The love of money, as the saying goes, is the root of all evil. Yet money remains an essential commodity in living. It really is a general need that is pursued the best way or the other world over. There are several amenities in life that can largely only be purchased by money; hence having less it can speedily reduce a person, anybody into problems and circumstances of major depression. Money is obtained by several means; for most people of certain ages, to obtain money methods to simply work for this. For others of younger and even aged age groups, their acquisition of money is basically determined by others, such as parents, guardians in the case of young people or the government, pension and earlier investments regarding the older generation. Overall, money is an essential part of living. It may well not necessarily be the main aspect in life as will be critically reviewed later on but it most certainly ranks high indeed on the list. Some might argue that with enough money or sufficient finances, every other facet of life falls into point of view. Yet it could immediately be counter argued that the word 'enough money or adequate budget' is, alone, a member of family one. What constitutes adequate money, when is a guy said to have enough money? Perhaps it is worth mentioning as of this juncture the economic theory of supply and demand and vice versa. The greater you make, the more you need. Individuals need is such that can never be totally satisfied. For instance the needs and demands of a toddler differ significantly from that of an adolescent as will that of a man in his 20s from that of a family man with children. Could it be then possible to quantify one's overall status of wellbeing by how much wealth the individual has been luckily enough to acquire? Can money be thought to possess the power of buying or at the very least orchestrating delight? What, in the beginning, is happiness? While it remains difficult to attribute a specific definition to hhappiness, it is often known as the condition of well-being characterised by thoughts which range from contentment to extreme joy or emotions experienced when in circumstances of well-being. The opposite of 'contentment' would therefore be 'sadness' or even to maintain a sober spirits. Happiness is a strong state of mind that is pursued by mankind because the stone ages and is as old as man himself. Man as a social being has goals and objectives in life. Such goals and goals are quite effortlessly based on individual beliefs, societal or ethnical norms as well as personal activities. It really is however safe to surmise that whatever a man's ambitions, goals, anticipations and wishes, when these desires and expectations appear to be within easy understanding and in the end achieved, he'll naturally be in circumstances of well being and experience what's known as happiness. Some of the major contributory factors to delight include but are by no means limited to the following:
- Good or perfect condition of health
- Secured and well paid employment
- Supportive family or friends
As pointed out above however, these factors derive from individual ideas of contentment and the means where this state of mind can be achieved. From factors above, it becomes more and more visible that delight can be analysed from the economical as well as emotional perspectives. According to economists, it is a typical assumption that contentment - individual utility in the economic vocabulary - depends upon income, leisure and sometimes a few other factors. Yet, although mainstream models would predict that higher income contributes to greater delight, most before empirical research has been unable to find a sufficiently strong correlation between subjective well-being and per capita income in rich countries to aid the standard power assumption.  In a study carried out in the 90s, it was learned that even though many, if not absolutely all, African countries were classed as under developed societies where poverty assails almost all of the population, people were still happier than others of bigger means in countries like the uk and the United States. In the country like Nigeria for instance, the term 'major depression' was almost a unusual expression for most while others who had heard about the world acquired never even come close to suffering such a low state of mind. Research on the other hand, shows that a large significant number of patients in the UK suffer depression which is the exact opposite of enjoyment or a state of bliss and health. The pursuit of happiness and all it entails is a goal shared by people world over more than every other goal in the history of mankind. While economics might be associating the quest and ultimate catch, so to speak, of the rather elusive blissful mind-set with the accumulation of wealth and material satisfaction, it has been proven recently that this may not very well be the truth. In fact, an optimistic association has been shown to hold only at certain points with time within particular countries and not for the group of high-income countries all together.  The usual explanations given because of this paradox are either that people compare themselves with their peers and neighbours or that as earnings increase, so do people's income aspirations. Both these factors are assumed to be present already at quite modest degrees of per-capita income. However, one recurring problem with earlier studies is the fact conclusions on the absence of an impact of economical performance on well-being have typically been predicated on either limited cross-sectional samples which may be contaminated by a strong time-constant cultural component or on sparse and imperfect longitudinal data.  The unavoidable reality remains that with the accumulation of wealth or any other item for that matter, comes more responsibility or need which causes even more desire to have greater accumulation. For the reason that regard, it might be safe to surmise that perhaps wealth or its limitless accumulation does not exactly guarantee delight.  For instance, if a guy is thought to have achieved his goal and been fortunate, blessed or smart enough to secure an excellent job and comfortable income, if the economist strategy on consumer behavior is correct, he should be in a blissful state of mind. However there are other factors which need to be considered to determine a man's state of mind and this is where the psychological and public researches into enjoyment comes into play. To get Duesenberry's paradox, Kenneth Arrow thinks that it offered "one of many efforts of the postwar period to our understanding of economic behaviour" and this it was to be commended for wanting to link monetary theory more immediately with subconscious motivations and with consumer learning procedures.  Some saw Duesenberry's are attempting to broaden the theoretical economist's horizon.  Others like A. C. Pigou, portrayed serious methodological reservations but nonetheless commended the potential significance of the task.  In newer times, there has been a gradually increasing interest on the part of economists in happiness research. It has been argued that reported subjective well-being is a satisfactory empirical approximation to specific utility and this happiness research is able to contribute important insights for economics. It has also been reported how the economic variables such as income, unemployment and inflation affect joy as well as how institutional factors, in particular the type of federal; democracy or dictatorship and the magnitude of government decentralisation, systematically influence how satisfied individuals are with the life, the consequences plus some of the consequences for economic coverage and for economical theory. Whereas psychologists and sociologists have been researching the concept of happiness for a long time, the economist method of happiness is truly a more recent methodology. Early economists and philosophers, ranging from Aristotle, who promulgated a happy life is a good complete life and concluded that although joy is good other activities are similarly good and important; such things as health and wealth, knowledge and camaraderie, and a good moral character to Bentham, who formulated that "happiness is the greatest good" John Stuart Mill, an ardent supporter and disciple of Bentham who decided that ". . . . activities are right compared as they have a tendency to promote happiness, wrong as they have a tendency to produce the change of delight. . . . " have all included the pursuit of happiness in their work. Yet as economics grew more thorough and quantitative, more parsimonious explanations of welfare got hold. Power was taken to depend only on income as mediated by individual choices or tastes within a rational individual's monetary budget constraint. Even within a far more orthodox framework, focusing purely on income can miss important elements of welfare as numerous economists have observed over time. Folks have different tastes for material and non-material goods. They could choose less paying but more professionally rewarding job, for example. The study of contentment or subjective well-being is part of a more general move around in economics that challenges these slim assumptions. Richard Easterlin was main modern economists to re-visit the concept of happiness, beginning in the first 1970s. 
In economic researches world over, when people are asked relevant questions in what on their behalf constitutes happiness, the email address details are mostly identical. For individuals who are currently battling to make ends meet, those who find themselves out of jobs, those who are categorized as under priviledged in population by virtue of their meager or no income it would appear that the wide belief is the fact that money can indeed buy happiness. But when probed further and deeper, it emerges that money on its own, may not necessarily bring joy but mere momentary satisfaction. What money certainly does however is to relief people from their financial burdens. In which a family battles to pay the rent/mortgage at the end of each month, bills build up from insufficient adequate finances, getaways are a thing of the past or never experienced. If such a family is transported to a location where they can out of the blue afford to combine their debts, pay back the mortgage, go on holiday seasons, eat what and when they like, their spirits will surely be raised significantly greater than when they had little or nothing to exist on. It is therefore likely to surmise that money would most probably clear money, reduce or out rightly pay back mortgages, which would definitely be a tremendous source of alleviation for most people. Money however may not necessarily find a way to buy true joy. The human brain is trained to adjust to situations, good or bad. Hence, it is only a subject of time prior to the new found riches becomes a 'given' and the family is confronted with other challenges. Many people, cross-section, concur that acquisition or possession of a lot more money than they may have at this time can relaxed their daily frustrations and perhaps distract them using their personal problems, but it cannot make them truly happy. If a person is basically positive and optimistic, the acquisition of wealth will only boost that person's life. It is assumed that money can bring relief if having less it is leading to stress (as is the situation in the majority). If however, a person is generally neurotic, unsatisfied and pessimistic, no sum of money will eradicate such pessimism or other unrelated emotional problems the average person deals with on a daily basis. A windfall can also bring problems to people who have no idea how to deal with money. To those who have lived from hands to mouth almost all their lives, unless they can be intelligent about it, there is a trend to fritter a windfall away. One has to learn how to use or commit money wisely, in order to make it work for them. In a survey completed in England and America on lottery winners it became a clear pattern that folks essentially remain who they quite simply were before receiving the lottery. A pessimistic, uninspired individual who is victorious 1, 000, 000 in lottery is more likely to be back again to a similar spot he was in before earning the lottery in less than five years. While a far more positive, ambitious and level headed individual who is victorious 500, 000 is more likely to go on and invest the money in endeavors that will guarantee him better income for the foreseeable future. Money or shall we say excess amount is itself a catalyst for trouble for those who aren't psychologically well balanced enough to handle instant prosperity.
Economists and psychologists have come together in numerous attempts to untangle the webs of how, why and why-not of money and the overall express of well being/welfare. Of particular importance, it would show up, is the facet of why money is seen by many as unable to set right all the is incorrect in their lives and by so doing warranty them lasting happiness. Why is it that the additional money one has, the greater one aspires to obtain? In the favorite words of the artist '. . the more money you come across, the more problems you have' The economics of joy is an approach to examining welfare which combines the techniques typically utilized by economists with those more commonly employed by psychologists. It relies on surveys of the reported wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of individuals across countries and continents.  Why is it that when some may be finally in a position to possess those materials things that came out all so important in the lack of money and also to basically achieve their dreams it only brings momentary pleasure? In attempting to answer these relatively depressing questions, scholars of delight have attained some insights that seem very useful and educational indeed. It's been commonly acknowledged and accepted that money can help find more contentment, so long as one knows precisely what to anticipate from it and doesn't have unrealistic objectives. Splashing out money on luxurious automobiles or even buying an exclusive jet is not necessarily a way of utilising money to becoming happy. Research suggests that seeking the nice life at a store is an expensive exercise in futility.  It is essential to understand and understand where one has been going incorrect in order to achieve a blissful mind-set. According to Richard Gelfond, co-chairman and CEO of Imax, being an achiever and increasing out of poverty certainly brings enjoyment. Wealth therefore seems to play a greater factor in being happy than most wish to admit. In studies, people consistently give three known reasons for their personal contentment: riches, family and health. Being richer means having the ability to manage better health, however debatable an argument this is. For just a terminally sick patient for example, perhaps with the notorious HIV pathogen or the evenly formidable cancer; riches most certainly affords them better treatment and immediate access to the most effective specialists in those fields as well as the very best medication. The patients are therefore assured a lot more comfort in their sickness than the normal man on the street who depends on the state or authorities for his treatment. By the end of your day however, can one honestly assert that the affordability of better healthcare makes the ex - patient more happy than the second option? Can either be truly happy simply because one has more income than the other? Does it not then rely upon the individual's prospect on the conditions? Would the rich not willingly quit their wealth to become healthy again? Weird and surprising as it can sound, it isn't unusual for the poorer man to come quickly to better terms along with his condition and discover, if not downright delight, some sort of calmness in the terminal medical situation he finds himself than for his richer or wealthier counterpart. Professor Robert Shiller, a Teacher of Economics at Yale University or college, in his discussion for the features of having money is of the judgment that more money, in all likelihood, guarantees better relationships.  That is open to comprehensive debate and arguments. The easy question thereafter arises, if money or riches enables one to find better romantic relationships, why then that a lot of celebrities, certainly the best paid individuals on earth, think it is, from time immemorial, almost impossible to be happy in their associations and marriages? It's quite common knowledge that relationships and romantic relationships in Hollywood or any other celebrity studded part of the world, for example, are more often than not, a fleeting experience for the people involved. Discussing stars and their wealth, if money does indeed indeed procure joy, why is it that most celebrities have had at one time or the other alcohol problems, drug craving issues, despair, suicidal tendencies and even in albeit admittedly fewer conditions, death by over medication dosage of 1 dangerous product or the other? Surely if money brings contentment they, the stars with more money than most ought to be the happiest on earth. This is however evidently false. It stands to reason therefore that while money encourages a much better sense of health in some, better sense of accomplishment in others, contentment, the satisfaction that comes with the ability and affordability of luxury items o comfort, and even perhaps momentary enjoyment and enjoyment in others, it is not the mere happenstance of such money or riches in one's life that procures contentment or any true sense of enjoyment for the consumer. Tim Webber of the BBC's Business Edition, in another of his editorials, 'Why money doesn't buy happiness' quotations an African artist, Youssou N'Dour the following. . . ". . . Neglect money entirely". Youssou N'Dour is reported as heading on to say that there is plenty of contentment in Senegal, even though its people aren't wealthy at all. "Just start to see the enjoyment that music and entertainment can bring to the guys in the poorest parts of Dakar. " says Mr N'Dour. But he concedes that a very important factor was even better than the music and other elements that promote delight in Senegal; the moment when Senegal conquer France in the 2002 Football World Glass.  Catherine Sanderson, a psychology professor at Amherst College or university expresses her thoughts and opinions on the controversy of economics approach to happiness by declaring that human beings are never satisfied. It really is standard consumer behavioural routine. The more we have, the more we are likely to want. It is the inherent aspect of man. Ms. Sanderson authoritatively asserts that we always think that little bit additional money would be the answer to all our problems and bring ultimate satisfaction.  Indeed, any difficulty. the more income one makes, the more one wants or continue steadily to aspire to make. The greater one has the less effective it is at bringing one delight. Little wonder it is therefore that this seeming paradox has long bedeviled economists. Another reputable scholar, Teacher Dan Gilbert, mindset professor at Harvard School opines that "Once you get basic human needs met, much more money doesn't make far more enjoyment, ". Regrettably, there is no easy way out of being unsatisfied; money is no short lower to contentment for a depressed person. Overcoming one's emotions and teaching one's personal to be happy can become more difficult that earning more income or winning the lottery as discussed above. Actually, according to Matthew Herper,  if one is handed $10, the pleasure centres of his brain lights up as though he received food, intimacy or drugs. But that initial rush does not translate into long-term pleasure for most people. Surveys have found virtually the same degree of happiness between your very rich individuals on the Forbes 400 and the Maasai herdsman of East Africa. Lottery winners return to their previous degree of contentment after five years. Increases in income just do not seem to be to make people more happy & most negative life experience moreover have only a tiny impact on long-term satisfaction.  Probably via press vulnerability or even in true to life, sooner or later in time or another extremely wealthy, wealthy and famous people have been seen to be unhappier than you might expect those to be, given the quantity of material benefits they have. It is amazing that a sizable number of wealthy people do not seem to experience the joy that one would expect goes with so much money and riches. A report conducted by the School of Illinois mentioned that more than thirty percent of the richest people in America were not as happy as the individual who earned a humble income.  It really is worth talking about that more often than not, most of the sulking, unpleasant people one results in in everyday activity are abundant people. That is obviously not because of the fact that these prosperous people cannot afford three square meals, pay the mortgage, go on getaway or manage whatever luxurious item catches their fancy. Their misery is therefore of the actual fact that folks generally seem to be to have more expectations from money. Money cannot buy anyone everything however in the minds of men and women who give up everything for the money, it is difficult to accept, having received the prosperity of their goal that they strove so difficult to achieve partial success. This is not to negate the results money has in the society and on one's wellness specifically. Yes, money most definitely is important to help one live life to the fullest and be able to experience the good stuff in life, definitely not criminally expensive activities but such holidays, clothes, jewelries, and vehicles that become seemingly unreachable when is void of the purchasing means. But at the same time, a rise in its inflow does not bring proportional delight with it. As this old saying should go. . . the grass will always (may actually) look greener on the other hand. If 'A's' income boosts by $20, 000, he's happy until he finds out his nearby, perhaps less experienced neighbour's income has increased by $60, 000 and that the neighbour can now spend the money for car of A's dreams without breaking the bank.
The economics of pleasure does not purport to replace income-based measures of welfare, but instead to check them with broader options of well-being. These procedures are based on the results of large-scale studies, across countries and as time passes, of hundreds of thousands of individuals who are asked to assess their own welfare. The surveys provide information about the value of a variety of factors which have an impact on wellbeing, including income but also others such as health, marital and occupation status, and civic trust. The methodology, which depends on expressed preferences alternatively than on revealed choices, is particularly well suited to answering questions in areas where a revealed tastes approach provides limited information. Indeed, it often uncovers discrepancies between portrayed and revealed choices. The latter cannot fully gauge the welfare effects of particular guidelines or institutional preparations which individuals are powerless to improve. Examples of these include the welfare ramifications of inequality, environmental degradation, and macroeconomic plans such as inflation and unemployment. In a recently available happiness survey at the University or college of Colorado, it was established that actual involvement in doing things can bring more happiness than having things. Gilovich and Leaf Van Boven, both of the University or college of Colorado conducted this review by asking students why is them happy, when and where. The students were also asked to eventually decide if they were at the happiest when these were doing something as against when these were buying something. It emerged that man's preoccupation with stuff obscures an important truth: that the things that do not previous create the most prolonged joy. One reason may be that experience have a tendency to blossom and not diminish as they are recalled. "In your memory, you're absolve to embellish and elaborate, " Gilovich admonished the students. "Your visit to Mexico might have been an never-ending parade of hassles punctuated by a few exquisite occasions. But looking back again on it, the human brain can revise out the surly cabdrivers, keeping in mind only the glorious sunsets. So the next time you think that arranging a holiday is more trouble than it's worth--or an expense you'd rather not shoulder--factor in the delayed impact. "
Economists have discovered in the United States for instance that an upsurge in income does not necessarily automatically yield an equal increase in one's level of happiness. In another of the several studies conducted, it was discovered that heading from earning less than $20, 000 each year to making more than $50, 000 admittedly makes the receiver twice as likely to be happy, yet the payoff for then surpassing $90, 000 is slight. And while the rich are happier than the indegent, the enormous surge in living expectations within the last 50 years hasn't made Americans more comfortable.  Why? David Futrelle gave three known reasons for this. Corresponding to him, we overestimate how much pleasure there is to be produced from having more. Humans are adaptable creatures, which includes been an advantage during assorted glaciers ages, plagues and wars. But, he argues, that is also why people should never be all the satisfied for long when good fortune comes their way. While making more makes people happy for a while, we quickly adapt to the new prosperity, status and everything that comes with it. Awarded, there will be considered a certain buzz and sense of accomplishment which includes the first shiny and incredible car one will buy from the increased income or new found riches, splashing from huge screen tvs and even investing in family. Nonetheless it is not long before each one of these become 'normal' and the buyer commences to want even more. It is when this insatiable appetite for more yields little if any effect that man begins again to experience dissatisfaction and many people end up descending back again to the very original position they were in the first place; reverting to circumstances of running in place that economists call the 'hedonic fitness treadmill machine. ' The hedonic treadmill machine theory explains the popularly used observation that abundant people are no more pleased than poor people, and that people that have severe money problems are occasionally quite happy. The idea supports the argument that money does not buy enjoyment and that the quest for money as a way to reach this goal is futile. Bad and the good fortunes may temporarily have an impact on how happy a person is, but most people will end up back at their normal level of pleasure. Buttressing Mr. Yarrow's point on the same subject matter, John Lanchester also detected that subsequent studies of data from all around the globe, it is clear that, instead of getting more comfortable as they become better off, people get caught in a location where their objectives grow at the same pace as their incomes and the joy they seek remains constantly just out of reach.  Research is here now being made yet again to the hedonistic fitness treadmill machine. Daniel Kahneman, the one time (2003) winner of Nobel Award for economics is best known for his work on hedonic mindset.  Kahneman opines that all of the sudden the big question is being asked by those who put in their lives on making and measuring money: what indeed is it all for when people are no more happy than they were.  Be each one of these as they could, the fact remains undisputable that money does indeed matter in a variety of ways. In Britain, for instance, folks who are earning significantly less than or around 10, 000 per annum are measurably, forever more pleased when paid more. It matters when people of any income feel a drop from what they have become accustomed to. But most importantly, money makes people disappointed when they compare their own income with others'.  Richer people are more pleased not by the simple virtue of the total size of their riches, but because they have significantly more than other folks. However the wider the riches gap, the worse it harms the others. Rivalry in income makes those left behind more miserable that this confers extra delight on the winners. This insatiable urge for food for more will keep driving a guy back to the automobile dealership or to the electronic tool stores searching for better and bigger items for further satisfaction. Matching to Gilbert however, what's being recognised incorrectly as delight and satisfaction at buying a new 'toy' is simply the feeling that occurs your day one actually buys the item making an attempt. Once the first razzmatazz fades away and the new Ferrari or even private jet no more races the center, man will draw the wrong conclusions. Rather than questioning the idea or erroneous, if genuine, belief that contentment can be bought at the dealership, one often commences to question their choice of car. 'Perhaps I'd feel better with a Ford Mustang?' This thought exclusively sparks a fresh burst of passion and expect more pleasure which simply contributes to yet more disappointment after the new car is purchased and the race heart also inevitably settles back again to normal following a few days or weeks. Again this is exactly what economists refer to as typical consumer behavior. More often than not, this dissatisfaction with the material things that come with wealth is borne out of envy for others around us. Quite naturally, additional money can and does lead to more stress. The best salary pulled in from a high-paying job may not actually procure much in the form of happiness, at least not much more than the average person is familiar with. Some have even absent as far as declaring if one is unable to find joy in their current situation on a low income job; it is unlikely that such people will ever be happy even in a higher paying job. The complete idea is to lower one's coat according to one's size to cover overall flexibility, satisfaction and joy because however low one's income is, there are always people below the hierarchy of income. Equally however much one earns, there will be people on the upper rung of the ladder of success. What additional money can do however is to buy one a (more) spacious house in the suburbs. What immediately becomes a problem is the long trip to and from work, taking the kids (if there are any) to institution and commuting to sociable activities from the suburbs or the countryside. By the end of the day, it is merely natural that the every day commute, even if permissible initially, becomes a problem and however much one enjoys their job, becomes a burden and wears down the individual. As regarding lack of ongoing satisfaction with ones acquisitions, comparison between your family next door who drives no more than 20 miles to access work will constantly binge on the mind and lead to even more dissatisfaction with the commuting. Happiness at buying the spacious house in the united states and approaching home to a fabulous garden and the great view begins to dwindle.
It is merely natural that some economists and the ordinary man on the street simply assume that higher income as a matter of certainty contributes to higher enjoyment, as it probably well should. After all an increased income expands one's capabilities and capabilities as well as a nation's opportunity set in the sense of its affordability of goods and services for the individuals' utilization. One might therefore be enticed to conclude that income and enjoyment go hand in hand when and where the two are effectively measured. Subsequently, economics books do not make an effort to give a reason, but simply state that utility U is increased by income Y: U = U(Y), with U'>O.  However there are some economists who beg to disagree with this view of joy or utility growing in commensuration with salary/income increase. Corresponding to John Kenneth Galbraith, there is certainly little or no used in increasing private income while the general population sector is starving.  Also, main economists to earnestly study the data on pleasure, Richard Easterlin, on the problem of whether boosting the income of most will lead to the joy of most simply figured "money will not buy enjoyment".  His argument for this summary was that the material norms on which judgments of well-being are established upsurge in the same proportion as the genuine income of the population. He continued that these conclusions were advised by data on reported enjoyment, materials norms, and income accumulated in surveys in a number of countries over the past half hundred years.  Another author of repute who asserts that the most cherished of values cannot be bought on marketplaces is Tibor Scitovsky. He recalls how back the 18th century, the disciplines of economics and psychology were quick to proclaim Jeremy Bentham their ancestor and elaborated on his theory of the next sit down elsewhere, which he shrewdly stated was always less sufficient or enjoyable than the first. In later years, economists would come to make reference to this as the Law of Diminishing Marginal Energy.  Scitovsky somewhat simplifies the matter by describing that at the center of economics is the market; where one purchases from the other what he needs in exchange for what owner wants. Evidently, one prefers what he reaches what he offers in exchange. The act of this exchange, matching to him, is the source and proof of all economic gain and talks about the economists' preoccupation with the same. This preoccupation with the take action of exchange has propelled the economist to promulgate that the bigger one's income the greater one can spend and a lot more you can spend, the more satisfied you need to be.  He however didn't trust this theory as exhibited in his previous quotation of Jeremy Bentham's Regulation of Diminishing Marginal Energy. Still on reputable authors who are of the contrary view that increase per capita income is in accordance with an equal surge in contentment, Robert Frank reiterates that increasing income and usage does not bring higher pleasure. 
In Happiness and Economics also by Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer, the economical as well as mental health factors adding to one's subjective well-being often known as delight were critically evaluated. It emerged using their combined work on the booklet that one factor can't be held solitarily responsible for the continued pleasure or even increased point out of well being of a person. A number of the factors evaluated include: demographics i. e in which a man lives and to a reasonable degree the machine of federal that obtains in his population. A man's marital status as well as employment position was also seen as relevant contributory factors. For the purpose of this issue, the situations below examine different individual's levels of happiness at different tips in their lives. Their sense of subjective well-being has been measured as they slipped or rose due to changes in their lives:
Take for occasion Mr. X; a minimal income earner who was simply relatively happy; in truth on a range of 1 1 to 10, one could say X was an 8. However on securing an improved job and getting up to twice his preliminary salary, X's level increased significantly to 9. 5. In his circumstance, one may perfectly dispute that income will affect one's level of contentment. However, a few months later, in an unfortunate twist of situations, X lost his new job owing to the current financial crisis and became unemployed. His degree of happiness dwindled greatly from 9. 5 way below its preliminary size of 8 to 6. 5. Again, it is arguable that loss of income or insufficient money does impact a man's express of wellness just as it has been argued that inflation also does indeed. In the second circumstance, Ms. A is a Masters Degree holder with a higher paying job of $75, 000 per annum. She lives in a lovely part of town and has a country house for holidays. She is however solo and has very little to call family or close friends. On the level, Ms. A's level of happiness is at 6, surprisingly lower than that of her counterpart subject material, Mr. X even after he lost his job. Ms. A admits that with a partner and close friends, she might perfectly hit a size of 9. This is a very significant difference indeed. In just one more scenario, Neglect. Y is a pensioner who has already established a very good life by all standards and even now makes a fairly attractive income from her pension. Her size of physical condition was registered in January as 9. 5. Miss. Y is content and happy in the fact that she is making an extremely comfortable, if not out rightly wealthy income, she is encircled by her family and grandchildren and has been able, over the years, to accumulate quite a number of good friends who she enjoys a healthy cultural life with. By middle July however, Pass up. Y's size has taken an alarming nostril dive to 4. 5. The reason behind this twist of fate is the fact that Miss. Y has been diagnosed as having a rapidly growing and inoperable tumor. Last on the graph is Mr. O who's a movie star with immense wealth and very luxurious life style. Yet he derives very little or no prolonged satisfaction or contentment from his buys. Relating to him, whatever device he acquires today soon becomes pretty much obsolete in this overly busy computer time, mandating him to venture out and purchase another item. It really is again getting us back again to the hedonic running machine theory of economics; running at that moment. At any moment, his degree of happiness on a scale of 1 1 to 10 is, as regular as constant should go, a 7.
It is also worth looking into monetary surveys and researches carried out in various countries over certain periods of time so that they can compare their income rates, growths and exactly how commensurate it is with their level of contentment. In an abstract newspaper he produced in Dec 2006 Prof. Karlheinz Ruckriegel was of the view that delight research is dependant on the concept that human beings strive for joy, and that their principal aim is delight, or satisfaction, which reaches very good beyond income. He proceeded to go further to point out that the pursuit of pleasure is so important that it is a good right within the American Constitution to pursue contentment.  However, he concluded that although days gone by 50 years have observed an unequalled financial growth in Western countries, studies on pleasure show that the progression of life satisfaction or indeed the sense to be happy over the same period does not match that expansion. The number reproduced below emphasises Prof. Ruckriegel's affirmation as it shows conclusions for the United States which relating to Teacher Lord Richard Layard, the director of CEP's research program on well-being, can be used in most European countries and Japan. Physique 1. 1 is based on a period of research spanning from 1945 to 2000:
The physique shows a growth in income from the region of 20. 5 in 1945 (soon after the Second World Conflict) to a significant most of 80 in 2000. Yet the level of joy remains resolutely more or less the same. The amount of well being regarding to this Shape actually fluctuates somewhat unpredictably but in the most part remains the same and never above 40%. This is by no means commensurate to the level of income. The question therefore develops just as before: if money can buy happiness or surge in income can increase satisfaction as economics predicts, why then are people not happier when they become wealthier? In an attempt to answer this question, Professor Ruckriegel subscribes to the institution of thought that although money does help, it takes more than just money to make a man happy. Other factors he supports accountable for promoting a happy life include:
- Family relationships
- Job satisfaction
- Social Environment
- Personal Freedom
- Life idea (Religion)
Financial situation or income of course remains a essential factor as well. In retrospect, this isn't unlike the conclusion arrived at by nearly all economists quoted above. It could appear therefore that joy is not really a commodity only to be purchased by money, hence its extended elusiveness even when confronted with immense wealth. In another research registered in Carol Graham's book the variations in per capita income of residents of various international countries which range from the United States, United Kingdom to African countries such as Nigeria and back again to Australia was evaluated. The research showed that individuals in richer countries were indeed happier than those in poor countries. The same sense of subjective wellness of such residents was also examined. Regarding to Graham, macro-econometric enjoyment equations have the typical form: Wit = О± + Оxit + Оit,  where W is the reported well-being of individual i at time t, X is a vector of known variables including socio-demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Whereas in nearly all economic researches into happiness, the majority of the studies realize that within the countries under research or study, wealthier people are, typically, more content than poor ones,  in studies reducing across countries however, very little, if any, relationship between boosts in per capita income and average contentment levels are observed.  Happiness does seem to go up with income up to a certain level; an even where understanding of affordability brings about a certain degree of satisfaction however, not beyond. This demonstrates yet again that there are other factors contributing to an individual's degree of pleasure, the collective enjoyment of a group of men and women in a society or a country most importantly.
Having viewed diverse views on enjoyment from the economist perspective as well as the sociological and psychological perspectives, it begins to emerge that perhaps one school of thought is not far taken off the other. Although some are of the judgment that money does indeed make people happy or more content, others are of the view that while money admittedly makes people happy for a certain time frame, usually the original stage before the human brain gets familiar with the change, there tend to be factors which come into vital effect where lasting delight or subjective wellness of a guy or a country can be involved. Ed Diener, the University or college of Illinois researcher who surveyed the Forbes 400 and the Maasai of East Africa acknowledges that there may be at least one important marriage between money and contentment after all. He's also of the thoughts and opinions that happy people tend to have higher incomes down the road in their lives. Hence, while money might not help to make people happy, being happy can help them earn more income. This view is indicated in the task he co-authored with Oishi on culture and well being, which expresses their view that while Western european Americans will select tasks they can be good at for more job satisfaction, their Asians counterparts will emphasise understanding even tasks at which they are not proficient to generate more income. This, according to them ends in European Americans over time being much more likely to enjoy jobs because they're more likely to choose activities at which they stand out, hence making them more content than the Asians.  About wealthier countries and the level of delight of the residents of such countries, the Easterlin paradox is worth revisiting. Heading back memory lane, one might understand that Japan, much better than other country on the planet had the best financial boom following Second World Conflict. Within the aftermath of World Conflict II, the Japanese economy experienced one of the biggest booms the entire world has ever before known. From 1950 to 1970, it was thought that the country's economical result per person grew more than sevenfold. Japan, in simply a few years, remade itself from a war-torn country into one of the richest countries on earth. Yet, strangely, Japanese citizens did not appear to become any longer satisfied with their lives than they previously were. According to 1 poll, the ratio of individuals who offered the most positive possible answers about their life satisfaction actually fell from the past due 1950s to the early '70s. These were richer but evidently no happier. This can again be related to Diener's contribution to the research of delight when he promulgated that over time there's a tendency for folks to make use of the same types of information in judging satisfaction with life, and therefore life satisfaction tends to be relatively stable for a while, but is relatively less steady in the long term due to systematic and sometimes unanticipated changes that might occur in life conditions such as widowhood, inflation, monetary downturn, sickness or unemployment. The Japanese economic growth and having less equivalent surge in the individuals' well being became the most famous exemplory case of the Easterlin paradox.  This paradox was structured partially on the results of a survey conducted in the United States of America in the 1960s by a communal psychologist of repute, Hadley Cantril, who carried out an intensive study in fourteen countries worldwide, ranging from the abundant and poor, to capitalist and communist. The difference between Cantril's review while others of the same purpose was the fact that somewhat than present the topics of his survey along with his own well prepared and tailor made questions which invited expected answers, Cantril apparently asked open-ended questions about what people want out of life and what they noticed would be necessary to make their lives completely happy. Yet, regardless of the enormous socio-economic and social disparities among the countries, reactions to these questions were strikingly similar. Atlanta divorce attorneys country, material circumstances, especially degree of living, are mentioned most often. Also deemed important were family concerns such as a happy family life as well as concerns about one's personal or family health. Pursuing thereafter and around equal importance, came up matters associated with one's work (interesting job/and job satisfaction) and personal personality (emotional steadiness, personal well worth, self-discipline, etc. ). Concerns about extensive international or local issues, such as battle, political or civil liberty, and sociable equality, were seldom mentioned. Abrupt changes in these second option circumstances do affect people's sense of well-being at the time they occur; a recent typical example would be the warfare on Iraq and the impact it has had on not only the people of Iraq but also young families, friends and well-wishers of the troops deployed to Iraq, Americans, Britons and so many more people world over damaged immediately or indirectly by the conflict either economically or otherwise. Yet, it has been discovered over time that mainly things that take up most people's each day lives, and are relatively of their control, that are typically in the forefront of personal concerns. Predicated on the results of Cantril's review, in 1974, Richard Easterlin, then an economist at the University or college of Pennsylvania, printed a study in which he argued that financial growth didn't actually lead to more satisfaction. He, not unlike some other authorities already cited above, was of the thoughts and opinions that although additional money might bring a sense of relief from certain hardships, the theory that void of each other contributory factor, money makes a person more pleased is only deceptive and erroneous.  He argued that accumulating survey research indicated that contrary to arranged point theory and the assumptions of economic theorists, life events such as matrimony, divorce, and serious impairment or diseases do have lasting effects on happiness, hence it will be fallacious to claim or promote the idea that the more income people make, the happier they are really.  Sharing this view in their joint work, Happiness and Economics, Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer also expressed their opinions and findings that indeed unemployment and inflation nurture, to a fairly significant degree, unhappiness. Their most impressive revelation, however, would be that the more developed the democratic companies and the amount of local autonomy, the greater satisfied people are with their lives. It has additionally been found that individuals in poor countries, quite obviously, become happier after they can afford basic necessities. Beyond that however, further profits simply seem to reset the pub (hedonic treadmill machine).  In other words, running a BMW X5 is no sure warranty to being more content because quickly thereafter the BMW X6 becomes available on the market and more appealing, resetting the pub in the process. That is typical consumer behaviour generally in most, if not absolutely all, men. Relative income; how much one makes in comparison to others around subject a lot more than total income in Richard Layard's point of view. In his exact words, "people are concerned about their relative income and not about its total level. They would like to match the Joneses or when possible to outdo them. " The shortcoming to stay satisfied is probably one of the main element explanations why man could find definite or complete happiness permanently elusive. The actual fact a man can afford his basic and essential needs, meet basic and essential anticipations and not have to stress about mere survival has not ceased him from trudging on endlessly on the hedonic fitness treadmill machine. While such factors as rising income quite admittedly increase personal enjoyment only minimally and momentarily, organizations that facilitate more individual engagement in politics have a considerable effect. This wedding rings particularly true for countries including the USA, where disillusionment with politics seems to be on the rise.  Easterlin's paradox has however been challenged in more recent times as not totally accurate. It's been argued by two American economists that money does bring joy even if it does not necessarily guarantee enjoyment. In their joint work, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers both of the College or university of Pennsylvania, explain that in over three years since Mr. Easterlin publicized his paper, an explosion of general public opinion studies has allowed for an improved look at the question.  "The central subject matter, " Ms. Stevenson argues, "is the fact income does matter. " They structured their discussion on Gallup polls done throughout the world as exhibited Number 2 below, which clearly shows that life satisfaction is highest in richest countries. The two economists go as far as asserting that utter income seems to matter more than relative income. In america, about 90 percent of individuals in homeowners making at least $250, 000 each year called themselves "very happy" in a recent Gallup Poll. In homes with income below $30, 000, only 42 percent of people offered that answer. However the international polling data suggests that the under-$30, 000 crowd may not be happier if they resided in a poorer country.
Finally, while the first is propelled towards agreeing that money will bring immense relief and frees the individual's preoccupation with the how, where and when to generate income and the illusion that by so doing he might be happier, the availability of money or prosperity also frees up people's period to concentrate on other important parts and aspects of life without which it has been established over time that happiness could stay a fleeting experience to man; now you see me now you do not. One can not trivialise the importance of relatives and buddies or connections in the pursuit of happiness. Among the secrets of contentment seems to be the one and only people themselves. Countless studies claim that having friends makes a whole lot of difference in how one copes with the ever before changing aspects of life. Large-scale research by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC), for example, discover that those with five or even more good friends are 50% more likely to describe themselves as 'very happy' than those with nil to smaller cultural circles. Compared with the capabilities and ramifications of human connection on happiness, the energy of money significantly reduces way below the level ascribed to it by some economists and even psychologists. Even more important to one's happiness than companionship or a wholesome social circle is one's relationship with the succinctly called 'better 50 %' or the 'significant other. ' People in happy, secure, committed relationships have been found to be considerably happier than those who are either solitary or in failed, unproductive abusive and unsatisfactory human relationships. Among those surveyed by NORC from the 1970s through the 1990s, close to 40% of maried people said they were 'very happy'. Divorce or widowhood brings misery to all or any parties concerned in the same way failed marriages can be just like damaging where both people remain stubbornly oblivious to the fact that their union has strike the rocks. While I am more inclined to agree with the theory that money does indeed indeed bring some level of satisfaction and in its own way, delight to an individual, like many others cited above, I am much more to get the idea that happiness will not depend only on per capita income or a country's GDP. I am emboldened to really go a step further and say that money or the relentless pursuit of the same is more often than not responsible for a glaring drop in happiness. I am more of the institution of thought that believes in other major factors contributing to happiness; factors such as family connections, a substantial other, a sound body, healthy and modest social life amongst others. Regrettably, while running after the erroneously performed perception that money or higher income brings more pleasure, many people neglect these factors that whenever come up with are terribly essential materials in promoting the sense of well being in any specific. Take say for example a happy few who in pursuit of more money neglect the most vital contributory factor with their enjoyment- their togetherness and happy marriage- and decide for one party to accept employment which promises much higher income but can take him or her hundreds of a long way away from home. Enough time they spend together is reduced from probably 80% to less than 20%. While there could admittedly be temporary and instant gratification from what the bigger income affords the few, over time, their degree of happiness could very well drop way below its initial scale prior to their parting in the quest for additional money. Like Easterlin, one may perfectly ask the question, "Could we make our lives more pleased?" Based on the arguments for and against hereinabove showing up, I am positive that His response to this rhetorical question in the affirmative remains relevant then as it is now even practically four ages on. Easterlin argued then when i am willing to do given that most people could increase their delight by devoting less time to making money, and much more to non-pecuniary goals such as family life and health.  Widening the horizon relatively and looking into whether people in richer countries are happier than those in poor countries, I am going to maintain that contentment and a state of well being remains a relative term. It really is indeed what one decides to label of it. Despite the fact that some of the studies and researches described have established evidence that individuals in richer countries are more content, exactly why is it then that individuals in richer countries have the bigger rate of depression, suicides, dependence on alcohol and drugs for recreation? Granted, different companies govern the politics and social lives of individuals in these different countries and this is also essential to their degree of happiness.  Hence individuals in a democratic condition like America are destined to be more pleased than those under the brutal leadership of an dictator internationally where freedom in any facet of their lives is a misconception. By the end of the day however, joy, to an extremely large extent depends upon what people place of their list of priorities. Contentment can't be bought, just as a grumpy frame of mind cannot be traded. In the well put words of Nathaniel Hawthorne, USA writer of novels and short reports mainly on moral themes or templates (1804-1864), 'happiness is as a butterfly, which, when pursued, is definitely beyond our grasp, but which, if you will sit back silently, may alight upon you' In the same way, George Loewenstein, adding to the work of Isabelle Brocas and Juan D. Carillo is of the view that it's possible to overestimate the importance of happiness. Relating to him, part of the interpretation of life is to own highs and lows. A life constantly happy, he opines, is wii life.  Finally, just as it might be ill informed to conclude that economic development or money can purchase or guarantee enjoyment, it will be evenly erroneous to negate the effect of affluence within an individual's life, a home, a family group, a community or in a country. The actual fact remains that monetary growth does not merely make countries richer in superficially materialistic ways, it also means that such countries can also purchase investments in technological research that can lead to longer, healthier lives, better management and maybe eventual treatment for terminal diseases such as cancer tumor and the HIV pathogen, and provide assistance to less fortunate countries (e. g. the G8). On a personal or individualistic level, higher income or more money does mean more opportunities to travel and spend time with friends and relatives not seen in years or places one has never visited. Becoming richer means one can choose to work less and decide to spend more quality time with family and friends or simply in search of other areas of life apart from the relentless race to acquire more and more money. The underlying question therefore is when, if ever, does one become rich enough? The simple and immediate answer is that is never rich enough due to the fact that the only constant part of life is change. Divorce, inflation, significant change in institutions and government procedures (tax increase), unemployment, condition and undoubtedly economic recession of significant proportions and repercussions including the ongoing one in the United Kingdom, United States and a few other countries remain simply a handful of such changes in life. The advice, in my humble judgment, therefore remains the age long words of wisdom to be content and happy with what one has, continue to be ambitious and beneficial and spend some time on other things aside from money, which brings enjoyment and contentment or a general sense of pleasure. Closing with the very words that began this work, it will probably be worth remembering that the love of money is indeed the root of most evil.
- Adler, Matthew D. and Posner, Eric A. , Contentment Research and Cost-Benefit Analysis(June 29, 2007). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 07-15.
- Arthur Cecil Pigou, 'Essays in Economics'(1952)
- Arrow K. J. - (1950), 'A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare', The Journal of Political Current economic climate, 58, pp. 328-46.
- Arrow K. J. and Scitovsky T. (1969) (eds), Readings in Welfare Economics, G. Allen and Unwin LTD, pp. 147-168.
- Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer, 'Pleasure and Economics: How the Economy and Establishments Affect Human being Well-Being' (2001)
- Daniel, Kahneman, 'Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (1998)
- Daniel Nettle, 'Contentment: The Science behind Your Smile' (2006)
- Diener, E. and Seligman, M. 2004. Beyond money: toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Knowledge in the Public Interest 5 (1), 1-31.
- Diener, E. et al. . 2003. The partnership between income and subjective well-being: comparative or absolute? Friendly Indicators Research 28, 195-223.
- Di Tella, R. , MacCulloch, R. and Oswald, A. J. 2001. Choices over inflation and unemployment: information from research of happiness. American Economic Review 91, 335-41.
- Duesenberry, J. 1949. Income, Personal savings, and the Theory of Human Habit. Cam