Well, we witnessed another historic research lounge session this week, because of three reasons:
1) It was conducted by a woman.
2) The turnout was unbelievable.
3) It was the "happiest" session till date.
Some of you might have heard of the topic already. Some of you might have guessed what it was from above. Others: don't worry, I'll tell you what it was. This week's presentation, or, rather, well-administered interactive discussion was done by Katharina. She studies in the M.Sc. Economic Development and Growth and is holding a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Graz. She gained work experience with Oikocredit in Ecuador and has been interested in happiness economics for a long time.
All of us were a little surprised when we saw a white board next to the presentation screen - little did we know that what Katharina would write on it would be the central discussion of the evening. Her first question was, "What do you think is happiness?". The first (and in my opinion, the most rational) response was from Grace - "Chocolate". An overwhelming set of replies followed, ranging from sleep to family, friends and community. Konrad gave us all something to laugh (and think) about when he said, "Is anyone too afraid to say "money"?. Clearly, he wasn't. :P
Good strategy, Katharina - you made the beginning quite interesting. Following this, she proceeded to define happiness by branching it into two categories - affective and evaluative. Affective happiness is something which is temporary, and doesn't last for long (for example, as Katharina said, eating chocolate might make you happy at that moment, but it doesn't last for a lifetime). Evaluative happiness, however, is happiness (or satisfaction) for life - buying a house, for example.
A rational person would expect a country's happiness to increase if its income increases - but, this is where the Easterlin Paradox comes in. The paradox is that while GDP grows over time, happiness stayed the same. This is a phenomenon most observed in developed countries like the U.S.A. Two possible explanations for this paradox are - social comparison and adaptation. Here is a view on the first explanation: "by and large, it is relative rather than absolute levels of income that make people happy. Relative incomes are calculated with respect to a certain norm; if that norm has been growing roughly at the same rate as absolute income over the last few decades then happiness would have remained approximately constant over time, explaining the Easterlin Paradox" (Angeles 2010). "Adaptation" can be explained with an example - the basic concept is that even if an individual has a positive shock, he/she comes back to initial levels of satisfaction eventually. If a person receives a lottery, there is only temporary happiness (until the money lasts). "Unless you get a million", said Dominique. True, that. Again, unless you blow it and don't save it :P
A stylized fact, however, is that income increases with happiness. The Easterlin Paradox, therefore, can be reconciled with this fact, given the concepts of marginal utility of consumption, status and inequality. Katharina then proceeded to outline the main components of "happiness equations". The Big Seven, she called them - money, employment, relationships & children, freedom & control, religious diversity, leisure and health. "Education doesn't make people happy, surprisingly", said Katharina. Oh, well :D. The relationship between age and happiness is represented by:
Well, that's new. Some more facts: marriage makes people happy, but only for the first two years following it. After that....need I say what happens? :P Having children also is not a factor which doesn't increase happiness.
The already interactive session ended in a great Q & A session, and snacks and drinks, of course :D
At this point, I would like to propose two more definitions of happiness:
1) Our Warwick friends
2) Research Lounge.
It is my painful duty to inform all of you that the last research lounge session is next week. I am doing no more convincing - let us hope that the turnout for this one will be the biggest till date. See you all then. Until then, adios, amigos! :D
1) It was conducted by a woman.
2) The turnout was unbelievable.
3) It was the "happiest" session till date.
Some of you might have heard of the topic already. Some of you might have guessed what it was from above. Others: don't worry, I'll tell you what it was. This week's presentation, or, rather, well-administered interactive discussion was done by Katharina. She studies in the M.Sc. Economic Development and Growth and is holding a Bachelor of Economics from the University of Graz. She gained work experience with Oikocredit in Ecuador and has been interested in happiness economics for a long time.
All of us were a little surprised when we saw a white board next to the presentation screen - little did we know that what Katharina would write on it would be the central discussion of the evening. Her first question was, "What do you think is happiness?". The first (and in my opinion, the most rational) response was from Grace - "Chocolate". An overwhelming set of replies followed, ranging from sleep to family, friends and community. Konrad gave us all something to laugh (and think) about when he said, "Is anyone too afraid to say "money"?. Clearly, he wasn't. :P
Good strategy, Katharina - you made the beginning quite interesting. Following this, she proceeded to define happiness by branching it into two categories - affective and evaluative. Affective happiness is something which is temporary, and doesn't last for long (for example, as Katharina said, eating chocolate might make you happy at that moment, but it doesn't last for a lifetime). Evaluative happiness, however, is happiness (or satisfaction) for life - buying a house, for example.
A rational person would expect a country's happiness to increase if its income increases - but, this is where the Easterlin Paradox comes in. The paradox is that while GDP grows over time, happiness stayed the same. This is a phenomenon most observed in developed countries like the U.S.A. Two possible explanations for this paradox are - social comparison and adaptation. Here is a view on the first explanation: "by and large, it is relative rather than absolute levels of income that make people happy. Relative incomes are calculated with respect to a certain norm; if that norm has been growing roughly at the same rate as absolute income over the last few decades then happiness would have remained approximately constant over time, explaining the Easterlin Paradox" (Angeles 2010). "Adaptation" can be explained with an example - the basic concept is that even if an individual has a positive shock, he/she comes back to initial levels of satisfaction eventually. If a person receives a lottery, there is only temporary happiness (until the money lasts). "Unless you get a million", said Dominique. True, that. Again, unless you blow it and don't save it :P
A stylized fact, however, is that income increases with happiness. The Easterlin Paradox, therefore, can be reconciled with this fact, given the concepts of marginal utility of consumption, status and inequality. Katharina then proceeded to outline the main components of "happiness equations". The Big Seven, she called them - money, employment, relationships & children, freedom & control, religious diversity, leisure and health. "Education doesn't make people happy, surprisingly", said Katharina. Oh, well :D. The relationship between age and happiness is represented by:
Well, that's new. Some more facts: marriage makes people happy, but only for the first two years following it. After that....need I say what happens? :P Having children also is not a factor which doesn't increase happiness.
The already interactive session ended in a great Q & A session, and snacks and drinks, of course :D
At this point, I would like to propose two more definitions of happiness:
1) Our Warwick friends
2) Research Lounge.
It is my painful duty to inform all of you that the last research lounge session is next week. I am doing no more convincing - let us hope that the turnout for this one will be the biggest till date. See you all then. Until then, adios, amigos! :D
No comments:
Post a Comment