If I were a rich man ...

As a starving graduate student--ok, "starving" is an exaggeration--every once in a while I played the lottery.  I typically bought a quickpick lotto ticket for a dollar--this was back in California.  It was always a disappointment that I never had even two numbers that matched with the winning ones.  I comforted myself with "unlucky with money, but lucky in love."

And then I won.

Five dollars!

And those five dollars is all I have won all my life in playing the lottery.  I was excited that I finally won something.  So elated I was, I immediately spent it all on, yep, five lottery tickets.  And, yep, no more wins.

The "starving" graduate student!

As life picked up, it seemed like I had gotten to be lucky with love and with money.

But ... it then became a stereotypical country music song that I live: dog died, wife gone, and no money :)

Of course, "no money" is one heck of an exaggeration.

What I earn now will place me in the global top one percent.  Yep, I am one of those awful one-percent.

But, I don't feel like I am in that kind of an economic stratosphere because I don't get to see the more than six and a half billion whose lives are nowhere even close to my level of material affluence.  I can, however, and pretty much on a daily basis, see those who are even more affluent.

But, I am almost always content and happy.  One student, "D," who every once in a while pokes his head into my office, comments variations of "we shouldn't pay you because you look happy all the time."  "D" is not wrong at all; I am sure my contentment shows.

Is there a relationship at all between material affluence and contentment and happiness?  I would think that the longest stretch of not at ease within were during the days--years actually--from the final phase of high school until I came to the US.  That was one long stretch of about seven years.  But, it wasn't because I was penniless and thrown into the gutters.  It was simply because of angst within.  The wonderful food that my mother cooked or the pleasing music or anything else were comforting, yes, but that angst triggered unhappiness was always there.

It is not without reason, I suppose, that we mouth that old wisdom that happiness comes from within.  It is true, dammit.  Money certainly helps, but I guess money is neither a necessary condition, nor a sufficient condition, to make one happy.  Could I be happier with a tad more money?  You betcha!  But, do I do anything at all with a goal of increasing my material affluence?  Hell no. My life isn't about making more money for myself.

My interest in economic development, which led me to graduate school, meant that I read up about this happiness aspect of economic development as well.  A mere maximization of the GDP didn't appeal to me as the be all and end all of how to think about poverty in the developing countries.  After all, I had seen plenty of poor in India who seemed to be having fun in life.  They seemed happy from what I observed.  Many with money seemed nowhere that happy from what I observed.

One of the articles I read was by Richard Easterlin.  Interestingly enough, Easterlin was on the faculty at USC at that time, and two graduate students from India, who were friends of mine, were working with him on their doctoral dissertations.  Anyway, the article was about the "Easterlin Paradox"--happiness across countries did not seem to relate to per capita incomes.  Simply put, more money doesn't mean more happiness.

That paradox, as one can imagine, appealed to me right away.  It was consistent with my own life experiences, though I hadn't had all that experience when I was barely 25!  It made intuitive sense that money alone does not get happiness.

But, I would think that if one is literally starving for food because of poverty, then money could bring in immense relief and happiness. One could then theoretically argue that as we climb up those economic levels then the happiness brought in by the additional dollar is not as much as the happiness brought in by the first dollar.

Ronald Bailey writes in Reason that, well, I am wrong--more money is more happiness:

Two economists at the University of Michigan, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, reject the Easterlin Paradox. Their new article, published in the May American Economic Review—argues that more money does buy more happiness. As evidence, the two compare happiness measures between rich and poor countries and between rich and poor people within countries.

After discussing the research findings, Bailey winds down to this:

There is no income threshold when it comes to procuring more of this kind of happiness. It is certainly wonderful and valuable to enjoy the moment, but real and lasting pleasure comes from a life well-lived. More money can’t guarantee a satisfying life, but research shows that it sure does help.

My point exactly.  Money is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for happiness.  But, having money does help.