My intermediate microeconomics class this week brought up the topic of happiness, which is often expressed in economics terms as “utility.” We discussed whether American people today are happier than they were, say, 200 years ago thanks to a “better quality of life” attributable to things like increased production, technological advancements and a greater emphasis on catering to the individual. The class was divided, with half believing things like quick, on-the-go access to information on your hand-held, and sitcoms on demand wherever you are — things that would’ve been considered unthinkable luxuries even 20 years ago — have increased our standard of living, and thus our happiness. The remainder of the class argued more along the lines that material improvements and accessibility don’t necessarily increase happiness, which is the side I tend toward.
To me, while an increase in product availability and efficiency may play a role in upping the potential for us to pursue things that make us happy, happiness is something that is more psychologically based than grounded in materials. While there may be apps available that sort my recorded “preferences” and offer “recommended for you” crime shows and “fail” videos, I don’t think I’m necessarily happier than, say, my grandpa was at my age.
Studies spanning decades upon decades show that people’s “happiness” is derived from things like “our capacity to love” and how well we “cherish [our] most important relationships,” as reported by George Bradt, a contributor of Forbes Magazine. These are factors of human nature, not materialistic improvements and availabilities. As science has proven, our biological makeup doesn’t change and progress nearly as quickly as technology does. People often fail to realize this or are pressured into conforming to a very high standard for production and innovation that doesn’t necessarily lead to an increase in happiness.
Technological advancements have made it easier to access affordable food, wash your clothes, communicate, travel, get health care when necessary and so on. When they don’t have to spend their days scrounging for their next meal, people are left with time for other pursuits. That doesn’t mean, however, that they are using that extra time to relax on the beach with their loving family and a piña colada.
Our social perception has changed, pushing the predicted leisure society, filled with opportunity for happiness, further from our grasp. No matter how much we’ve already materially produced, we’re never satisfied. A competitive American society doesn’t allow for the time saved from increased efficiency to be spent on things like more quality time with family and loved ones. We must stay productive, keep innovating, upping expectations and giving people what they want, think they need, and are willing to pay for in order to keep our economy afloat and globally competitive. This may be necessary to keep our current standard of living, and maybe that’s the most important thing to most people. But if happiness is what matters, I don’t think constant improvements to Netflix portability and more available apps for our smartphones will increase our happiness the way many victims of good marketing techniques think they will.