In fear of the happy brigade

"Sorry, but maximising happiness is not the Government's job" argues Jamie Whyte in today's Times piece: Be afraid of the happy brigade:

When parents say “I just want you to be happy”, it is normally preceded by “I don’t mind what you do”. If politicians were equally liberal, their concern for our happiness might be welcome. Alas, in these topsy-turvy times, we have laissez faire parents and paternalistic politicians. When the latter fix on some goal for us, they get busy trying to achieve it.

“I’m from the Government and I’m here to make you happy.” Now that is scary. Consider just three findings from the “new science of happiness” as Richard Layard, the economist and Labour peer, describes it. Above about £15,000, increasing your income adds little to your happiness. Believing in God makes you happy. Getting divorced makes you unhappy.

These facts explain why Westerners are no happier now than 50 years ago; our increased wealth has been accompanied by more divorce and less belief in God. They also explain why Nigeria is a happier country than Spain and why Indonesia is happier than France.

Do you really want the Government to solve this problem? Do you want it to correct your atheism for you? Or to see to it that you get and stay married? Should we really aspire to be more Nigerian or Indonesian in our ways?

Professor Layard thinks we should. He believes that children should be indoctrinated in happiness-conducive ideologies at school, such as mystical Judaism or Buddhism. And he agrees with Mr Cameron that we have got our “work-life balance” wrong. You already know the direction in which we allegedly err. Those who contrast working with living can only think we work too much. Working should be discouraged because the money it earns us does not make us happy, whereas staying at home with the spouse and children fills our hearts with joy.

I am not sure the happy brigade have interpreted the research findings correctly. A survey of 900 women in Texas ranked activities for their happiness value. Commuting and working did indeed come bottom. But housework and taking care of the children were next to bottom. And spending time with their husbands did only a little better. What these women liked most was sex. Surely these findings suggest that women should spend less time with their families and more time having affairs.

But even if “happiness science” were not sure to be wrong and misinterpreted in equal measure, happy politics would still be misguided. Because maximising happiness is not the proper goal of government policy. To see why, we need only recognise why Professor Layard and David Cameron are right that maximising income is the wrong goal.

...But then it is clear that happiness is not everyone’s ultimate value either. I know academics who have sacrificed happiness for discovery. And I know bankers who work very hard and earn a lot of money. They know that more wealth will not increase their happiness as much as more leisure would. Nevertheless, they keep working. They prefer money to happiness.

Some will say my greedy friends are making a mistake. Professor Layard, for example, says they are in the grip of an addiction from which it is the Government’s duty to save them through punitive income taxes. It is, of course, tempting to think that those who do not share your values are crazy. But it is also an alarming pretext for state intervention. Free men should fear the happy brigade.

Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling endorses these sentiments and in today's post, Choosing money, he offers five possible explanations at to why bankers appear to prefer money to happiness. His second point is on the money:

2. Intertemporal substitution. In working long hours, bankers aren't maximizing happiness this week or this year, but rather lifetime happiness. They work hard in the hope of retiring early.

There aren't many City bankers over fifty, and most leave well below that age.

And Tim Worstall comments:

One thing about Layard’s argument that almost no one seems to have noticed is that he is clearly calling for lower taxation than we have presently. Yet everyone seems to think that he is calling for higher. People do seem to read into books what they want to see rather than the arguments actually laid out.

Comments

[Self Help]

very useful infomative post I agree with "Thatmore wealth will not increase anyone's happiness as much as more leisure would. Nevertheless, they keep working. They prefer money to happiness."

The secret I’m referring to is known by several names. Maybe you’ve heard it called the Pareto Principle, or the 80/20 Rule. Richard Koch calls it the 80/20 Principle.