How to buy happiness

Reversing the age-old idea that money cannot buy happiness

The phrase “Money cannot buy happiness,” has been infamous in instilling discipline and emphasising the pursuit of joy rather than profit. Conveying that happiness cannot be bought but instead most importantly earned through one’s actions, accumulated not by dollar bills but by having fun and trying new experiences.

Money is simply a unit of measurement a medium of exchange that has lasted for centuries. Money in itself cannot fulfil our deeply seeded need to be happy similar to how a desk in itself cannot make you forever happy. That is the train of thought, money is only valuable when consumed that brings tiny forms of pleasures but bigger forms of depression. However, have we been using money all wrong then?

Would this also be a case of the dangerous faults in conformity within society?

It is pivotal to understand that money is not only a medium to exchange goods, a unit of account and a store of value. Its impacts straying long and far from only being a median and a unit of account. With purposes or abilities far beyond the greed to consume more (the hedonic treadmill). As in this day and age, it is extremely critical that one can identify money as not a piece of paper being for us the hands of our survival but also a tool for greatness and good.

But also to us, money only has one transfer on life, one definition in modern society: as a way to buy things. Essentially a way to satisfy our self centred agents that drives us to work. This perception of money is rather vulgar and destructive, recognising that money has far more than 1 essential value and destroys the need to spend money in one selfish manner. Opening up the possibilities of money to endless amounts. Therefore not seeing money as a tool to gamble away when too excessive but as a way to benefit society as a whole, will largely as we see have a great impact on our mental health as giving back and being a “philtrophist” goes a long way than donating money.

Our whole perception of money is rather narrow, forcing it down spiralling in a never-ending fashion of “self-fulfilling prophecies.”

A simple introduction and explanation: with the help of John Stuart mill

So then it is only natural now to ask, how should we perceive money to buy happiness? Let me ask to engage your cognitive abilities on what stimulates or induces more happiness to you watching Spongebob or watching Shakespeare. Interestingly most would point to Shakespeare, while the majority of the population log more hours watching Spongebob. However, as John Stuart Mill explains the greater happiness. Differentiating the two activities previously seen as to equate each other in happiness output a massive fault in the idea of utilitarianism. Mr Mill was first to distinguish ideas of higher and lower pleasures. In his attempt at enlarging the idea of utilitarianism, to a scope, that can help solve an emphasis on the importance of liberty and freedom. Through his book, he emphasizes and makes it clear that utility is the only standard of morality.

However, this concludes that according to Mill, higher pleasures such as Shakespeare, require a kind of cultivation and education. But once having been cultivated and educated, people will see and prefer to the higher than the lower. According to him, it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. So mill, explains that being a couch potato versus going to an art museum. Pleasure is much more derived from looking at paintings from Leonardo de Vinci. Rather than just staring at a screen effortlessly. Concluding that as we have discussed higher pleasure is derived from engaging your brain, and pleasure is best differentiated when you see 2 sides of a coin.

The idea of john stuart mill’s higher happiness often to an extent requires a gentle touch of sacrificial action and activational energy to fully empower and trigger the influx of happiness. This principle can be applied to that of money. According to research, it is well-established that as we have stated money has been used in a fashion lacking any source of happiness. However, this does not conclude the fact that happiness cannot be derived from money. It is only so we perceive and therefore use money in a way where it is predominantly used to make us feel sometimes worse. So how would we apply for money in a way where it can derive happiness. It is simply the act of giving money to charity, to buy your friend coffee, pay their meals or buy them stationery. According to research this act regardless of the cost, will bring you a a significant amount of happiness. As buying a $5 coffee for a mate will bring you as much happiness as standing and giving a million dollars to a charitable donation.

This can be drawn parallel to the fact an action is not isolated in inspiring future events, as taking out a 5 dollar bill for Jim, does not necessarily mean that your happiness is derived from that single event. however, comes increasingly with the events that you inspire afterwards. As anyone who trys this experienmtnt can seee that spending money on others in much more rewarding than spending on themselves.

Application and experimental proof:

Additionally one also has to grasp the idea of social reciprocal exchange and the fact happiness from one act does not come immediately. As it could ripple throughout your life, in spaced repetition. Giving your friend a simple ride or a 10 dollar bill for a simple drink is not an isolated event, as it inspires the receiver to do something in exchange, such as being there more for you or buying something of equal value for you. As due to the urge for one to give back, as a symbol to thank you for your generosity.

The supposed, simple action or gesture resembling the phrase “thank you,” has effects before now no one was able to comprehend or measure. Detailing economic and social benefits to everyone around you, acting as a multiplier effect. A recent study best proved this statement as group 1 as part of the study was asked to spend money on each other, which would be paid by the researchers. Whereas group 2 was asked to spend money on themselves.

According to further inspection researchers classified each team as either pro-social and pre-independent, after the study. Observing the simple action of buying or giving to yourself or others play out. Group 1 also known as the group that spent money on each other, experienced an extreme centripetal force. A term used most commonly in geography describing the nature of society and its participants (the citizens or residents) in how different races interact. To evaluate the love for each other in one’s nation. This notion to have a strong centripetal force within a group, can immediately deliver results far more impressive than those lacking this force also known as group 2: those who spent money on themselves.

As the pro-social groups, who now have a tradition to look out for each other. Opens up far more incentives to do well and explore creative ways to fulfil one’s growing need for more profit, compared to the more independent group, Doing tasks only assigned or of benefit for themselves. Rarely looking out for each other and the interest of the group, often functioning much less actively and efficiently. Being economic and socially inefficient, not maximising the output possible.

The nature of an interconnected group versus a group of independent employees. Having such a coherent distinction. As one roots to climb the ladder and one values the operation of a team, moving up the leader collectively. This distinction is vital, often drawing parallels to the idea of internal stability. usually eroded by self arrogant dictators or warlords that claim land of their own use. This competition of land despite the abundant pool of natural resources, cannot be used, wasted or polluted. Due to the internal war (the wanting to climb the ladder) bringing everyone down, sabotaging each other in the attempt of reaching their own individual goal. Not realising that they have success is most profound when acting as a whole.

This experiment was also carried out in Belgium between 2 sales team in which 1 as you may have guessed were told to spend money on themselves while the other were asked to spend on the group collectively. What researchers have discovered was that for the team who were gifted 15 euros given to spend it on themselves, they experienced a loss, as they have no motive to perform better. This aligns nicely to the lack of economic incentives usually cultivated by cash handouts. However, if you were to spend it with your group researchers recorded an increase in profits from 15 euros to 75 euros. Allowing them to dominate the advertising market while the other sales team lacks incentives to improve.

Ultimately as Michael Norton the co-author of happy money is most famous in saying that say, “I think if you think money can’t buy happiness, you’re not spending it right.” Money can make us happy and say both at the same time, however it is the question in which how we spend it and the more we spend it in this manner. The more this phrase becomes facts and the more this phrase becomes reality, something we want to avoid at all cost. As just like art which depicts a million words, a painting of a man on paper can cause and inflict a million consequences good or bad.