Showing posts with label happiness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label happiness. Show all posts

Saturday, October 27, 2018

26/10/18: Visualizing Mental Health Around the World and Across Time


Mental health is one of the key parameters of the quality of social and personal environment we can think of, and changes in the prevalence and the impact of mental health are hugely important measures of socio-economic evolution. Here is a fascinating set of data visualizations and analytical notes on the state of mental health around the world and across the recent decades: https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health.

There are thousands of interesting, and often non-intuitive, observations one can draw from these interactive charts and from the published analysis.


Sunday, June 29, 2014

28/6/2014: Who are the Joneses?


Dahlin, Maria Björnsdotter and Kapteyn, Arie and Tassot, Caroline paper "Who are the Joneses?" (June 2014. CESR-Schaeffer Working Paper No. 2014-004. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2450266) attempts to answer a very important question in economics of individual perceptions and referencing of own well-being relative to well-being of others. The study tackles an issue that forms the core of a number of macroeconomic models, but also of relevance to the active debate about relative poverty and relative incomes.

"A burgeoning literature investigates the extent to which self-reported well-being (or happiness) or satisfaction with income is negatively related to the income of others" or the Joneses. "In many of the empirical studies, the assumption is that the incomes that matter are those of other individuals or households in the same geographical area." In other words - physical proximity is of the matter.

"In an experiment conducted in the American Life Panel, we elicit the strength of comparison with different groups, including neighbors, individuals of similar age and coworkers."

Fascinating findings emerged:

  1. "Individuals are much more likely to compare their income to the incomes of their family and friends, their coworkers and people their age than to people living in the same street, town, in the US, or in the world." In other words, we reference our own well-being against well-being of those close to us socially and family-wise, not those who physically live near us, but are strangers to us. A relatively rich uncle may be inducing greater dissatisfaction onto us, than a filthy rich neighbour. In which case, were relative poverty be a concern, taxing family members on higher incomes is better than taxing everyone on higher incomes. Which, of course, would be an absurd policy.
  2. "…we find both at the zip code and at the PUMA geographic level that own income or rank in the local income distribution matter for happiness and satisfaction with income, but incomes in the same geographic region do not influence own happiness when controlling for own income."  
  3. "When asking respondents directly for how they rate the position of own and others’ income we find that higher estimates of neighbors’ income are negatively related with satisfaction with own income. Additionally, respondents who compare more intensively with their neighbors perceive the difference between their own income and that of their neighbors to be larger." So we do rate strangers' income relative to our own. Just not as much as we rate relatives' and friends' income relative to our own.
  4. "Using age-based reference groups instead of geography-based reference groups, we find a consistent negative effect of the log median income and the perceived income in an individuals’ age group". In other words, the Joneses that we 'benchmark' ourselves against are more likely to be those from similar/shared cohort, in this case - cohort by age. The old do not begrudge, as much, the young, but they do begrudge other old.

"Overall, these results indicate that comparisons with neighbors may not be the most important channel through which perception of others’ income impacts one’s own well-being."

In other words, relative benchmarking matters, but it strength varies with familial and social ties, and matters less in terms of proximity. As I noted, half-jokingly, above: a richer uncle induces more negative referencing even if he lives in a distant community, than a richer neighbour who flaunts her/his wealth in our face. 

Friday, June 7, 2013

7/6/2013: Weekend Reading Links Part 1



The weekly links page for weekend reading materials is now becoming a regular feature of this blog. Why? Because in my daily life I am privileged to come across a number of fascinating things - science and arts related - and these are simply worth sharing. Also because art and science are more important in value to humanity than economics (the bit of economics that is beyond science-art overlap, or, as I call it, applied economics). And finally, because it is often fun to tease out bits of my own thinking on the matters of art (and less so on the matters of science).

So here's this week's list in no particular order.


Since my days at IBM I came to appreciate the complex nature of data visualisation. Prior to my days at IBM I came to appreciate the value of visualisation in shaping our understanding of the world when information about the world is transmitted to us by means of data. Now, here's an article that added to my understanding of visualisation as a tool for shaping the long-term future of the world: http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/07/sparkon-releases-future-visualization-engine-to-help-kids-choose-a-career/ . Why is it important to me? Ok:

  1. It contains direct links to human capital (sorry, err… I know, no economics)
  2. If visualisation is about narrating the world, making it more comprehensible, then visualisation is also capable of altering the world around us by altering our understanding of it. That is second-order loop of causality: world causes data, which causes (via visualisation) our understanding which in turn causes us to interact with the world and thus cause data… If we take the visualisation as a tool for directly shaping human choice of careers, fields of study, inquiry etc, then the visualisation over time becomes the first order shaper of the world, right? Scary… You bet:
  3. The entire idea of shaping (via any specifically designated tool) one's future, as in "Let’s say your strongest “career personality type” is artistic follows by enterprising, you are extroverted, and you are passionate about art and video games. Sparkon suggests a range of jobs that bring all these together, like video game designer or art director, and suggests majors and skill sets that are useful for these areas. The engine then suggests specific videos, like “careers in the video game industry,” computer programming, or graphic design. There are also more general videos about college and SAT preparation, communication and leadership etc… Students can create a Netflix-style queue with recommended videos, and parents can also get involved by monitoring their kids’ progress to see what they are exploring." Missing something? Oh, yes, Sparkon won't really suggest you become an artist, cause you know… "there's no money in that". Now, imagine the world where humans are discouraged from making any errors by constantly being steered / selected into a stream of activities and information determined by a machine?.. Here comes Sparkon generation of drones?


Next, back to Venice Biennale:
"When I got out I felt I had escaped from the suffocating embrace of a revenant worthy of De Chirico. But this remake is perfectly in tune with the market of today now that the fairs have given up on the fuchsia and chrome-yellows of Murakami and Koons and have taken to showing off the pauperish neutrals of the Seventies. It is a much more radical product than the efforts of the young neo-conceptualists, but highly fashionable at a time when collecting is wearing the hair-shirt of the most hypocritical of penitents."

What?! Ah, yes, yes… that's about current reconstruction of the 1969 exhibition http://www.veniceconnected.com/node/29046. The review of it - the source of the quote - is here: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/reviews/The-Prada-Biennale-show-Creative-Energy-turned-into-Dead-Fetishism/29836 . Comes August, I am looking forward to being as suffocated by the embrace of the exhibition as I was suffocated by the embrace of the review, just as I am certain to be suffocated by the Venice stuffed by the 30+ degrees sun heated bodies of tourists, who usually leave Biennale the last on the list of amusements worth attending…


The art of displaying dead art (point above) is different from the art of feeding dead art to a dead dictator… and the latter doesn't quite offer the promise of the excitement of the former. Except when the dead dictator is Kim Jong-Wong-Bi-Din-Dong-Il of North Korea. Fascinating and fantastic account of Kim's favourite sushi chef depicted in a lengthy interview in http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201306/kim-jong-il-sushi-chef-kenji-fujimoto-adam-johnson-2013?currentPage=1

My favourite rhetorical bit: "And guesthouse is code for a series of palaces decorated with cold marble, silver-braided bedspreads, ice purple paintings of kimilsungia blossoms, and ceilings airbrushed with the cran-apple mist of sunset, as if Liberace's jet had crashed into Lenin's tomb." My favourite human bit: Fujimoto's two abandoned families. It has to be a rare twist of fate in which one abandons his two daughters and a spouse to serve the dictator in exchange for having a family that he subsequently condemns to labour camps by escaping the dictator… and so on… do read!


Science or fiction? http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/06/06/take-that-nsa-scientists-hide-communications-using-a-hole-in-time/ So basic idea is there are holes in time (not only the ones that follow copious consumption of alcohol) and you can hide stuff in them (well, for now, no white elephants - ease off, politicians with any plans). My favourite quote: "In practice, this system isn’t perfect." No sh*t, Sherlocks…


New stuff on 'how planets are formed' http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/32967-astronomers-discover-comet/ Predictably, nothing new on why planets are formed… but that is a different topic.


On the way we know stuff, plus the way we communicate, a very interesting paper from Cornell University "Social Media and Information Overload: Survey Results" (http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0813) looks at information flows via user-generated media, "such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter' based on smallish sample of 587 participants in a UK survey. "Participants who experience information overload are those who engage less frequently with the media, rather than those who have fewer posts to read." Kind of obvious: less you engage, bigger is build up of unanswered communications. "Microbloggers complain of information overload to the greatest extent. Two thirds of Twitter-users have felt that they receive too many posts, and over half of Twitter-users have felt the need for a tool to filter out the irrelevant posts." I have no idea how I would have answered their survey… maybe because I feel that I am more surveys-overloaded than twitter-overloaded?


Much is written by humanity on the topic of happiness. So much so that even the Guardian (a miserably Lefty paper) has gotten to the topic, let alone the economists (the latter also more often than not read the Guardian, which is clearly correlated with both being unhappy on average more than non-economist and so on…) Read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/31/secret-happiness-complicated-research?INTCMP=SRCH - it is somewhat 'all over the place' and not too deep, but is interesting nonetheless. And when you finished, read



And thereafter, come back to this page…


Last week, I posted links to several articles on the proof of the theorem that postulates that gaps between prime numbers are bounded (see: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/2552013-saturday-reading-links.html). Here's a human story behind the proof author:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/05/twin-primes/ - worth a read.


In contrast, here's the design for much-awaited Lego House design: http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/news-room/2013/june/the-right-look-for-a-lego-house/ and, argue with me on this, but I think it is banal. Made even more banal by monochromatic white, which is so 'not Lego' and thus expected in the world of reverse psychology of asymmetric innovation - aka the world of on-line aesthetics.


Stay tuned for more reading links once the kids are put into their beds...



Thursday, May 30, 2013

30/5/2013: More on Wellbeing v Income

Recently, I have posted on the issue of subjective wellbeing and measured incomes: here. This week, The Economist crunched through the OECD data on synthetic indices of well-being: here.

The chart from The Economist is telling:

Do note that the distance for Germany (gap) is pretty similar to that in the US and, given lower overall well-bing in Germany than the US, proportional gap is probably actually larger.

And the conclusion is: "for all the fancy metrics, the Better-Life Index does not look too different from classic GDP rankings."

Now, back to the top link above for more in-depth analysis...

Saturday, May 4, 2013

4/5/2013: Higher Income vs Higher Subjective Well-Being


A very interesting paper on the topic I had a chance to briefly discuss on twitter recently. Basically, does life satisfaction / happiness decline with income increases? In other words, is there a point at which people earning more are experiencing less happiness? Is there a point of saturation?

"Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?" by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, NBER Working Paper No. 18992 from April 2013 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992) attempts to shed some light on this question, often debated and subject of may research papers in the past.

Headline results [emphasis in italics is mine]: "Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of “basic needs” and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it."

Some more beef from the paper (unfortunately - not available to general public, but here's a link to the authors more condensed article on it: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/subjective-well-being-income).

"In 1974 Richard Easterlin famously posited that increasing average income did not raise average well-being, a claim that became known as the Easterlin Paradox." Needless to say, many scholars since then picked the idea and even advanced it to greater extremes.

Per authors, however, "in recent years new and more comprehensive data has allowed for greater testing of Easterlin’s claim. Studies by us and others have pointed to a robust positive relationship between well-being and income across countries and over time (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008; Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers, 2013).

"Yet, some researchers have argued for a modified version of Easterlin’s hypothesis, acknowledging the existence of a link between income and well-being among those whose basic needs have not been met, but claiming that beyond a certain income threshold, further income is unrelated to well-being. The existence of such a satiation point is claimed widely, although there has been no formal statistical evidence presented to support this view. For example Diener and Seligman (2004, p.5) state that “there are only small increases in well-being” above some threshold. While Clark, Frijters and Shields (2008, p.123) state more starkly that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness,” a similar claim is made by Di Tella and MacCulloch (2008, p.17): “once basic needs have been satisfied, there is full adaptation to further economic growth.”

"The income level beyond which further income no longer yields greater well-being is typically said to be somewhere between $8,000 and $25,000. Layard (2003, p.17) argues that “once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness appears to be independent of its income;” while in subsequent work he argued for a $20,000 threshold (Layard, 2005 p.32-33). Frey and Stutzer (2002, p.416) claim that “income provides happiness at low levels of development but once a threshold (around $10,000) is reached, the average income level in a country has little effect on average subjective well-being.”

It is worth noting the thresholds in income cited above - all are well below the median and mean incomes in the advanced economies today. The test carried out by the authors of the study cover incomes both below these thresholds and above, including to well above (multiples of almost 7 times the highest threshold mentioned).

"Many of these claims, of a critical level of GDP beyond which happiness and GDP are no longer linked, come from cursorily examining plots of well-being against the level of per capita GDP. Such graphs show clearly that increasing income yields diminishing marginal gains in subjective well-being.

"However this relationship need not reach a point of nirvana beyond which further gains in well-being are absent. For instance Deaton (2008) and Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) find that the well-being–income relationship is roughly a linear-log relationship, such that, while each additional dollar of income yields a greater increment to measured happiness for the poor than for the rich, there is no satiation point.

So now, to the paper itself. Some basics first:

"In this paper we provide a sustained examination of whether there is a critical income level beyond which the well-being–income relationship is qualitatively different, a claim referred to as the modified-Easterlin hypothesis.

"As a statistical claim, we shall test two versions of the hypothesis. The first, a stronger version, is that beyond some level of basic needs, income is uncorrelated with subjective well-being; the second, a weaker version, is that the well-being–income link estimated among the poor differs from that found among the rich.

"Claims of satiation have been made for comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, comparisons between rich and poor countries, and comparisons of average well-being in countries over time, as they grow. The time series analysis is complicated by the challenges of compiling comparable data over time and thus we focus in this short paper on the cross-sectional relationships seen within and between countries. Recent work by Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers (2013) provide evidence on the time series relationship that is consistent with the findings presented here.

"To preview, we find no evidence of a satiation point. The income–well-being link that one finds when examining only the poor, is similar to that found when examining only the rich. We show that this finding is robust across a variety of datasets, for various measures of subjective well-being, at various thresholds, and that it holds in roughly equal measure when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country."

Some actual results:

The above shows that the well-being-income gradient is strong for the rich countries and even stronger for the countries where income per capita exceed USD15,000 (GDP per capita). Per authors: "These data clearly reject both the weak and strong versions of the modified-Easterlin hypothesis." Authors attain qualitatively identical results for a number of other measures / surveys of well-being. "Each of these datasets strongly reject" the modified-Easterlin hypothesis. "Moreover, to
the extent that the well-being–income relationship changes, it appears stronger for rich countries."


Core conclusions: "While the idea that there is some critical level of income beyond which income no longer impacts well-being is intuitively appealing, it is at odds with the data. As we have shown, there is no major well-being dataset that supports this commonly made claim. To be clear, our analysis in this paper has been confined to the sorts of evaluative measures of life satisfaction and happiness that have been the focus of proponents of the (modified) Easterlin hypothesis. In an interesting recent contribution, Kahneman and Deaton (2010) have shown that in the United States, people earning above $75,000 do not appear to enjoy either more positive affect nor less negative affect than those earning just below that. We are intrigued by these findings, although we conclude by noting that they are based on very different measures of well-being, and so they are not necessarily in tension with our results. Indeed, those authors also find no satiation point for
evaluative measures of well-being."

Here is a slightly clearer chart from the blogpost by The Economist:


Sunday, July 5, 2009

Interesting Research: Happiness on Venus is Falling Relative to Mars

Brilliant paper titled The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (UofPennsylvania) (see here) is tackling a paradoxical development of the last 35 years, whereby although "objective measures of lives of women in the US have improved... measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men." If you think this stuff is esoteric (albeit very exciting) research, you are wrong. Remember - academics flash out paradoxes, but politicians devise pork-laden policies aiming at 'addressing' such paradoxes. Hence, authors' claim that: "The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various data sets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging - one with higher subjective well-being for me." So that will be a new round of subsidies for closing an emerging new gender gap, then? Women are now relatively poor in terms of happiness than men... someone, quick, call the CORI!