究者的有两种解释，一种观点认为比起绝对财富，人们更加关心相对财富。郊区居民，习惯将个人成就不加掩饰地向邻居炫耀。对他们来说，遇上家庭收入400000美元的邻居，家庭收入即使是三倍于美国平均水平的150000美元也就显得微不足道了。也许那就可以解释为何穷国和富国一样幸福。（只要他们不被太多自己的想象所困扰）。
另一种理论认为人们会根据经济状况的改善快速地调整自己的梦想，如乐透的中奖者会开始喜欢惹眼的汽车。这种“享乐主义的踏步机”也许有助于解释为何人均gdp的增加并不一定增加每个人脸上的微笑。
一些经济学家坚持认为easterlin悖论是有缺陷的，绝对财富的变化的确对幸福产生影响，但是后者对前者的影响微乎其微。政治威胁要干涉这项研究。如果相对收入比起绝对收入，对幸福影响更大，荷兰人向国家交纳一半的收入来换取全面医疗、养老金、日间儿托、教科书、度假基金及其他的，那么是明智的。如果不是这样，低税收和较少的社会保障会更受欢迎。
假定相对财富是幸福的重要决定因素。美国的35%“非常幸福”人群也许要比一年之前贫穷。但不会比他们的邻居更穷。毕竟，没有投资人群和行业可以逃过经济衰退。如果你还不是这类幸运者中的一员。想想境遇更糟的人，也许会让你好受些。2007年美国的平均年收入是38615美元。smartm money的营销人员告诉我这个专栏的读者可能赚得多的多。年龄在45-54岁的美国人平均家庭净收入在每年94000美元左右。如果你赚得更多，很好！如果不是，想想你没有失去的东西：自从2004年以来这一数字已经下降了45%。
即使用美国标准衡量对你不利，考虑一下当前类似国家的情况，美国政府的债务很快将超过gdp的80%，但意大利和希腊的欠债已经超过了他们的gdp，日本的债务是其gdp的两倍。据《barron’s》周刊的报道，现在美国正在疯狂地借债，它今年发行的国债将占到gdp的12.7%，英国会占到17.9%。美国的经济总量正在收缩，根据《经济学人》信息部的预计，随着去年开始的经济衰退，预计到2013年，除去通胀因素，每年的增长率将只有0.7%。预计日本、德国、意大利以及印度的经济总量同期也将收缩。
形势很糟糕。比较而言，还是尽力享受一个快乐周末吧。