While I mostly agree that money can't buy happiness, I didn't think much of the article you posted, Thucy. For example, consider this excerpt:
" Leading the way was the Cornell economist Robert Frank, whose 1987 book “Passions Within Reason” analyzed some of the things people do that just don’t fit into economics models of pure self-interest – such as tipping in restaurants far from home, seeking costly revenge, and staying loyal to friends and spouses when better opportunities come along. Frank argued that these behaviors make sense only as products moral emotions (such as love, shame, vengeance, or guilt), and these moral emotions make sense only as products of evolution. Evolution seems to have made us “strategically irrational” at times for our own good; for example, a person who gets angry when cheated, and who will pursue vengeance regardless of the cost, earns a reputation that discourages would-be cheaters. A person who pursued vengeance only when the benefits outweighed the costs could be cheated with impunity in many situations."
I don't think that this shows that this person is actually acting for reasons other than self-interest, at all. At most, it suggests that traditional economists have used flawed logic in analyzing where interest actually lies, what people's utility function is, if you wish. That's quite a different hypothesis from the one that the paper is purported to show.
The next work discussed, on luxury, is actually more relevant, but it's also extremely arrogant and presumptuous. Repeatedly, it says that people "would be happier" if they experienced X, Y, or Z, yet its analysis is plainly shallow. Consider:
"People would be happier if they reduced their commuting time, even if it meant living in smaller houses, yet American trends are toward ever larger houses and ever longer commutes."
But people would probably NOT be happier if they didn't have yards, and their kids had nowhere to play; or if they were packed together in dense urban areas. Happiness in those places is often very poor. The author here is isolating a single variable that correlates negatively with happiness (commute time), and illegitimately assuming that it could be changed independently of other things that might correlate even more strongly with happiness.
Then we're treated to a thought experiment. I agree it's kind of an interesting one, but guess what -- it screwed up the ratios. It asked somebody whether they'd rather make $90k where other people were making $70k, or $100k where others were making $150k. Then it asked if they'd rather get 2 weeks of vacation where others were making 1, or 4 weeks where others were making 6. But the change from 2 to 4 is 100$, whereas the change 90 to 100 is 10%. Great experiment design, guys!
Finally, at the end -- and indeed, throughout -- it is talking almost entirely about items bought for status. But a lot of objects aren't bought for status but convenience, and they're still things. For example, it wants to make a big dichotomy between "doing" and "having." But as any kid who got the new Nintendo first in the 90s knows, that was good for (a) impressing people, and (b) spending lots of time with them that constitute really good memories now.
So, overall, I thought the argument that's presented rambling, unfocused, and poorly reasoned.
)
Fog On The Barrow Downs EoG
)
)
)