<p>The study looks at the reverse of the reverse of the usual implication that money causes happiness (true up until $75K) and considers if people who are happy are more likely to earn more. To do so it starts following the kids at 16.</p>
<p>*
"In a study of more than 10,000 Americans, those who experienced more positive daily emotions and felt more satisfied with their lives while growing up earned more income by age 29, according to research from University College London and London School of Economics professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve and University of Warwick economics professor Andrew Oswald.
...
Students who described themselves as happier at age 16 and 18 and felt more satisfied with their lives at age 22 earned more income at age 29. On a scale of one to five, a one-point increase in life satisfaction at age 22 translated into about $2,000 more in later earnings. The mean income was around $35,000.</p>
<p>Among siblings, a one-point increase in life satisfaction at age 22, compared with the mean of the family, translated into a nearly $4,000 difference in earnings at age 29, compared with the family mean.
...
That could be because happier young adults are more likely to earn a college degree, get hired and promoted, be more optimistic and less neurotic, the researchers posit. In their analysis they controlled for other factors, such as education, height and self-esteem.</p>
<p>Being really happy helps some: Those reporting a "very happy" adolescence earned an income about 10% above the average. But being unhappy hurts far morethose who experienced a "profoundly unhappy" adolescence made about 30% less than the average income, the paper found.</p>
<p>Then their dad just happily pulls that money out of their 2.5 million dollar trust fund, ucba. See? Happy happy. And this study is vague vague vague.</p>
<p>I might have missed it, but did the study look at the initial family income of the participants? I’d imagine that a 16 year old whose lives below the poverty line would be substantially less happy than another 16 year old with parents that make more than $100,000 a year. Even if the impoverished student and the upper middle class one both earned a BA and had similar levels of self esteem, the road to financial stability would likely be far smoother for the upper middle class student than the impoverished one.</p>
<p>Why would it be like that? Why can an impoverished child not be happy? Happiness does not always attribute to materials. If the child, well, now adult, has their degree and job, why does their previous economic status matter? The road was harder. Ok. What does that have to do with their happiness after they have their degree and their job? Nothing. </p>
<p>There are many factors that could play into this study, but in the end I do agree that the happier you are the more likely you’re going to earn more.</p>
<p>“I might have missed it, but did the study look at the initial family income of the participants? I’d imagine that a 16 year old whose lives below the poverty line would be substantially less happy than another 16 year old with parents that make more than $100,000 a year.”</p>
<p>Supposedly the sibling control would have accounted for the SES of the family.</p>
<p>The person who answers “yes” to this question may be more likely to be happy than the person who answers “no” to this question, even if the latter is actually wealthier on an absolute scale than the former.</p>
<p>If they did not control for differences in physical attractiveness, I cannot see how anyone can conclude much from the study. Physical attractiveness plays a significant role in happiness and success.</p>
<p>Yes, I understand that. My post was in response to this:
</p>
<p>The question “Why does their previous economic status matter?” was not in response to what you think it was. It was in response to the poster saying that the impoverished would have a harder time to financial stability in which I was saying it wouldn’t matter of the impoverished kid was “less happy”. In the end, that individual will be happier.</p>