Any sensible person would rather be happy than rich, although many people often confuse the two—business students among them. Those who choose to attend business school on the assumption that an M.B.A. will help them change jobs, make more money, and therefore be happier are very likely misinformed.The author claims that there is a game theory problem--a Zog's Lemma instance, if you will--in business schools. I'll let author Robert A. Prentice explain:
An implication made in the article is that this undue emphasis on money comes at the expense of ethical behavior, which is linked to happiness:Unfortunately, M.B.A. programs are currently ranked—by U.S. News, BusinessWeek, and other unduly influential publications—using criteria that prominently include starting salaries for graduates and salary differentials pre- and post-business school. Rankings have such an important impact on M.B.A. programs in their intense competition for students, faculty members, and resources that it is unsurprising that the schools often try to game them—say, by admitting students not because they are the strongest applicants, but because they are interested in finance and consulting, which have historically been the highest-salaried jobs.
Other studies indicate that people who act ethically tend to be happier than those who do not, suggesting that we are evolutionarily designed to derive pleasure from receiving the approval of others and from doing the "right" thing. Brain scans indicate that when we act consistently with social norms, primary reward centers in the brain are again activated.Notice the evolutionary psychology argument.
Can you realistically assess happiness? The only book I've read on the topic is Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness," which I recommend. It's not a self-helpy book, but a description of the research that has been done in the field of happology. Dr. Gilbert's website has links to other projects he's engaged in, including a link to an application to track your own happiness on your iPhone, which is a brilliant idea. You could do the same thing on Twitter, methings: one day a week send out tweets like #happymeter 5, for 5/10. Want to join me? Here's the link to results.
Maybe I think the idea is brilliant because I created a similar application a few years ago. Our student dropbox (a mini-portal) became wildly popular, and as a little research project I added a star rating system that looks like this:
So what professions are the happiest? I found this relatively current (2007) report from the University of Chicago: "Job Satisfaction in the United States."
So does money buy you happiness? Aside from the inner glow of helping old ladies with their 401ks, isn't there a rewarding feeling that comes from shopping for a new yacht? The (2001) study "Does Money Buy Happiness? A Longitudinal Study Using Data on Windfalls" tries to answer that question by looking at people who won the lottery or received an inheritance. From the abstract:
A windfall of 50,000 pounds (approximately 75,000 US dollars) is associated with a rise in wellbeing of between 0.1 and 0.3 standard deviations. Approximately one million pounds (1.5 million dollars), therefore, would be needed to move someone from close to the bottom of a happiness frequency distribution to close to the top. Whether these happiness gains wear off over time remains an open question.My guess is that getting the money "for free" isn't as rewarding as say, scraping it off the top of predatory loans, but judge for yourself. I'd love to participate in the next study, regardless. Where do I sign up for the winning lotto numbers?
Update: See Reuben Ternes' comment below about Gross National Happiness. I also fixed a typo.
There's an entire movement about GNH (Gross National Happiness) that is used, increasingly, by countries to gauge the satisfaction of their citizens and is intended as an alternative to GDP measures. It was created by Bhutan. It's an interesting read actually, and I've seen it talked about in financial articles that advocate using it instead or in addition to GDP as a measure of a country's wealth (obviously, wealth has more than monetary connotations here).
ReplyDeletehttp://www.grossnationalhappiness.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
Thanks for info! I had no idea this existed. I wonder what 'net' happiness would be?
ReplyDeleteUgh... I spent a substantial amount of time in grad school on this subject, and it was enough to lead me to (more or less) swear off survey research altogether. GNH and its ilk are also deeply flawed - start checking some of those cultural assumptions about what happiness is.
ReplyDeleteNow, let me start randomly assigning people to families, countries, careers and incomes, and THEN maybe we'll get somewhere.
It is good idea to study the effect of money on happiness, as many people have an assumption about the relationship between the two. However, I have a bone to pick with the article: the most basic principle of economics is that all resources are scare and must be allocated.
ReplyDeleteRichard, interestingly this scarcity must also be true of happiness, or else it's not good as a motivation. That is, if someone is never unhappy about anything, there's no motivation to come out of the rain. The difference between happiness and money is that we can create an infinite supply of the latter, whereas the former is presumably capped, AND happiness is difficult to transfer, and not in the zero-sum way money is. Weird economics, this happiness stuff. I wonder if someone has tried to understand social structures and conventions in terms of happinomics?
ReplyDeleteall this talk of measuring happiness is leaving me rather depressed...
ReplyDelete