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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe