Читать книгу The Feminist Financial Handbook - Brynne Conroy - Страница 12
ОглавлениеMoney Isn’t the Key to Happiness
Stop chasing cash. And stop chasing smiles while you’re at it.
We’ve established that you won’t find happiness in having it all—primarily because that’s an unachievable goal. We’ve also identified that happiness or contentment is a primary concern when we’re defining what a wealthy life looks like for us as individuals. Despite that, you may be surprised to find out that the reverse isn’t necessarily true: the amount of money in your bank account does not dictate your happiness levels.
According to research by positive psychology professor Sonja Lyubomirsky, only about 10 percent of one’s happiness level can be attributed to our circumstances. Our circumstances include things like where we live, how we look, and—yes—how much money we make. That means that our income has far less than 10 percent bearing on how content we are in our life.
That being said, not having enough money can lead to higher stress levels. Higher stress obviously makes us less content—or satiated, as scientists phrase it. If you are making $32,000 per year, your satiation levels are highly likely to improve if your household income jumps up to $70,000 per year, since those extra tens of thousands give you the resources you need to make it through daily life and tackle obstacles and emergencies that may come your way with far more ease.
There is a tipping point, though. In 2018, a new study came out with new numbers as to how much is needed to achieve peak money-to-satiation ratios in different areas across the world. Here in North America, that number is $105,000. If your household income is below this amount, more money would likely make you more satiated. Beyond that amount, however, more financial wealth is not worth pursuing if you’re trying to use money to bring you contentment.
The most recent government-verified data shows US households have a median income of $59,039 USD per year, while the median Canadian household income is $80,940 CAD per year. This indicates that more than 50 percent of our respective populations would see greater satiation levels if they brought in more money annually.
But remember, income is only one of several factors that contribute to only 10 percent of those satiation levels. More money is going to help, but it’s not necessarily going to make your life abundantly joyous.
Where are our efforts better spent? I talked to Carol Graham—Leo Pasvolsky Fellow at The Brookings Institute—to find out. While Graham doesn’t tell people how to become happy, she has extensively studied contributing factors to well-being, especially across global populations of women.
Meaningful Experiences
The American Dream, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence as, ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,’ may just be toxic in the way we currently interpret it. Because this is a feminist book, we’ll take a look at the fact that these words were lifted and altered—and the underlying reasons why.
Thomas Jefferson did indeed steal this phrase from John Locke, an English philosopher who focused on society and politics. The original phrase was ‘life, liberty, and property,’ but seeing as how Jefferson and several other of the founding fathers counted human slaves as their own property, they couldn’t very well get behind the idea that the government was responsible for making sure everyone owned something. After all, in their world orientation, some people were themselves property.
The founding fathers also did not believe that non-landowners should have a voice in democracy. The common reasoning was that those who didn’t have property were not as well educated and would vote without having full access to information. In a day when newspapers took forever to circulate and literacy rates were low, the argument nicely ices over the thinly veiled heteronormative, white male fragility which can be found right under the surface of its logic. These men wanted no threat to their power, and they viewed themselves as superior over others despite laying out some the most liberating principles the Western World had seen in quite some time.
The founding fathers eventually gave every white man the ability to vote but hedged their bets by establishing the electoral college—a group of representatives who vote on behalf of your state. To this day, the electoral college can vote either in line with or against what the people of their state actually want.
Locke did use the term “pursuit of happiness” on a separate occasion, but he viewed it from a very different perspective than we do today. Our capitalistic and individualistic society tends to pursue happiness through material means. That means we pursue money. We pursue the house with the white picket fence, nice cars, and anything we can show off on social media.
Locke, however, saw the pursuit of happiness as using one’s own life to contribute to the betterment of society. You needed to be a moral person, steeped in virtue, and willing to forego your own desires in favor of the greater good. It is highly likely that Jefferson had the same interpretation of this phrase, whatever we read into it today.
Although they could not scientifically prove their correctness, Locke and Jefferson were onto something. Today we have data, and Graham says that it clearly shows that those living in a democracy are only more satiated than those who are not if they’re active participants in their democracy. Being civically responsible does indeed improve our overall sense of well-being.
“Going out and peacefully marching is a good thing for your well-being,” Graham says, offering examples. “Women running for office because they’re mad about what’s going on is good for women’s well-being.”
There is real value in getting involved in politics right now rather than throwing your hands up in the air in frustration. Not only can it potentially improve the national plight, but you will receive personal benefits by being more content in your own life.
Politics isn’t the only arena where meaningful action can improve your sense of well-being, though. Research shows that simply taking part in meaningful experiences improves your well-being. If you find your work meaningful, you will be more content—particularly if you view it through the lens of benefitting others. If you decide you want to stay at home and throw all of your efforts at family life to the exclusion of remaining in the workforce, you will be more content if there is a deep meaning behind that decision for you. You may find meaning in volunteer work or in any number of other activities.
“Purposeful—or meaningful—experiences are the most important determinant in levels of well-being,” explains Graham. “You could be volunteering, staying at home with your kids, or doing research that drives you. You don’t do these things to seek happiness. You do them to find fulfilment.”
In fact, Graham says that if you are seeking happiness, you’re unlikely to find it. All of us naturally fall on a bell curve of innate happiness levels. At the far left are people who tend to be the least satisfied. In the middle are those with average satiation levels in their life. This middle group is the largest. Then, on the far right side of the bell curve are those who tend to be innately optimistic, which may lead to improved work opportunities, social connections, and a better outlook on the future. These are the people who we’d classify as classically happy in our day-to-day vernacular.
“People who try to be happy are usually the least happy people,” explains Graham. “If you don’t have enough in your own life to drive what you’re doing and you’re looking for happiness from cheesy magazines, you’re by definition in the lower part of the well-being distribution.”
That means that you’re on the far left side of that bell curve. Graham notes that if you fall on this side of the curve, you’re more likely to be focused on things like money or your looks as you think it will improve your circumstances and thus improve your satisfaction with life. But the people on the far right side of that bell curve, who have a natural inclination towards a better sense of well-being, focus their efforts on creativity and learning rather than cash. They innately know that fulfillment and purpose are the keys to finding contentment in this life—regardless of financial circumstances.
It’s not easy to be on the far left side of that bell curve, especially in a society that interprets “the pursuit of happiness” as the extremely individualistic pursuit of a higher economic station. But if we look at Locke’s original intent with this phrase, we start to see that meaning—whether it’s in the civic arena or within our own selves—is what we should truly be pursuing rather than material “happiness.”
The Right Partner
Want to move from the left to the right side of that bell curve? For a long time, there’s been a myth circulating that marriage makes people happier. It’s not void of all truth; data has shown that those who are married tend to be happier.
But correlation does not equate to causation. Graham notes that since this initial myth emerged from studies that looked at one data point at a fixed point in time, new research has revealed that the more innate happiness you have, the more likely you are to get married in the first place. It’s not marriage that’s making people have a higher sense of well-being; it’s a strong sense of well-being that tends to lead to marriage.
“Over time, the effects of getting married fade,” says Graham. “The initial euphoria lasts about eighteen months—then they revert to premarriage happiness levels. They’re not happier because they’re married. They were just happier before they got married.”
That does not mean that if you’re on the left side of the bell curve you can’t find love. A 2009 study called ‘You Can’t Be Happier Than Your Wife’ revealed that a gap in happiness levels is a major predictor for divorce. All that means is that when one partner has noticeably higher happiness levels when compared to the other, the marriage isn’t likely to last.
The kicker here is that the wife must be the one further to the right side of the bell curve. If she’s less happy than her husband or long-term male partner, the marriage is less likely to last. If the male partner is less happy, the same effect isn’t there.
So go find a partner who shares a similar level of happiness with you if you want a long marriage. Because you’re a woman, though, you’re more likely to be okay if you find a man who is to the left of you on the well-being bell curve.
Apologies for the heteronormative study. Hopefully since marriage has been legalized for all, we’ll start seeing similar studies for the LGBTQIA+ community.
Gender’s Surprising Role in Well-Being
Your perception of your own well-being is affected differently by outside circumstances when you’re a woman. I’m excited to let you know this is one of the pieces of good news you’ll find in this oppression-focused book!
Major shocks to gender roles in a culture can mess with our well-being. For example, Graham notes that the women’s liberation movement—the time period when women were finally able to enter the workforce—sparked a decrease in women’s happiness levels. The initial shift in gender expectations was rocky, but she also says that in America, our happiness levels have greatly recovered since this time period.
“Women are happier than men unless they’re in a place where gender rights are severely hampered,” says Graham. She harkens back to being an active participant in your democracy, noting that movements such as #MeToo or #SheShouldRun have actually been good for women’s well-being. They’re a sign that more rights are being shifted to women, and that they’re empowered enough to take meaningful action. Fifty years ago, women were socially shunned when they empowered themselves by taking on work. Today, they’re applauded for their bravery when they tell their stories of how those workplaces have been abusive. When women run for office because they want to change the current system, many of them are getting voted in.
Women are also able to handle personal shocks better than men. Graham hypothesizes that because we’re expected to wear so many hats, something like job loss doesn’t affect us as negatively; we’re able to carry on because our identities are so multifaceted. Men, on the other hand, have traditionally been valued based on their ability to provide. Thus, when they lose their jobs, their entire identities tend to be threatened or even shattered.
This may change as equality becomes more widespread and gender norms continue to become more progressive. But for the time being, women who must go through economic shocks fare much better in terms of overall happiness than their male counterparts.
The Right Attitude
When we talk about Graham’s bell curve, it’s important to note that the graph measures people’s innate happiness regardless of their circumstances. Education, marriage, income levels, and other circumstances do not play a role in whether you fall closer to the left side or the right.
“People in the happiest part [the right side] are there regardless of income level,” explains Graham. “The least happy people are there [the left side] regardless of income. We know this income coefficient matters a lot more to those who are the least happy.”
That means that the less happy you are, the more likely you are to focus on money rather than creativity or learning. For most households today, income levels are variable, riding ups and downs rather than going perpetually up in a straight line. That means as your income varies, you’ll be more focused on the dollars and cents, how unfair life has been to you during the down times, and all the reasons life hasn’t worked out the way you hoped. Conversely, if you’re focused on creativity, learning, and purpose, those ups and downs in income levels are less likely to feel so nauseating. You’re more likely to have an optimistic outlook on life, and it will be easier to keep going as your life will have meaning beyond how much is in your bank account.
Graham has measured how big of an impact this optimism can have on life outcomes. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who fall on the right side of the bell curve tend to do better for themselves in an array of different areas. Graham notes that this difference in orientation and attitude can be particularly pronounced for those who do not have a lot of money to start with.
“People with higher levels of this innate happiness do better in the job market,” says Graham. “They’re healthier. And they do better in the social arena. Innate happiness means more to people with less means. If you think about it, if you’re young and just starting out or lower down in the service sector, a good attitude is going to matter a lot to how you do in the labor market versus if you got a PhD in physics—even if you’re a curmudgeon, you’re probably going to get a good job [with such a PhD].
“In the health care arena, people who are more upbeat deal better with chronic illnesses. I mean, if you have terminal cancer, you have terminal cancer. But there are a lot of diseases and conditions that require some determination to either live with or overcome. Even with harder illnesses, to get through a hard course of treatment, that positive attitude on the margin matters—a lot.
“In the social arena, it’s pretty obvious. Do you want to hang out with someone who’s cheerful and happy, or do you want to hang out with curmudgeons?”
As someone who worries, works hard to head off potential bad outcomes because of those worries, and writes about money for a living, it may be safe to say I’m one of those curmudgeons—or at least closer to the left side of the curve than the right.
While we do not know for sure if we can change our innate happiness levels, having this information makes me feel more at peace. It helps me know that my tendencies towards resilience are to my advantage, and that if I were able to change my core attitude towards what’s coming up ahead—perhaps becoming more of an optimist than the realist I currently am—I might be able to see tangible results in my life.
That’s not to say it’s a guarantee. But to me, it lets me know that when I actively choose to be more optimistic, I’m upping my odds of success. I may not reach success in the way I had envisioned, and I may hit patches where my nature wins out over my will to be more positive. But perhaps I can at least improve my odds by purposefully correcting my perspective when I notice myself getting too bogged down by the inequity of this experience called life.
