Apparently it is money that buys us happiness after all. The subscribed theory up until now has been the Easterlin paradox, which says that how much you earn relative to those around you matters more than how much you earn in the grand scheme of things. A Brookings Institution study has challenged that saying that affluence is an important factor in happiness, although it does not guarantee it. It it really telling us anything new? How do you really measure happiness? The findings also go against the work of Richard Layard, who I think is a pretty clever chap.
Read the original New York Times article here.
Comments