The Quest for More Stuff

According to this research, it's the getting, not the having, that makes us happy:

Finding Happiness in the Pursuit, by M. P. Dunleavy, NY Times: One of the great puzzles of human nature is why humans strive for more material things — money, jobs, homes, cars, flat-screen televisions — when they do not seem to make them any happier in the long run. ... Not only does greater wealth not guarantee happiness — even when you get what you want — research indicates that you will not find it as satisfying as you had hoped, and you will want something else.

Richard A. Easterlin, professor of economics at the University of Southern California, is a seminal researcher in this area. In effect, his work shows that if you think buying a three-bedroom condo and a Honda Element will make you happy, you had better think twice. In a few years, a) you're not likely to report being any happier, and b) you're likely to say that, now, finding a good private school for your children and buying a vacation home will really make you happy.

In Dr. Easterlin's view, this cycle of desire and dissatisfaction tends to keep people on an endless treadmill. ... Why not get off the treadmill and pursue a life with fewer material ambitions? You would probably be happier. Or would you? If material achievements tend to leave people only momentarily fulfilled, why do so many keep reaching for that next goal?

Claudia Senik, professor of economics at the Sorbonne, believes that the struggle for a certain achievement may offer a peculiar reward all its own. Although many people seem quite goal-oriented — especially when it comes to money, homes, cars, new kitchens and other goods that have become stand-ins for status — maybe it's not so much having the stuff that people really enjoy, but the struggle to obtain it. ...

Researchers have noted that, for example, given the opportunity to schedule a fancy meal, many people tend to postpone the feast — to savor the anticipation of it. In fact, Dr. Senik found that when people aspire to a better quality of life within the next 12 months, the attempt to reach that goal alone — the anticipation independent of the outcome — seems to bestow happiness in the present.

"For the basic person there is pleasure in progress," Dr. Senik said. "We are proud to aim at something — to earn a degree, buy a house. So when I work to reach a higher position or earn a higher income, I'm already happy today."

Dr. Senik compares it somewhat humorously to being invited to a fabulous party. "Once you get there, maybe you enjoy the party or maybe you don't — but that doesn't matter because you've already spent the last few days looking forward to it."

Of course, that is not how most people view the quest for a better job, nicer car or bigger home. The glory is in getting what you want. Yet we have all experienced the phenomenon — behavioral economists call it adaptation — whereby once you attain whatever you most covet, it quickly loses its luster. Dr. Senik's research suggests that it's fine to crave the condo and the car as long as you realize there may be more pleasure in striving for those goals than in actually achieving them. ...

It may seem that people are all hapless consumers, at the mercy of greed and needs (or cursed by Zeus). But Dr. Senik offers a more positive view. You can let go of the rather iffy rewards of getting and spending, and look for everyday pleasure while struggling to advance, improve, progress, achieve and attain.

As Dr. Easterlin said, "If you recognize that the striving can be of value in itself, then instead of taking a job that pays you the most, you may be better off taking work you'll enjoy." In other words, choose your treadmills carefully. ...

Comments

[Trance]

Paul Erdos, one of the greatest Hungarian mathematicians, believed that "private property is a nuisance".

[The Foreigner]

As Mr. Spock once said, "After a time, you may find that HAVING, is not so pleasing a thing after all, as WANTING."

[ken melvin]

Most Americans are trained to believe more goods more better. It's not world wide. It's not necessarily a human condition.

[Robert]

There is a probable deleterious feedback loop going on here as well, much like the inflation in the size of the average plate serving at restaurants. And those average restauranteurs who buck the trend when competing in the average market, whither hence.

If I had to put my finger on the flaw in thinking, it would be the difficulty that the average person has with discounting somewhat more complex and difficult-to- quantify-choices, for example: Would I be better with a 3700 sq ft house constructed from cheaper materials that allow me to afford the bigger home, but which are less energy-efficient, have a shorter functional life, and aesthetically deteriorate more rapidly vs. a 2500' ft home of better materials, with longer life, more energy efficiency, greater aesthetics, with all their attendant benefits.

"Penny-wise, pound-foolish" reflects this difficulty in discounting and the tradeoffs rather poignantly.

[Lord]

Sorry, but isn't this obvious?

[evergreen]

The implication is wrong.

Most people don't lust after material possessions. The accumulation cycle is driven by a compulsion to earn sufficient money to keep up with a steadily more expensive economy (health care, higher ed, etc). This establishes the treadmill. Each rung in the earnings ladder requires x amount of material possessions in order to be taken seriously by others on this rung. A normality quotient, if you will.

If you jump off this treadmill in search of the simple life, the constantly expanding economy becomes your enemy, a menace foreclosing simplicity.

An expanding economy requires materialism, not the other way around.

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Mark . . .

Cosmically, I was just writing of Erich Fromm. You may have read, “To Be or To Have.” Erich Fromm is also the author of “The Art of Loving.” For me, these books are companions. We humans are so busy searching for a connection, a feeling we all crave, that we “spend” much time seeking. We want to be loved, to feel loved; we hope to have love. We know not how to bring this about.

We do understand accomplishments and have learned how to achieve. Acquiring what we [supposedly] want is less risky than working towards the genuine love we truly long for. Therefore, we seek approval and things that we think will bring this. We hope these will suffice. We begin acquiring. People forget what it is to be, or they never learned how to be themselves. Many doubt this is acceptable. Few realize that being them, as they are brings love.

Sadly, few feel loved, know how to express it, or most importantly, are comfortable receiving it.

They work in a whirlwind, seeking stuff, credentials, degrees, possessions, all in an attempt to satisfy their inner need for connectivity.

Yes, there are those such as Ralph Nader that advocate the idea that “Possessions own us.” I differ. For me, possessions are such if the “owner” envisions these as only tangible.

I live and experience that substance matters. I believe it is the manner in which we internalize our relationship with material goods that makes the difference. For those such as my cousin, my father, others, and me objects are stories and a reflection of our history. They are our associations and life lessons. These resources are assets, not marketable; however vital. They fill us with love; they provide for our innate need to be loved and loving.

For the sadly, vast majority, these “Things” are that. They are only property and provide little joy.

I do not think it is the quest, the conquest, or the achievement that explains what is too often experienced. It is the perspective of the individual that determines what is true.

If I consider acquiring stuff as essential because consumption, owning more will make me happy, then it is less meaningful that I might expect. Nothing external can bring joy. Authentic pleasure comes from within.

If I gather goods in the process of connecting with family, familiars and their stories, then I do feel deep happiness. I “have” much that is meaningful to me; however, these also “have” me. We share energy, a presence, and a history. What appears to be tangible to others is not to me.

An acquaintance recently commented that I have many antiques. I do not; nor did I go out to find these relics. My cousin passed down my Grandfathers diploma. I framed it. My Mom extended his truck. I cleaned and re-finished it. Before she physically passed, my Mom offered a reminder of herself. I took the copper teakettle that she used to extinction. It may not be serviceable to another; yet, for me, it lives large. I can go though my entire home, not a house, and share the stories. All fill my heart. Do I look at these and “want” for more. I, as do we all, want to feel connected. Fortunately, I do.

May your life be full and fulfilling. May abundance be yours . . . Betsy
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[cm]

evergreen already made most of my point. I contend that in most Western societies, unhappiness fundamentally comes from a need to participate in the "rat race" that is perceived as being externally imposed on the individual. The nature and "severity" varies with career choice and chance. Material acquisitions or partaking in fancy material experiences (vacations, social events) largely provide a temporary reprieve that wears off with the novelty of the item/experience.

Removing materialism from a single individual's life will not do much to address this, because in the majority of cases you cannot simply "step off the treadmill", or tread at a lower pace.

The trend across the West appears to be towards ever more of basic living standards being tied to the rat race.

In a sense it is a prisoner's dilemma situation -- a large enough population, and perhaps indeed everybody, has to "cooperate" in treading more leisurely.

In micro terms, somebody who wants to tread slower will be perceived as "unmotivated", "unreliable" (unwilling to put in the extra hours/weekends/nighttime phone conferences), "not a team player", etc. The careers exempt from ever speeding up urgency are limited.

[calmo]

My catalog of heart-filling stuff is not so elaborate as Betsy's, but I have a long way to go before I come close to the Dali's empty closet. [I have way more bed sheets for instance, most of them not purple.]

I am immediately charmed out of my not-so-heart-filling socks by this:

Dr. Senik's research suggests that it's fine to crave the condo and the car as long as you realize there may be more pleasure in striving for those goals than in actually achieving them. ...

It reminds me of the reporter covering the first McDonald's outlet in Moskow who asked one of the employees what she was going to do with all the money she was making. With murderous composure she replied that she was going to buy a Lamborgini. [Sure, she has moved on since then and become a CEO of a communications outfit.]
So that dream of owning a house is important/fine regardless of whether you ever obtain it. [Lucy shows no mercy for Charlie Brown who keeps dreaming.]
If you haven't scraped up enough for a downpayment after 10 years of thrift, think of how much fun you've had checking those pop machines for unretrieved change, spare changing in front of the ATMs, spare changing the spare changers, testing the cat food against the economy tuna...visiting the best kitchen dumpsters.
Worse, should you obtain the house and it lose its luster, it is not recommended that you bat yourself over the head with a baseball bat for buying this miserable dump.
No, even the realization that you could have built the place in a quarter of the time (with mere kitchen utensils!) is not something you should dwell on. Think instead of those daily chores that went into this acquisition: the brown nosing, the ingratiation, the obsequiousness, the multitude of human indignities...knowing that you are prevailing on a higher plane than the material one that your supervisors happen to inhabit.
Wait till they see you in your purple sheet.

[dd]

There are many pleasures and pursuits that have nothing to do with the acquisition of material goods. The Economist's View is a delightful place that provides equal pleasure in expectation and actual experience. I salute our host for providing a safe harbor from the acquisition treadmill!

[Betsy L. Angert]

Dear Calmo . . .

This statement for me was among the moist fascinating remarks. “My catalog of heart-filling stuff is not so elaborate as Betsy's, but I have a long way to go before I come close to the Dali's empty closet.”

It seems, from your words, you believe I quantified my belongings. I have more than some, and far less than many. I searched for a reference to Dali’s “empty closet” for I have theories on this, though I prefer not to assume the true meaning of the position or recommendation.

Years ago I was beating myself up for the way I handle my finances. A friend laughed aloud and reminded me, I not only purchase everything on sale, material goods must be more than 50 percent off before I consider them. Actually, the discount must be far deeper than that. I am not an impulsive shopper, though I suspect many wish I was.

My friend reminded me that I even buy my food on sale. I am extremely frugal; I loathe waste.

I do not eat or buy costly fast food, or those that are processed. I do not pay for packaging. The “organic” craze for me can be an equally, unnecessary expense.

I disdain clutter. My closets and drawers are not overflowing. My rooms remain spacious. Television for me need be no more than a 13-inch screen; that is my preference. I hide media such as this. I do not want a moving image on a screen to be the focal point in a room or house.

The implication made or that I hear from your sentence makes my point exactly. It is not the stuff; it is what it means to you and why.

Though I read the rest of your comment, I am confused. It may be that I am reading too quickly, for I am late for an appointment. I am lost and bewildered. Do you think these researchers are correct or . . .

May your life be full and fulfilling. May [spiritual, emotional, intellectual, and then physical] abundance be yours . . . Betsy
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[deb]

"Researchers have noted that, for example, given the opportunity to schedule a fancy meal, many people tend to postpone the feast — to savor the anticipation of it."

This is George Loewenstein's research - it's odd that this entire article is based on his research on "savoring" and "dreading" but fails to mention his name.

[Lord]

An expanding economy requires materialism, not the other way around.

Very true.

Acquiring what we [supposedly] want is less risky than working towards the genuine love we truly long for.

The problem is often being blocked at higher self-actualization and falling back on acquisition as at least something we can achieve.

[cm]

Lord: Excellent point. Lowered "big picture" expectations.

[calmo]

Betsy slaughters me with a typo or maybe a psuedo typo (the slaughtering and the mincing):
This statement for me was among the moist fascinating remarks

I visited your impressive site and found zero spelling mistakes so I am slightly nervous about this item.
I may be miserable, old and partially cracked up, but I am not moist. (And should that be a precursor to rot, I can only protest that there are some who report that I am on the dry side of normal.) [Who can I trust?]
My contributions are modest to miniscule -nothing compared to my general aggravations and monstrous capacity to just whine. (I could blame Rusty by association.) [I shall.]
The whine here: the revolting! idea that there is more to the study of economics than materialism; that we labor unnecessarily, (perhaps even mistakenly), [maybe even fraudulently] on material and miss the intrinsic values that are so difficult to measure. But most planetary inhabitants (not us) live in conditions that preclude their participation in this mighty discussion.
That be the whine.

[cm]

Re calmo's "labor[ing] unnecessarily, (perhaps even mistakenly), [maybe even fraudulently]" -- I started reading Taylor's treatise on Scientific Management. Fascinating. Capable fellow who had many good insights, but was misguided in quite a number of his fundamental assumptions and conclusions, e.g. that having people work as hard and fast as they could physically bear was helpful in the bigger picture.

Not that most of us work nearly as hard as we can bear, but this religion of "time is money", "efficiency" (doing one-half the job in one-third the time), and "save time so you can get more done" is very much related to the topic.

One of the next items on my list to check out, Juliet Schorr: "The overworked American".

[calmo]

Your post cm brings to mind the health costs in this country that are higher per capita than anywhere else, perhaps in part because of that mentality "doing half the job in a third the time". [The working population is more at risk being overworked.] Not that this would show up in our world-leading GDP stats, but only in our national debt stats which get less attention.
You probably learned history in a much more sympathetic way to Marxism than most Americans did/do. [Thinking of Braudel but I don't read much history and there could be better proponents.] Materialism for him is political history/economics and there is little room for Betsy's sentiments about artifacts which do not rise above the level of anecdotes whose value may have personal or intrinsic merit but no real weight (economic significance) until we can measure the bushells of corn (whatever) that had to be salted away in the aggregate to acquire these objects. As the disparity of wealth continues and the number of wealthy decreases, these personal anecdotes of the wealthy (probably not Betsy) take on more significance as the consumption of the poor narrows to just the rice and beans.

[cm]

calmo: No; rice, beans, TVs, and cell phones. And the current crop of luxury cars once people dump them for the next model. (Remember "welfare queens" in Cadillacs? Cadillacs they probably were, but 15/20+ year old junk boxes.) Doubtful about healthcare though.

How I "learnt" history was mostly the bullshit "socialist" cherry-picking rosy-colored revisionist way. Marx had some good insights though (in his analysis of the past and then present, his recommendations/predictions of the future less so).

[cm]

Oh. And MP3 players. Man are we rich.