« How an Economist Thinks | Main | Assorted links »
Scream it from the rooftops: happiness inequality is declining
There is less happiness inequality today than in the 1970’s or 1980’s. And this has occurred despite large increases in income and consumption inequality. Betsey Stevenson and I spell out these facts in a lot more detail in a new paper, “Happiness Inequality in the United States,” forthcoming in the Journal of Legal Studies.
That's Justin Wolfers, here is much more. This is one reason -- but not the only reason -- why so many moral arguments from the Left fall on deaf ears when it comes to most Americans. Of course happiness inequality is more fundamental than either income or wealth inequality because we care about outputs, not inputs.
By the way, here is a roof access cage ladder.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 5, 2008 at 10:40 AM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
I preferred the puffin.
Posted by: vm at Aug 5, 2008 10:50:04 AM
I didn't expect this statement in the paper based on your post: "Paralleling changes in the income distribution, differences in happiness by education have widened substantially." Based on this, I don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps if you could cite examples of the "moral arguments from the left" that you believe are undermined by this data it would make your post understandable.
Posted by: es32 at Aug 5, 2008 11:06:06 AM
From March 3, 2008 to publication at JLS already. Nice.
Posted by: jason voorhees at Aug 5, 2008 11:07:19 AM
I agree with vm, the flying puffin was much better. Much, much better.
Posted by: chug at Aug 5, 2008 11:26:00 AM
As a moderate, it makes sense to me, and suggests just that the left are making (or you are hearing) the wrong arguments.
Wealth matters to happiness, but with declining returns.
Therefore when we all are more wealthy we can allocate resources to non-wealth factors (health, environment) without fear that "takings" will leave us poor and unhappy.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 5, 2008 11:30:18 AM
Very cool.
It's perhaps even more striking that average happiness hasn't changed much despite huge changes in GDP and productivity (as conventionally measured).
Are (other) economists measuring the wrong inputs and/or outputs?
Posted by: a student of economics at Aug 5, 2008 11:39:20 AM
The puffin was better, but Tyler is thinking about your safety. If you are going to scream from the rooftop, you better get there safely... After all, not everyone has bright street numbers painted on the curb and it might take emergency vehicles awhile to locate you if you fall from a standard ladder.
Posted by: RV1984 at Aug 5, 2008 11:41:29 AM
This fits my tentative theorem, any artificial metric
becomes less reliable the longer it is used. (Researchers
find ways to game it.)
Posted by: reason at Aug 5, 2008 12:02:53 PM
What es32 says, you just need to read the summary - the main reason is not
economic at all, it is equal rights. Hold the champagne guys.
Posted by: reason at Aug 5, 2008 12:05:53 PM
"It's perhaps even more striking that average happiness hasn't changed much despite huge changes in GDP and productivity (as conventionally measured)."
Student: Happiness is nothing more than Utility - Expectations. Our expectations are not static over time and they will continue to rise as GDP and productivity rise. Average happiness is a fixed point, something that will not change over time because happiness is relative.
Posted by: Jay at Aug 5, 2008 12:49:51 PM
Jay: Utility was invented to capture a particular slice of happiness seeking, but the match never has been 1:1
Posted by: odograph at Aug 5, 2008 12:57:27 PM
This reminds me of my cousin who quit his job in manufacturing to work for much lower pay in retail because he liked it more and it was easier work. He lives a happy life. In the past he would have felt more compelled to go for more money but today one can live well on relatively low income so why work to hard?
Posted by: Floccina at Aug 5, 2008 1:05:41 PM
Of course happiness inequality is more fundamental than either income or wealth inequality because we care about outputs, not inputs.
Happiness inequality is not more fundamental than either income or wealth inequality, because happiness is entirely subjective and unquantifiable and any statistics that claim to measure "happiness" are highly suspect.
Perhaps there is just adjective inflation - So being that being "very happy" in 1970 meant you are ecstatic, where being "very happy" in 2008 means "yeah, I am OK"... Or perhaps technology has changed the type of people who respond to annoying happiness polls (caller ID allows me to ignore phone calls from some happiness poll)... Or perhaps we no longer feel comfortable telling strangers we are unhappy because it is now considered a sign of weakness.
Can we agree that these types of statistics are completely and utterly meaningless in any real scientific way?
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Aug 5, 2008 1:57:34 PM
I don't think so Rex, and for what it's worth I think Daniel Gilbert made a fine defense of self-reported happiness in his book "Stumbling on Happiness."
That said, there are of course subtleties ... self-reports in similar cultures and time are indeed easier to compare than those from more unlike conditions.
Still ... it is going to boil down to brain biochemistry at some point, and as Pinker liked to note in his "Blank Slate" there are universal elements of human nature that do span and show great similarity between cultures. If happiness is a fundamental brain state, it might be somewhat similarly represented across languages and cultures.
Posted by: odograph at Aug 5, 2008 2:27:46 PM
All well and good, but the problem with this type of research is that policy advocates use it as an argument against progressive income taxes. It seems that most happiness research is funded by wealthy libertarians who want ammunition for their attempts to maintain, or even grow, inequality in our society. But look, those poor people are happy! So don't rock the boat!
It's the Roman empire bread and circuses to keep the hoi polloi placated. I bet the people who embrace this happiness research also favor legalization of drugs, another way to keep the hoi polloi placated and from coming after the elites' money.
Posted by: Dirk at Aug 5, 2008 2:44:00 PM
t's the Roman empire bread and circuses to keep the hoi polloi placated. I bet the people who embrace this happiness research also favor legalization of drugs, another way to keep the hoi polloi placated and from coming after the elites' money.
Non-sequitor? I support drug legalization mostly because I think it would make a lot of people in the inner cities happier. I also support progressive taxation. I think you're wandering astray here...
Posted by: mpowell at Aug 5, 2008 4:27:32 PM
I like you, Tyler, but you get weirder by the day.
Posted by: Andy McKenzie at Aug 5, 2008 5:25:44 PM
es32: I don't understand how that is relevant. In the last fifty years the fraction of the population that finishes high school has gone from 50% to 90%. The fact that the few remaining uneducated people are the less happy ones is hardly surprising.
What matters for the question of whether a particular bad quantity (e.g. inequality) is getting worse is whether that quantity is increasing. The fact that you can find some factor whoose correlation with the quantity is increasing is not relevant to the question at all.
Posted by: David Wright at Aug 5, 2008 7:27:59 PM
This of course is in no way readily quantifiable, but I wonder how much of the increase in happiness among the relatively less affluent has to do with the vast increase in good entertainment options. 300 channels on cable TV, an amazing array of portable video games, iPods, Internet surfing, etc. etc. etc.
In the 1970s, poor people just sat home and prayed CBS, NBC or ABC had something decent to watch.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 5, 2008 8:50:01 PM
This of course is in no way readily quantifiable, but I wonder how much of the increase in happiness among the relatively less affluent has to do with the vast increase in good entertainment options. 300 channels on cable TV, an amazing array of portable video games, iPods, Internet surfing, etc. etc. etc.
In the 1970s, poor people just sat home and prayed CBS, NBC or ABC had something decent to watch.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 5, 2008 8:50:47 PM
Of course, general levels of happiness say nothing about the misery people may face at specific points in their lives. Sure, I may be as happy, on average, as an investment banker. But he has a lot less worry to about if his mother contracts HIV or his child wants to go to an out-of-state school.
Posted by: Robert Olson at Aug 5, 2008 9:07:59 PM
Since households may be able to use insurance, borrowing, or savings, consumption is less variable than income, and it may better reflect material well-being.
With a national average savings rate near zero, out of control government debt, spiraling health care costs, and a trade deficit that has no end in sight these supplements can only last so long.
Yet the biggest rises in non-work, non-household production hours have been among unemployed and disabled low-skilled men, and most of the increase in "leisure" among those with less education is due to changes in employment status.
"Happily unemployed". Shouldn't that be an oxymoron?
There have also been important legal changes impacting equality of opportunity. A vast array of legislation and court rulings have coincided with changes in social norms to reduce discrimination and allow individuals to make life choices with fewer restrictions due to characteristics such as race, religion, gender, or sexual preference.Could this be considered as a moral argument for the Left?
Posted by: Gadfly at Aug 5, 2008 10:41:08 PM
Who cares about the inequality of happiness? I don't think the average leftist would prefer if Bill Gates' favorite football team does poorly.
Posted by: TGGP at Aug 6, 2008 2:16:10 AM
From their data, while happiness inequality (more precisely the variance in happiness across the entire population) is decreasing it appears as though education (and therefore income?) is becoming more positively correlated with happiness, not less. If this is the case, then the argument for greater redistribution becomes better, not worse. Indeed, as Tyler mentioned in his post, we care about outputs, not inputs. But if income level is becoming a better of predictor of happiness then this makes it a better basis on which to attack the output inequality.
My guess is that Tyler did not read the original paper or the more complete summary linked to in the Aug 4 post, and did not apply sufficient critical thought to the meaning of the simple statement that happiness inequality was decreasing.
To create a simple example, imagine a "society" of 4 people (A, B, C and D). A and B have a university education and make 100000$ a year. C and D graduated high school and make 50000$ a year. If A and C have happiness index +1 while B and D have happiness index -1 then we have a fairly large variance (inequality) in happiness across the whole population. However, we have no basis to want to redistribute wealth to A and B from C and D. A is already quite happy, while D is quite unhappy. If, on the other hand we observe that A and B have happiness index -0.5 while C and D have +0.5 then our case for redistribution of wealth (assuming we wish to reduce happiness inequality) becomes quite good...even though happiness inequality is lower to start with!
Posted by: Matt at Aug 6, 2008 4:33:55 AM
In the previous comment A and B should be the ones with high school degrees making 50000$ a year while C and D are university-educated and make 100000$ a year. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: Matt at Aug 6, 2008 4:35:52 AM
