« Against CGT on housing | Main | Assortive mating and social mobility »

July 27, 2006

Comments

Piyush Pant

Having money can also be an effective 'signal' for happiness and allows people to calibrate themselves against those in their peer group and beyond. Assuming an important aspect of happiness is its ability to be seen and perceived by others, the behaviour of bankers is totally rational.

Curious

Refreshing post.

An article about happiness and utility: http://culturefusion.blogspot.com/2005/10/happiness-and-utility.html

Happiness is relative, and as such, some individuals recognise their own happiness without the acknowledgement of others, but some people need the recognition of others to feel happy (as suggested by Piyush Pant above).

Looking at the statement: "...They know that more wealth will not increase their happiness as much as more leisure would. Nevertheless, they keep working. They prefer money to happiness."

I'd suggest that having vast amounts of money in the bank would fill some people with unfaltering happiness. This is because they're pleased with the knowledge that they have more and more at their disposal. Leisure doesn't come into it.

Some individuals may keep working just so their money can accumulate, deriving pleasure from this knowledge. There is no status quo.

Andy

I loved that story about the merchant bank which introduced paternity leave "to weed out the losers".

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad