Money doesn’t buy you happiness. Everyone has heard the statement before and most surveies of felicity and wellbeing by and large agree on it. However. even though money does non purchase you happiness it is mostly agreed that money can be a agency to an terminal. Hence. money can non purchase you happiness. but it can supply you with fiscal security and wellbeing. If you asked a hapless individual if they were happy most will state you they are non due to populating in hapless conditions and holding hapless wellness. Their demand for safety and security outweighs their demand for nice things and ownerships. So if money does non purchase you happiness what does purchase you happiness? What are the factors in life that make you happy? One manner to turn to this inquiry could be looking at 1s well-being. As such a deeper reading of wellbeing is necessary. When sing the construct of wellbeing. there are two major attacks. nonsubjective wellbeing. and subjective wellbeing. Objective well-being expressions at how healthy a individual is and the entree he has to resources. Subjective wellbeing on the other manus expressions at the overall felicity of a individual. In the same breath it is besides argued that material wellbeing. that is the things we buy and want. does non take to our overall felicity. Hence. money doesn’t buy you felicity. ( Williams. 2014 ) .

Sing this impression that money does non purchase you happiness ( Myers & A ; Diener. 1995 ) . Kawachi and Kennedy ( 2002. p. 30 -31 ) sought out to summarize the chief ingredients to happiness in one’s life. They noted sex. ethnicity and age barely make you happy. Rather it is the relationships and community you have around you that generates degrees of felicity. Furthermore. basking one’s work and leisure is extremely correlated with felicity. On the other manus. one’s wealth and income does non hold a consecutive correlativity with felicity. Some hapless people are happy. some rich people are unhappy and frailty versa. Nonetheless. 1000000s of people across the Earth spend big sum of money devouring things they do non necessitate. I myself fall victim to selling gambits and devour mercenary things that I do non ever necessitate. but want because I believe it will do me suit in more in my community. or do me happier.

Peoples follow stylish tendencies and want all the new playthings that come out believing it will do them happy. This demand of people to hold nice fancy things has antecedently been coined the “new consumerism” . Back in the twenty-four hours. it meant maintaining up with others in your community. if your neighbour got a new flash auto. you had to travel acquire one. However. with the popularization of telecasting. and subsequently on the rise of mass media. “new consumerism” meant people were now viing all over the Earth. Furthermore. as we live in a universe of inequality in footings of income and wealth. the spread between what we want and what we have mostly depends on our income. Schor ( 1998 ) . referred to this as “the aspirational gap” . If one can non afford something. he can either be “unhappy” covering with non holding that product/want. or he chooses to take on debt in order to afford it and hold it so and at that place ; therefore holding to work more to cover the debt and the rhythm continues. So if we look at felicity as the “difference between what we have and what we want we all of a sudden become unhappy” ( Williams. 2014. p. 5 ) .

Largely. I agree with the statement the money does non purchase you happiness. By society’s criterions I am decidedly non a rich adult male but I consider myself to populate a reasonably happy life ; mostly due to the fact that I am healthy. I have good friends and a loving household. Harmonizing to several bookmans ( Benin & A ; Nierstedt. 1985. Inglehart. 1990. Myers. 2000 ) it is so our societal relationships that generate the highest degrees of felicity. With that said. I still consume certain things. mercenary things. and travel to certain topographic points in order to build my societal individuality. I want things in order to suit in or acquire congratulations from my equals. Harmonizing to many bookmans nevertheless this does non take to my well-being but instead to unhappiness. This draws back to the “aspirational gap” . if I can non afford to look a certain manner or purchase certain things and maintain up with the times do I finally become unhappy? Personally I would wish to state it does non use to me. but reflecting back to Schor’s ( 1998 ) survey. it appears to indicate in that way. As such. I do agree with the construct more so as a batch of people around me become unhappy when they can non afford something they want.

Or go unhappy because they got themselves into debt due to their unneeded ingestions. Maslow ( 1943 ) devised a theory of motive which attempted to explicate the hierarchal nature of people’s wellbeing. Firstly it is our basic psychological demands like hungriness and thirst that we have to fulfill. Next. it is our demands for security and protection. followed by our demand for societal bonds and love. The last two stairss are 1s self-esteem and self-actualisation. This is a really hierarchal position which means once a certain degree has been satisfied one seeks to fulfill the following until you reach to the top – ego realization. This will explicate why people become unhappy when they can non afford something – range self-actualisation. Furthermore. individualities are unstable. I invariably consume new tendencies. travel to new topographic points. and alter my wonts to suit society’s norms. Social psychological science attributes this to people’s nature to conform. One survey by Asch ( 1952. cited in Bond & A ; Smith. 1996 ) shows the inclination of people to conform to the bulk even when the result is clearly incorrect. I agree with this as I buy certain apparels and travel to certain topographic points because I want to suit in with my milieus.

Zaichkowsky ( 1994 ) claims that peoples involvement with a merchandise depends on a individual evident relevancy of a merchandise based on his built-in demands and values. Hence my values stem from my milieus and my demand for a merchandise comes from my demand to suit in to my milieus. A batch of the above-named constructs discussed were foremost investigated after WWII and throughout the twentieth century. However. as the universe is invariably germinating and altering make these outlooks on felicity and wellbeing still use today? Have they gotten any better or worse? Early surveies showed an addition in mental upsets and divorces throughout the late twentieth century. every bit good as the addition demand of people for bigger and better things. A survey by Helliwell. Layard. and Sachs ( 2012 ) found that on mean rich people are happier than hapless people. However. they found that a country’s economic growing does non bespeak an addition in the overall felicity of its people. This is merely due to the fact that one time people reach a comfortable/secure degree of income ; farther addition of it does non bring forth higher degrees of felicity.

Furthermore. they found unemployment is extremely correlated with low degrees of wellbeing. whilst being employed – and satisfied with your occupation – was correlated with higher degrees of wellbeing. Finally. they noted in Maslow’s pyramid of human demands. love and belonging come merely after basic physiological and safety demands. Clearly. the beginnings of single felicity include the set of societal interactions through which persons are interconnected. ” ( p. 70 ) . The aforesaid tendencies discussed appear to be in line with the current province of New Zealand. Helliwell et. Al. ( 2012 ) found New Zealand ranked as the 13th happiest state in the universe. This was attributed due to a low unemployment rate ( 6. 2 % ) . divorce figure down ( stats. govt. nz ) . and ranking high on instruction every bit good as freedom. ( Helman. 2013 ) . However. when looking at the top 50 richest states in the universe ( aneki. com ) New Zealand does non even do an visual aspect.

However. it is safe to presume that new consumerism and the “aspirational gap” still use to New Zealand as the states disbursement ( $ 2. 578 million ) is higher than its GDP ( $ 211. 678 million ) . ( stats. govt. nz ) . It surely appears that money does non purchase you happiness. Rather being hapless is correlated with low degrees of wellbeing. Money in itself can supply a individual with security. but increased income does non look to hold an consequence on overall felicity. Looking at Maslow’s theory. a individual could hold all the money in the universe but if they are entirely and do non hold a loving community of friends and household to portion it with they are about ever traveling to be unhappy. Rather. felicity is determined by a big figure of factors with an accent on basic demands such as nutrient and H2O. every bit good as friendly relationships and belonging to a loving community. Consumption of mercenary objects and the aspiration for more money negatively affects our wellbeing.

Mentions
Benin. M. H. and B. C. Nierstedt: 1985. ‘Happiness in single- and dual- earner households: The effects of matrimonial happiness’ . occupation satisfaction and life rhythm. Journal of Marriage and the Family 47. pp. 975–984. Chemical bond. R. & A ; Smith. P. B. ( 1996 ) . Culture and conformance: a meta-analysis of surveies utilizing asch’s ( 1952b. 1956 ) line judgement undertaking. Psychological Bulletin. 119 ( 1 ) . 111–137. Maslow. Abraham H. 1943 “A theory of human motive. ” Psychological Review. 50: 370-396. Helliwell. J. . Layard. R. . & A ; Sachs. J. ( 2012 ) . World Happiness Report. Centre for Economic Performance. The Earth Institute Columbia University. Helman. C. ( 2013 ) . The world’s happiest ( And Saddest ) states. – hypertext transfer protocol: //www. forbes. com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/ Inglehart. R. : 1990. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society ( Princeton University Press. Princeton. NJ ) . Myers. D. G. : 2000. ‘The financess. friends and religion of happy people’ . American Psychologist 55 ( 1 ) . pp. 56–67. Myers. D. G. & A ; Diener. E. ( 1995 ) . Who is happy? Psychological Science. 6 ( 1 ) . 10–19. Offer. A. ( 2006 ) . The challenge of richness: self-control and well-being in the United States. Williams. J. ( 2014 ) Consumption and Well-being. Chapter 12. P. 104 – 127. Zaichkowsky. J. L. ( 1994 ) . The personal engagement stock list: decrease. alteration. and application to advertisement. Journal of Advertising. 23 ( 4 ) . 59–69.