First - I do not believe for one minute that people are happier in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia. My guess is that the sample is skewed somehow (maybe they just asked Saudi men how happy they were).

Second - The interesting question is why are Finlanders happier than we are. That marginal happiness must come from somewhere and might be something easy or cheap to foster.

Third - with all the cultural issues, do these metrics even make sense? Is happiness to a Ghanan the same as for an American. I have NO idea.

Fourth - assuming that there is some comparability, I note that even fairly unfree countries register some high level of happiness. Money does seem to trump freedom, interestingly enough.

Costa Rica's no surprise. Its freakin Costa Rica!

I'd be interested in learning more about a correlation between a country's level of economic inequality and the happiness of its residents.

If happiness is related to money, then it's got to be related to one's perception of their economic status relative to their neighbors right? It would make sense to me that nations with super rich and super poor would be less happy than those with less polarized classes.

I guess what I'm asking is: Does greater national wealth generally entail lesser inequality? And does this explain the happiness result?

> On the other hand, folk in Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Saudi Arabia are all happier than we are, so money ain't everything.

Neither is happiness, I might add.

I'd like to see this plotted out for the level of religiosity in the countries. It is a bit surprising, given the conventional wisdom, that one of the most atheist countries in the world (2% of the population is in church on any given sunday) is the happiest. My guess would be that there is no correlation between faith and happiness.

What about individual wealth? (The Easterlin paradox only deals with aggregate wealth, I believe.) Consider the difference: money doesn't buy me happiness, but it might buy us happiness.

My wealth, in a vacuum, can lead to isolation and/or alienation, resentments, and stress over how to manage or spend it. But in a country where the wealth is widely available, what you will see is a correspondingly high number of available entertainment options, public beautification efforts, good infrastructure, etc. These things certainly could improve happiness by making our lives appreciably better.

My old music teacher/personal hero used to say "Money won't buy you happiness, but it sure does make misery a whole lot easier to deal with!" (rim shot here)...

Considering both Putnam's recent work on the effect of diversity on community well-being and that the Scandinavian countries, which are I believe slightly more homogeneous than say the US, do very well on this scale, how about we add social homogeneity to the list as well for other correlations that should be done.

When I was doing happiness research my last year of college, I remember seeing a chart of the same idea but with different results. It appeared that below a certain threshold (I think it was like $6,000-$8,000 per year), GDP was correlated with life satisfaction. This makes sense, given that there are certain things low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, water, safety) that money really can buy. Above that threshold, there was very little correlation between income and happiness.

I don't know why this graph is different from the one I saw a few years ago (it would be nice of the scale was not logarithmic so threshold effects might be more apparent). I would suggest that above 8,000 income is not all that correlative with happiness (Lebanon has roughly the same average happiness as Hong Kong, despite having 1/4 the PPP; the same can be said for Costa Rica and the US).

I think happiness is a relative thing. If judged by wealth, it is not the absolute level of wealth that matters, but how one's wealth compares to those in the same society. Your wealth does not exist in a vacuum.

You are happy with a Ford if your neighbor owns a bike, but sad with a Ford if your neighbor owns a Ferrari.

Also material wealth is only part of the picture. I am sure not having to worry about health insurance, getting 6 weeks of vacation a year, and working less hours a week all contribute as well.

I also think that reaping the toils of your own labor is a rewarding sensation. I always enjoy the tomatoes I grow myself more than the ones I get at the store, no matter which is truly superior. I do not know how universal such a reaction is though.

I am also much happier as a teacher, watching students flourish than I ever was as a researcher where my work was disappeared into the endless abyss of reports and databases to be filed away forever.

I would add this fun bit of data -

Diener, E. and Seligman, M. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1-31.
Life Satisfaction for Various Groups:

Group / Rating
Forbes magazine's "richest Americans" / 5.8
Pennsylvania Amish / 5.8
Inughuit (Inuit people in northern Greenland) / 5.8
African Maasai / 5.7
Swedish probability sample / 5.6
International college-student sample (47 nations in 2000) / 4.9
Illinois Amish / 4.9
Calcutta slum dwellers / 4.6
Fresno, California homeless / 2.9
Calcutta pavement dwellers (homeless) / 2.9

Respondents used a scale of 1 to 7 to rate agreement with the statement, "You are satisfied with your life."

Doesn't Finland also have very high alcoholism and suicide rates?

Finland had 20.3 suicides per 100.000 people in 2004, the U.S. had 11.0 per 100.000 in 2002. On the other hand they had half the States' rate of homicides.

The only people who think money doesn't buy happiness are idiots who have too much of it, and wonder why their lives aren't totally perfect. Nobodies life is perfect, but the lives of the wealthy are still a lot more fulfilled than most everyone else's.

I know that your average rich person thinks that their problems with their wives and children are terrible, but it's nothing compared to knowing you can't afford to send your kids to college, that you're one bad illness away from losing your house, or living in a dangerous area because thats all you can afford. They just don't, and it makes you look really out of touch when you think that you do.

The average teenager has tons of problems and they seem really dire too, but they still can't even begin to compare to the problems you usually face as an adult. It's the same thing here.

Also, people really need to learn the difference between 'depression' and 'sadness'. Finnish depression tends to be caused by low population density and their cultural shyness which cause social anomie and suicidal ideation.