The Pursuit Of Happiness And Its Effects On The Economy

The Pursuit Of Happiness And Its Effects On The Economykosha Goetzmay

The Pursuit of Happiness and Its Effects on the Economy Kosha Goetz May 8, 2016 Introduction Every person is moved by desire and aversion, thus motivated to secure the objects of their desire and to avoid the objects of their aversion. Each person is ultimately motivated by preferences which primarily concern one’s own good. Psychological egoism is an individualistic and self-interested psychology of human motivation (Hobbes). Desires and aversions can differ for different people and may also change overtime. There is no possibility of an irrational desire or aversion.

Even if human desires differ or change overtime, there are two that remain universal. These desires are the desire for one’s own happiness and the desire for self-preservation. Both of these desires are self-interested, however, they exist in each and every person and can thusly be maintained as dually universal. Happiness is defined by Thomas Hobbes as the continuous success of obtaining that which one desires. To explain further, the desire for happiness is a second-tier desire that is maintained by the objects of one’s first-tier desires.

Self-preservation is a desire that the state recognizes and continues to support by means of government programs and public policy. However, happiness is not necessarily deemed important by the state and, rather, is cast aside as individual responsibility. There are few laws that recognize this desire for happiness by society, so why should the people see happiness as in important virtue? Following utilitarian values, happiness can be associated with the accruement of marginal utility. Is happiness not but the continual accruement of marginal utility of the application of the good?

All desires, whatever their content, are counted in the calculation of social utility because the satisfaction of any desire possesses value. If individuals are to be solely responsible for their happiness, then we must look into the power of the individual to maintain happiness. Hobbes defines this power as a person’s present means, or ability, to secure his future good. Forms of power include aspects of one’s own personal endowment, such as intelligence, and one’s acquired means, such as wealth or social status. From this definition, we can maintain that a person’s wealth and education level is crucial to their ability to provide for their own desires and, ultimately, their own happiness.

Happiness in the United States The United States is a country that currently holds little to no value on the happiness of its citizens. This is made clear by the lack of social programs and laws supporting happiness that are present in other countries. For example, in Italy it is common to have a two or three hour lunch break. Austria has a legal minimum of 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays each year. Meanwhile, the United States is the only developed country in the world without a single legally required paid vacation day or holiday.

Not only do these workers have paid vacations, but, “workers who have vacation and paid holidays also tend to have much higher levels of other benefits such as health insurance and retirement plans” (Hess). Of the eight nations requiring workers receive 30 days off a year, New Zealand's government spent proportionally less than the United State's 40.3% of GDP on social welfare. If countries like New Zealand are able to expense these kinds of desires with impacting even less of the country’s GDP, then the United States should have the same capability. These are simply a few examples of where the United States is lacking in its efforts to increase social welfare and happiness of its citizens. A survey was recently conducted to deduce how many people in the United States and Europe are happy and if their individual wealth contributed to their happiness.

Table 1 shows the Life Satisfaction in Europe from 1975 to 1992 with a group of 271,224 individuals. The majority of people in Europe are fairly satisfied with the majority of those who are very satisfied either being married or are members of the highest income quartile. Thus, life satisfaction in Europe is correlated to marriage and wealth. Table 2 depicts the Happiness in the United States from 1972 to 1994 which studied 26,668 individuals over 23 years. Females tend to be more happy than males and, similar to the European survey, those in the highest income quartile reported to be more happy than those in the lower quartiles.

Also, those who are married are much more happy than those who are divorced. Much more people in the United States reported being unhappy while unemployed than those in Europe. The United States survey did not have a life satisfaction question and were given less reported happiness responses. With only three response categories, “may allow less introspection since people can choose the middle category when unsure of their choice” (Tella 811). The wellbeing scores are skewed to the top which indicates that people responded optimistically. However this may be interpreted, it is clear that those who are unemployed and divorced are the least satisfied in both Europe and the United States.

Marriage and high wealth seem to be associated with higher satisfaction scores in both Europe and the United States. With income being a large impact on social wellbeing, one must look at how to increase individual wealth so as to increase both happiness and individual power to maintain one’s own happiness. As we deduced earlier from the definitions of happiness and power, individual wealth and education are keys to the success of the increase in social wellbeing. The statistics provided by the survey solidified that individual wealth is extremely important when discussing a person’s happiness. The three most important aspects to a person’s happiness has been proven to be wealth, employment, and companionship.

Although the state cannot, and should not, fully take on these responsibilities, it can surely enhance at least two of these three aspects in a person’s life; wealth and employment. John Rawls’ Distribution of Wealth Theory Philosopher John Rawls suggests in his second principle of justice that social and economic inequalities must satisfy the condition that they must be to the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society. Although the current social state of the Unites States is far from Rawls’ idealistic interpretation of what a society should be, we can still take small steps toward such a social state. Rawls suggests that it is those who are the least advantaged in their social position who should receive the most from the state.

That which they receive monetarily would have to be greater than that which they would receive if the state were to be strictly socialist. This theory can be compared to a security strategy in game theory where the player chooses to maximize his minimum payoff. In game theory this is not necessarily the best option because the player often has greater opportunity choosing a different strategy. However, when applying this theory to our current social status, we see that each individual has security in their income quartile. 20% P 25% 55% Q 100% Q The charts above depict a strictly socialist income distribution (left) and Rawls’ new income distribution model (right).

The lowest income level in Rawls’ distribution model has been raised to above that which can be achieved with strict equality. Rawls strived for equality without negating incentives. Although this security strategy allows for individuals to be more content with their wealth status, they still have incentive to gain more wealth. There are wealthier opportunities available while still maintaining economic security. However, while this model seems idealistic, it does not explain where the funds are allocated from to increase these wages. Where is this redistributed wealth coming from? Rawls does not provide an answer in his work. We can merely speculate as to how he would have funded this kind of wealth distribution model.

Paper For Above instruction

The pursuit of happiness has long been a central concern in philosophical, economic, and political discourse. Understanding its effects on the economy involves exploring the philosophical underpinnings of happiness, the societal factors that influence well-being, and the potential policy measures that can enhance social prosperity. This paper examines the relationship between happiness and economic development, emphasizing the roles of individual wealth, social policies, and distribution theories, particularly through the lens of psychological egoism, utilitarianism, and Rawlsian justice.

At the core of the debate lies the concept that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest—the pursuit of personal happiness and self-preservation. Thomas Hobbes articulates that happiness results from the continuous achievement of one's desires, which aligns with utilitarian principles that value the maximization of utility across society. Desires, whether for wealth, social status, or relationships, are integral to social utility, as their satisfaction contributes value to collective well-being (Hobbes, 1991). The utility-based perspective supports the idea that public policies should aim to increase the capacity of individuals to fulfill their desires, thereby enhancing overall societal happiness.

However, the extent to which modern societies prioritize happiness varies significantly. In the United States, for example, social policies tend to emphasize self-preservation and economic growth over explicitly fostering happiness. Unlike countries such as Italy and Austria, which mandate paid vacations and regulate leisure time, the U.S. lacks comprehensive policies supporting these aspects of well-being (Hess, 2013). This discrepancy impacts societal happiness, as relational and leisure factors substantially correlate with life satisfaction. Surveys indicate that marital status and income are strong predictors of happiness, with married, wealthier individuals reporting higher satisfaction levels (Tella et al., 1997). Unemployment and divorce, conversely, are associated with lower well-being, underscoring the importance of employment and social stability.

Enhancing individual wealth and employment opportunities could serve as effective strategies to boost happiness. Education and wealth, as forms of personal power, significantly influence an individual’s capacity to satisfy desires and attain well-being (Hobbes, 1997). Governments can, therefore, focus on policies that promote economic security—such as investment in education, job creation, and social safety nets—to elevate societal happiness levels. Nonetheless, such efforts must be balanced with questions of resource allocation and fairness.

John Rawls’ theory of justice provides a compelling framework for addressing income inequalities while promoting social welfare. Rawls’ second principle stipulates that inequalities are justifiable only if they benefit the least advantaged members of society (Rawls, 1971). Applying this to the American economy suggests that redistributive policies should focus on providing a safety net that raises the living standards of marginalized populations without undermining incentives for productivity. The comparison of income distribution models reveals that adjusting the lowest income levels upward, as Rawls advocates, could increase overall happiness without sacrificing economic efficiency.

Nevertheless, funding such redistribution poses significant challenges. Rawls does not specify the sources of resources for equitable wealth distribution, but mechanisms such as progressive taxation and social investment could potentially finance these initiatives. Balancing incentives for wealth creation with social equity remains a critical policy challenge, as overly aggressive redistribution might dampen economic motivation (Stiglitz, 2012). Future research should explore sustainable funding models that reconcile these competing priorities.

In conclusion, the pursuit of happiness has profound implications for economic policy and social justice. Recognizing happiness as a fundamental objective can guide reforms that prioritize well-being alongside growth. Policies fostering wealth, employment, and social equity—grounded in theoretical frameworks like utilitarianism and Rawlsian justice—can lead to more prosperous and harmonious societies. Ultimately, integrating happiness considerations into economic planning may not only improve individual lives but also strengthen the social fabric as a whole.

References

• Hobbes, T., & Tuck, R. (1991). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
• Hess, A. E. M. (2013). On Holiday: Countries with the Most Vacation Days. USA Today.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., & Oswald, A. J. (1997). The Macroeconomics of Happiness. Oxford University.
• Hobbes, T. (1991). Leviathan. Cambridge University Press.
• Hess, A. E. M. (2013). On Holiday: Countries with the Most Vacation Days. USA Today.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., & Oswald, A. J. (1997). The Macroeconomics of Happiness. Oxford University.