<story><title>The Loophole in the Hedonic Treadmill</title><url>http://nautil.us/blog/the-loophole-in-the-hedonic-treadmill</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>J-dawg</author><text>The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn&amp;#x27;t sit well with me.&lt;p&gt;In South American countries for example, it certainly seems to be true that middle class professionals have a pretty nice lifestyle partially &lt;i&gt;as a result of&lt;/i&gt; inequality in society. (For example, it&amp;#x27;s pretty normal to have a live-in housekeeper to clean and cook for you)</text></item><item><author>lqdc13</author><text>Lots of contradictory stadies on this subject:&lt;p&gt;Money buys happiness until you have $75,000 (the one they are citing):&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.princeton.edu&amp;#x2F;~deaton&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.princeton.edu&amp;#x2F;~deaton&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;deaton_kahneman_...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Money always buys happiness - no limit:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brookings.edu&amp;#x2F;~&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;subjective%20well%20being%20income&amp;#x2F;subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brookings.edu&amp;#x2F;~&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, it seems to not matter that much as money only explains 1.8% of the variance in subjective well being:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;link.springer.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;10.1023&amp;#x2F;A:1010079728426&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;link.springer.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;10.1023&amp;#x2F;A:1010079728426&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>Retric</author><text>Many things &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; zero sum.  Land does not increase just because world GDP grows.  Further,  increasing wealth does not mean every resource becomes more abundant.&lt;p&gt;Gold supply for example is fairly fixed because we have already mined the stuff for thousands of years and most of that old gold is still around.  Granted, there is a lot of gold out there something like 2 pounds per person, but that it.  Want more than that, take it from someone else.&lt;p&gt;Housekeeping is an edge case where everyone wants it, but nobody wants to do it.  So, it only shows up due to wealth disparity.&lt;p&gt;PS: The abundance of food &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; also great wealth, but you only need so many calories a day.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Loophole in the Hedonic Treadmill</title><url>http://nautil.us/blog/the-loophole-in-the-hedonic-treadmill</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>J-dawg</author><text>The one I always find a little unsettling is the idea that relative wealth has a greater impact on happiness than absolute wealth. The inference that happiness is a zero-sum game doesn&amp;#x27;t sit well with me.&lt;p&gt;In South American countries for example, it certainly seems to be true that middle class professionals have a pretty nice lifestyle partially &lt;i&gt;as a result of&lt;/i&gt; inequality in society. (For example, it&amp;#x27;s pretty normal to have a live-in housekeeper to clean and cook for you)</text></item><item><author>lqdc13</author><text>Lots of contradictory stadies on this subject:&lt;p&gt;Money buys happiness until you have $75,000 (the one they are citing):&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.princeton.edu&amp;#x2F;~deaton&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.princeton.edu&amp;#x2F;~deaton&amp;#x2F;downloads&amp;#x2F;deaton_kahneman_...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Money always buys happiness - no limit:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brookings.edu&amp;#x2F;~&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;subjective%20well%20being%20income&amp;#x2F;subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brookings.edu&amp;#x2F;~&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;research&amp;#x2F;files&amp;#x2F;papers&amp;#x2F;2013&amp;#x2F;...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, it seems to not matter that much as money only explains 1.8% of the variance in subjective well being:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;link.springer.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;10.1023&amp;#x2F;A:1010079728426&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;link.springer.com&amp;#x2F;article&amp;#x2F;10.1023&amp;#x2F;A:1010079728426&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>spacehome</author><text>I think the fact that happiness is (mostly) zero sum comes from the fact that in early humanity&amp;#x27;s evolutionary environment, the ecosystem had a mostly constant (meaning over human reproductive cycle timelines) carrying capacity for humans.  Innovative advances in technology or techniques or knowledge that would allow for more humans to thrive with better qualities of life were so rare that evolution did not have much opportunity to select for them.  In that kind of environment, one&amp;#x27;s genes can only propagate at the expense of others&amp;#x27;.  So we&amp;#x27;re now all the decedents of the early humans who preferred being the top dog of squalor as opposed to an equal in a prosperous society.</text></comment>