RC:
As necessities and luxuries get cheaper, do people get happier? A small cottage industry grew up at the turn of the twenty-first century devoted to the subject of the economics of happiness. It started with the paradox that richer people are not necessarily happier people. Beyond a certain level of per capita income ($15,000 a year, according to some), money did not seem to buy subjective well-being. As books and papers on this topic proliferated, schadenfreude set in on a grand scale among commentators happy to see the unhappiness of the rich confirmed. Politicians latched on, and governments from Thailand to Britain began to think about how to maximize gross national happiness instead of gross national product. If economic growth does not produce happiness, said the new wisdom, then there was no point in striving for prosperity and the world economy should be brought to a soft landing at a reasonable level of income. Or, as one economist put it: 'The hippies were right all along'.
If this is true, then what is the point of celebrating the continuing defeat of death, dearth, disease and drudgery, if it does not make people happier? But it is not true. The debate began with a study by Richard Easterlin in 1974, which found that although within a country rich people were generally happier than poor people, richer countries did not have happier citizens than poor countries. Since then the 'Easterlin paradox' has become the central dogma of the debate. Trouble is, it is wrong. Two papers were published in 2008 analysing all the data, and the unambiguous conclusion of both is that the Easterlin paradox does not exist. Rich people are happier than poor people; rich countries have happier people than poor countries; and people get happier as they get richer. The earlier study simply had samples too small to find significant differences. In all three categories of comparison - within countries, between countries and between times - extra income does indeed buy general well-being. That is to say, on average, across the board, on the whole, other things being equal, more money does make you happier.
There are some exceptions. Americans currently show no trend towards increasing happiness. Is this because the rich had got richer but ordinary Americans had not prospered much in recent years? Or because America continually draws in poor (unhappy) immigrants, which keeps the happiness quotient low? Who knows? It was not because the Americans are too rich to get any happier: Japanese and Europeans grew steadily happier as they grew richer despite being often just as rich as Americans. Moreover, surprisingly, American women have become less happy in recent decades despite getting richer.
Of course, it is possible to be rich and unhappy, as many a celebrity gloriously reminds us. Of course, it is possible to get rich and find that you are unhappy not to be richer still, if only because the neighbour - or the people on television - are richer than you are. Economists call this the 'hedonic treadmill'; the rest of us call it 'keeping up with the Joneses'. And it is probably true that the rich do lots of unnecessary damage to the planet as they go on striving to get richer long after the point where it is having much effect on their happiness. However, this does not mean that anybody would be necessarily happier if poorer - to be well off and unhappy is surely better than to be poor and unhappy.
What does the author want to show through this passage?
1) In general, poor people are happier than rich people.
2) In general, rich people are happier than poor people.
3) Studies showing that happiness and income are directly correlated are wrong.
4) Studies showing that happiness and income are inversely correlated are wrong.
Which of the following cannot be inferred from this passage?
1)It is possible for a society to reach the ceiling of maximum happiness, and not get any happier despite getting richer.
2) Striving to maximize one's own wealth - and therefore happiness - can have a negative effect on other people's happiness.
3) Part of the happiness gained by being rich lies in knowing that you are richer than certain other people.
4) Hippies believe that one should strive to maximize happiness rather than economic success.
Which of the following, if true, best explains why American women have become less happy in recent decades despite getting richer?
1) Despite achieving near equality with men in almost all aspects of life, American women feel dissatisfied that they have been unable to achieve complete equality with men.
2) Along with ever-increasing prosperity, America also faces an epidemic of ever-increasing crime and social inequality, leading to a decrease in the happiness among Americans.
3) American women have become richer in recent decades due to greater career opportunities opening up to them, but this has had a negative effect on their domestic lives.
4) American women have greater educational and career opportunities than most other women in the world, and they pursue these instead of focusing on their personal lives.
Which of the following is the least likely source of this passage?
1) A book called The Economics of Happiness, published in 2005
2) A book called Prosperity and Happiness, written in 2011
3) An article called 'Global Trends in Happiness', published in 2009
4) An article called 'Debunking the Easterlin Paradox', written in 2014
-IMS