Abstract Essay On Happiness Is Wealth
Scientific evidence has shown us that in fact, money DOES buy happiness, but only to a certain point.
A famous Princeton study (linked below) found that emotional wellbeing increases steadily with income, up to around $75,000 per year. After that point, income does not have much of an effect on emotional wellbeing.
Research has previously shown that low income families are more likely to divorce than higher income families (see NCFR link), and that lower income couples were more likely to have their relationship negatively influenced by money problems. Together, these facts suggest that conflict within low income families can often relate to money problems, leading to unhappiness and divorce at higher rates than high income families.
The Princeton study has found that low income families also experience more emotional distress from unfortunate life events (which include poor health and loneliness as well as divorce) than do higher income families.
With that said, it seems clear that $75,000 for a family isn't really all that much money. Two parents earning just over $37,000 per year will earn that much (which works out to around $18 per hour per parent working 40 hours per week). Clearly, though, a single parent earning that salary will earn far below the 'happiness threshold', and will suffer from many of the financial troubles experienced by low income families.
Essentially, I think the data shows us that money can buy happiness if you are in poverty or struggling with money. In this case, the money will eliminate several sources of unhappiness, such as stress and marital conflict over finances. But once you have a comfortable family income: enough to pay for all your fixed expenses (such as rent/mortgage, bills, and groceries) and maybe a few luxuries (movie tickets), money doesn't really have much of an impact on happiness.
Show MoreWealth and happiness
The human kind has always strived towards power, and wealth is one of the necessities for those who want this power. However, nowadays many seek wealth, because they want the freedom that money can grant, and thus become happier. Some people tend overrate how much happier they will get by becoming rich. That leads to the question: “Can you buy happiness?”
In the first text, David Brooks tries to explain the correlation between wealth and happiness. With Sandra Bullock’s experience as an example, he tries to prove his point that getting richer only will make you a little bit happier, as in the USA, where the country has gotten a lot richer during the last 50 years, but not happier than before. However, he does…show more content…
To engage the reader David Brooks starts out by using an example that contains a person most people know, Sandra Bullock. He engages the readers this way, since it is easy for us to relate to the issue and draw parallels to problems in the daily life. However, not only does the Sandra Bullock example make us able to relate and put the problem into perspective. It also works as the rhetorical device pathos. He makes us feel sorry for her. He somewhat tries to make up for it by saying: “on average, Oscar winners live nearly four years longer than nominees that don’t win.”
In the beginning of the text, he also captures the reader using a couple of rhetorical questions: “So the philosophic question of the day is: Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?” This makes us think about his message for a while, before we continue reading.
He also uses plenty of statistics, which would be the appeal form logos, since you cannot really argue with statistics.
However, he does not really speak much of where the data comes from, how they came to their conclusions or even how the data was collected. He probably made consciously made this choice, to be able to reach a wider audience for his article, since it can feel repulsive and boring to read all of these details instead of getting to the point