[tachyoff]

What a sad indictment of modern American life that our baseline for happiness is "not destitute". Really, I think that's telling, and as a millennial with lots of student loan debt and friends in a similar boat, it's not surprising one bit.

[onion2k]

Epicurus, the Greek philosopher who lived ~3000 years ago, figured out that key to happiness was having somewhere to live, friends around you, someone to have sex with, and lots of food. He summed it up in a line: "Not what we have but what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance." The notion that baseline happiness is equivalent to 'not destitute' really isn't modern, or American.

[matte_black]

Why should it be any higher?

Raise the baseline too high and you may never reach it, and never be happy, despite having a good life. Is that what you want?

[tachyoff]

> Why should it be any higher?

Because it can be. Because we’re the richest country in the world and yet for some reason we force people into bankruptcy because they didn’t have health insurance on the day they had a medical emergency.

I want:

1. People not to have to worry about seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it.

2. People not to have to worry about having shelter.

3. People not to have to worry about where their next meal will come from.

4. People to be able to provide a solid, basic, decent life for themselves and their families.

5. People to be able receive an education without it being onerously expensive.

Among other things.

I don’t think these are intractable problems for a civilization that sent people to the moon, perform open heart surgery, and deliver energy consistently and safely to millions of people.

[erentz]

You actually seem to be pretty much in agreement with the person you originally replied to. I only read you as calling out a few more specific examples of what causes anxiety but it’s completely possible they are encapsulated in quote “etc.”.

[tachyoff]

My point is that if those needs are met, then happiness becomes a question of what personally makes you happy and not just what you need to not be homeless.

[thwarted]

Consider that maybe happiness isn't about "personal happiness". If all that one needs to be happy is to not have stress, why question that and desire more? By questioning it, you're undermining the happiness. The goal shouldn't be to raise the happiness bar, it should be to lower it so that more people can experience happiness. Why should only those with significant means beyond the bare necessities have access to happiness?

If you're always questioning if you're happy enough, you'll never truly reach happiness.

So one obtains shelter, and healthcare, and an education, and all those things you listed. And they're still not happy? If cake is the baseline, is more icing going to make that much better?

[ChuckMcM]

And that was exactly my point as well. Once you are no longer anxious about those things, then, to use your own words, happiness becomes a question of what personally makes you happy.

I have observed that people who reach that state aren't looking for "more money" so much as they are looking for something that is more fulfilling for them personally. And the article observes that as well.

[mherrmann]

> Because we’re the richest country in the world

Are you? When I just Googled "richest country in the world", not a single result placed the US in #1.

[uiri]

Yeah, I don' think that statement holds up to scrutiny at all.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the median salary in the US was higher than the median salary in Luxembourg/Ireland/Singapore/Brunei/oil-rich-middle-east. Along with a lower tax burden resulting in higher net pay.

[odammit]

I assumed they meant largest economy?

[taneq]

I don't think it's just that that's our baseline, I think it's a ceiling. I think they're saying "if you're not destitute, more stuff won't make you happier". Overall, in the long term.

[thrav]

It’s why the Danish are always ranked the happiest. They know the government won’t let them become destitute.