Easterlin's Objective Notion Of Happiness?

Happiness is a major concern for human beings, and it comes as no surprise that history has yielded many explorations as to what happiness is, and how it can be achieved. These explorations of happiness can be traced back to the philosophical inquiries of classical times, to today’s psychological studies on happiness. While happiness itself is generally difficult to precisely define, the operational definition of happiness relates to what is known as subjective well-being (SWB). In psychological studies, it has been determined that individuals are best suited to assess their own happiness, hence the primacy of SWB. This is in contrast with previous notions of happiness that tie happiness to virtue or any other objective notion of happiness.

As a result of this increase in standard, the individual adjusts his own expectations of what it means to be wealthy, therefore an increase in overall wealth of a nation does not lead to an overall increase in happiness of the citizens in that nation. Easterlin recognizes the importance of socialization in this regard: “Needs, or material aspirations, are formed as the result of prior and on-going experience in a society--in the language of sociology, through socialization experience of the individual.” In this case, socialization is what creates the relationship between wealth and happiness. This also relates to the hedonistic treadmill theory, which Easterlin has basically recognized as a social phenomenon rather than just a psychological one. Society constantly adjusts notions of wealth in the individual as the society becomes wealthier as a whole. The result is that the experience of happiness becomes normalized, and is the reason why, as Dorothy S. Brady points out, “the typical American today does not consider himself wealthy,” even if “today, the great majority of American families live on a scale that compares well with the way wealthy families lived 200 years ago.” By contending that the hedonic treadmill persists, Easterlin comes to a conclusion that in the societal level, pursuing happiness is ultimately a pointless act, as is in line with the hedonic treadmill

Lane argues that the Easterlin paradox and the hedonic treadmill theory that happiness is ultimately pointless is actually not true. Lane points out that the findings of Easterlin was mostly limited by the data during Easterlin’s time, and that Lane’s own investigations have a broader perspective of the relationship between money and happiness. Lane accepts Easterlin’s identification of richer people being happier than poorer people. International surveys continue to reflect this trend even twenty years after Easterlin’s study. What Lane finds erroneous in Easterlin’s conclusions is that overall increase in wealth does increase the overall SWB of a society. One thing that Lane takes into consideration is that beyond a certain point, wealth can no longer buy happiness. It is only for the poor that happiness can be bought, as the poor do not have enough resources to ensure survival, leading finances to be a source of worry, and therefore an increase in negative affect. But with the rich, this worry disappears, as there are enough material resources to ensure survival. Lane mentions that studies have revealed that “Whereas the poor and less educated worry about health and income and things they cannot easily control, the richer and better educated worry more about their relations with their spouses and children and the more controllable features of their lives. Money does not reduce worrying; it simply