New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

More Money Doesn't Mean More Happiness

Richard Easterlin wrote a paper back in the 1970s showing that increased income doesn't correlate with increased happiness. Last week he published an update on that paper. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As we approach another week holiday shopping a lot of us are disheartened by increasing commercialism at Christmas.   And again we ask: Can money buy happiness?

 

Well back in 1974 something called the Easterlin Paradox answered this question. It was economist Richard Easterlin who discovered that high incomes are correlated with lots of happiness. But over the long term there’s this point at which increased income doesn’t correlate with increased happiness. This is the paradox.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


 

Just last week Easterlin published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencean update on his famous paper.

 

Researchers had looked at 37 countries, rich and poor, and found consistent results: over the long term—they took measurements over an average of 22 years—happiness ratings within a country do not increase with income. In Chile, China and South Korea per capita income has doubled is less than two decades yet all showed slight declines in happiness.

 

Easterlin notes, "We may need to focus policy more directly on urgent personal concerns relating to things such as health and family life, rather than on the mere escalation of material goods."

 

Food for thought as we swipe our credit card buying yet another iPod, Wii or Lite Brite.

 

—Christie Nicholson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe