Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Better to Be Richer

Re: Better to Be Richer

SanFranciscoJim — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:48:35 -0000

Actually, numerous studies, by different methodologies, have uncovered the Venezuela "anomaly." Large income disparities tend to lower overall happiness, though that is obviously not giving Brazil too much trouble.

Re: Better to Be Richer

GilM — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:04:59 -0000

I noticed the Venezuela thing too. I also noticed that Hong Kong looks unhappy for its wealth.

Rather than thinking that some countries are doing much better and worse with their wealth, I suspect that the data collection methods leave something to be desired when one wants to compare across countries.

Re: Better to Be Richer

Glen — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:53:13 -0000

Every time you post something like this, you should reiterate your point (made in prior posts) that the appearance of diminishing returns could be explained by the mapping of an infinite scale (income) against a finite scale (satisfaction with an upper bound).

Re: Better to Be Richer

KJ — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:42:24 -0000

Looks like Venezuela is beating us in satisfaction despite a much lower GDP per person. Just think what Hugo could do with our GDP. Hugo Chavez for President! Anyone with me? Will?

I'm kidding but it struck me as the most jarring piece of info on that graph. I'd also point out that Deaton makes the findings sound more directly proportional than they appear to me when looking at that graph. The Venezuela/U.S. comparison being the most drastic. When I look at it, it seems clear that some nations are much better at utilizing their GDP than others and the U.S. comes out pretty poor in that regard, perhaps due to a law of diminishing returns or because our GDP distribution policies are crappy.

Re: Better to Be Richer

Alex — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:21:04 -0000

It's Togolese, by the way, just in case you were wondering how to put that phrase. In the same way that people who live in Congo are Congolese.

Your point about relativity is a good one although I think regardless of that, money makes you more comortable and arguably therefore happier regardless of what's going on in other countries.

I'd also like to see a bar chart with the different religions also, i.e.countries that are predominantly Christian in one bar, Muslim in another bar, etc. and then compare that with happiness and then find a way to mix GDP in there somehow.

But in the end the eternal question will always be, which is the cause and which is the effect? Did happiness cause production, did production cause religion, did religion cause happiness?

Re: Better to Be Richer

JA — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:31:29 -0000

Did it again. KAHNEMAN. It's Kahneman, even though the link says Kahnemann.

Mi dispiace.

Re: Better to Be Richer

JA — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:28:00 -0000

Kahnemann, natch. heh.

Re: Better to Be Richer

JA — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:27:41 -0000

Not only can you show them the graph, but you can then bring up Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman's work on Prospect Theory to elevate your point to an inescapable fact of human nature.

You are probably already familiar with Kahneman's work, Will, but here's a link to his Nobel lecture for your readers.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/la...

Re: Better to Be Richer

mk — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:32:53 -0000

The argument that people assess life satisfaction based on relative global status sounds plausible to me. Americans certainly know that they "have it better" than most, and people in Haiti know that life is harder there than in most places.

Why not include a question about "what is your strictly material satisfaction" in the same survey? Then you could see whether they track up directly or not. If not, interesting. If so, then correlation is not causation but it is suggestive.