Comments on: Happiness and Income Inequality

By: ChrisJ

ChrisJ — Fri, 22 May 2009 02:23:49 +0000

I don't think it's accurate to say that anybody here is trying to tell people to stop being people- I suspect rather that they're saying that since somebody's always going to be unhappy, the rules might as well focus on being fair instead of trying to make everybody feel better (an impossible task).

Calling out envy for what it is raises a valid point: where a motive exists to tilt the table in your favor, it's reasonable to double-check whether what you propose will really be just or fair for everyone.

By: ChrisJ

ChrisJ — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:23:49 +0000

By: GilM

GilM — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:15:59 +0000

All questions are answered within!

It must be a REALLY LONG paper!

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Wed, 20 May 2009 18:21:27 +0000

Will, I suppose you saw this paper by Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson? Greg Mankiw highlighted it.

Both of them study inequality a lot. In any case, by subjective happiness measures-- the same sorts of things that Matt is praising in his post, women's happiness in USA has gone down dramatically since the 1970s. It used to be higher than that of men, now it is lower. Very strange that this would have happened after women's liberation.

I suspect that the paper may cause some to reject reliance on subjective happiness measures.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:22:32 +0000

I have a long paper on inequality coming out soon. All questions are answered within!

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:21:36 +0000

Yes, when the effect of a variable is ideologically mediated, it can be annoying that some people have the wrong ideology. Likewise, egalitarians often have a naive or outright incorrect view on the causes of inequality.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:17:48 +0000

Yes!

By: Freddie

Freddie — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:06:13 +0000

But it doesn’t so much bother meritocrats.

The problem is, meritocrats so often have a naive or outright incorrect view on whether something is the product of merit or of other factors.

By: Craig McGillivary

Craig McGillivary — Wed, 20 May 2009 16:23:44 +0000

I have heard you argue that you aren't an egalitarian because you aren't a nationalist. Why aren't you a global egalitarian? In other words if we had a single global community would you be an egalitarian? Also do you have to be an egalitarian at all to notice that our political system is biased against poor people and to push back against that bias? It seems like if this bias could be balanced by some opposing force that happiness might increase.

By: Paul O'Pinion

Paul O'Pinion — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:35:09 +0000

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
– Churchill

Envy and ambition at times motivate people to make something of themselves. The key word is “motivate”. Who makes something of him or herself without motivation?