Explaining the rich man’s misery
NationalPost.com – Full Comment
November 22, 2014. Robert Fulford
In the course of writing an article about charitable donations I once ran into a wealthy philanthropist who was not at all pleased that she possessed a noticeable fortune.
“I don’t enjoy it,” she said. It clearly made her uncomfortable. “If people know you have some money they think of you in a different way. You’re singled out.” As she saw it, her privacy was invaded. She felt she had been categorized, like someone subject to racial prejudice. In an unkind moment I suggested that there’s a fairly well-known cure: Give it away. “I knew you were going to say that,” she said.
Her comments reminded me that money has a way of defining those who possess it. Mitt Romney is a famous case of money-definition: No one can think of him without thinking about his fortune. By tradition, those who complain about their lack of money often hear a piece of grandmotherly wisdom: “Don’t envy the rich. Everybody knows that money can’t make them happy.”
I for one never accepted my grandmother’s view, but now it appears that she was right and I was wrong. Psychologists, sociologists and other social scientists have discovered that money does not in fact bring happiness. Or, at least, the evidence suggests surprisingly high levels of joyless feelings among those who are materially well fixed. How is this unhappiness expressed? One way is through shoplifting, a widely accepted indicator of mental instability. Rachel Shteir, a DePaul University professor, the author of The Steal: A Cultural History of Shoplifting, says that “people shoplift as an anodyne against grief.” Shoplifting is often “a confession of sexual repression, a howl of grief, a political yelp, a sign of depression … ” And here’s the point: She quotes a study that found Americans with good-sized incomes shoplift about 30% more often than people with low incomes.
Why? Entitlement and rage are among the explanations. Many affluent people consider themselves victims and unloved outsiders. They want revenge, so they rob rich stores. That probably spontaneous act plays into a powerful if not quite conscious theme. Maybe the shoplifter finds emotional release by imitating the bravado of the outlaw. Or consider road rage. Two studies of driving behaviour at the University of California concluded that upper-class motorists are four times more likely than other drivers to cut off other vehicles at four-way intersections and three times more likely to zip past pedestrians waiting to use a crosswalk. It’s clear those drivers are afflicted by misplaced rage and resentment.
Recent university journals, like Psychological Science Research, publish an increasing number of articles intended to help the rich use their money in ways that will make them at least somewhat happier. It’s clear that they need more help than they are getting from mental health professionals: “Upper-class children can manifest elevated disturbance in several areas — such as substance use, anxiety, and depression,” says a typical article. They suffer from excessive pressures to achieve and isolation from parents, literal and emotional. There’s a serious risk of “nontrivial threats to their psychological well-being.”
Money won’t buy happiness, as grandma said, but the academics now believe that spending money wisely on helping other people will probably increase happiness
Michael Norton of the Harvard Business School and his two Vancouver co-authors, Elizabeth Dunn and Lara Aknin, are developing theories about how the rich can relieve their misery by donating their money in ways that provide a sense of fulfilment. They titled an article “Prosocial Spending and Happiness: Using Money to Benefit Others Pays Off.” Perhaps “pays off” is unnecessarily crass but it’s pop style, acceptable in business schools. “People who spend money on others report more happiness,” Norton and Dunn say in a book, Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending. Other articles promise to explain how the rich can get the most value from giving or “Turn Good Deeds into Good Feelings.” One heading reads “The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-interested Charitable Behaviour.”
Money won’t buy happiness, as grandma said, but the academics now believe that spending money wisely on helping other people will probably increase happiness. Michael Lewis, the author of Flash Boys and Moneyball, has recently turned his attention to this issue. In the New Republic he argues that there’s a growing awareness that the gap between rich and poor is more than a matter of justice. “It’s not just bad for the poor. It’s also bad for the rich.” And the rich, with psychologists and Michael Lewis to alert them to this reality, will now be able to demonstrate that happiness, like everything else, can be monetized.
< http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/11/22/robert-fulford-explaining-the-rich-mans-misery/ >
Tags: ideology, participation, philanthropy
This entry was posted on Saturday, November 22nd, 2014 at 12:18 pm and is filed under Equality Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
3 Responses to “Explaining the rich man’s misery”
|
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
I read an article not too long ago about how a world happiness report was done in 2013 by the UN, which stated that Canada ranked sixth place. I questioned why Canada being such a wealthy and well-off country would rank sixth compared to the top three which are all European. This article did explain a bit further about why this might have occurred.
I see the authors point that regardless if you are rich or poor you have similar stressors and you might not genuinely be happy. However; if you are wealthy you also have the means of dealing with stressors or issues that make you unhappy. Not only can you afford basic living costs but you can also afford ways that will assist with coping with stress or other health issues that might make you unhappy. For example, you can afford a vacation, you can afford medication, you can afford counselling or even a day at the spa. For counselling in Ontario, if you don’t have benefits or money to pay for private therapy, you are forced to sit on a waiting list for many months. Wouldn’t this mean that a wealthy individual might still have a better chance at becoming happy solely based on being able to access better services?
As a student, a young mother and having a lot of debt, I have experienced the side of being “poor”. I don’t recall ever judging someone for having a lot of money. So I found this perception very interesting. Regardless of how you look at it there is more than just money that make people happy. For example, whether you are rich or poor, things that make people happy include families, relationships, accomplishments, reaching goals, etc. I personally don’t think becoming wealthy would change those other aspects within my own life.
I liked the idea that was presented in the article that a wealthy person who gives to those who are less fortune will potentially increase their own happiness. I think this is only a small band aid solution to the overall picture. There needs to be a better system in place that would allow more equality between the rich and the poor. I’m doubtful that this will ever happen. Since the gap between the rich and the poor has only grown over the years, I can only assume that most wealthy cooperation’s/individuals in Canada would continue with this economic inequality and just deal with being “unhappy”.
I am a sole support parent going to school full time so I have to budget everything. I for one have never judged people with money. I applaud them for working so hard.
I agree that rich people have stresses, but it is a different stress then someone in poverty. A rich person never has to be cold, hungry, or not being able to afford Christmas. Money may not bring you happiness, but it does bring you comfort and make life a little easier. The difference as well is if you do get depression, anxiety etc. you can afford to get help not sitting on a two year waiting list. I would take rich people problems any day. Yes it could be therapeutic for a richer person to help someone in poverty, give them a hand. Maybe it will help bring down the wall and the judgements that go both ways. If one person helps another it can make a big difference in our world. Who knows maybe that one person you help will be able to do the same for another in the future.
Being a student who has financially struggled the past couple of years on an OSAP budget, I couldn’t help but roll my eyes after only reading the title of this article. But after reading it, I realized that I had been quick to judge this issue.
We know about the social determinants of health and how living in poverty increases an individual’s risk for anxiety issues, depression, cardiovascular disease, and premature death in general. It was interesting to read that individuals who are on the complete opposite side of the income spectrum are also at increased risk for these health complications. It’s pretty clear that money – either too little or too much- is affecting individual lives on psychological, physical, and emotional levels. The author suggested that those in the elite class donate money to bring down their income level. Although this is a great suggestion, this doesn’t solve the issue of those living in poverty and how to raise their income. I would propose having a guaranteed annual income of at least $40, 000 annually and citizens with considerably large incomes will be heavily taxed. I know this will get a lot of complaints but if the points presented in the article are true, in the long run those belonging to the elite class will be thankful because of the anticipated higher levels of happiness and overall better health.