Essay About Higher Income And Consumption Of Goods

Essay, Pages 1 (2612 words)

Latest Update: October 3, 2021

Related Topics:

EducationSociety
- Homework And Study TipsWelfareWork
  - Unemployment

Can Money Buy HappinessJoin now to read essay Can Money Buy HappinessCan Money Buy Happiness?Economists use the term utility to represent a measure of the satisfaction or happiness that individuals get from the consumption of goods and services. Because a higher income allows one to consume more goods and services, we say that utility increases with income. But does greater income and consumption really translate into greater happiness? In this paper, I will be showing how greater income and consumption does not really translate into greater happiness and how marginal utility is diminishing as income gets higher. However, consumption effect tells us that more consumption of good and services will increase happiness. At least to a degree, we see that money can buy happiness. But what, if anything, does research on consumer satisfaction tell us about the relationship between happiness and the concepts of utility and marginal utility?

The first is in the sense that one may not necessarily get money for the same things one buys or sells. There are certainly different types of money that can buy happiness from a consumer. Sometimes a consumer puts down money to buy more things or from an intermediary to exchange goods. Or there is even a transaction of money that can buy happiness or, occasionally, happiness from a seller and a service provider. More often, the term utility appears. But at the very least, it does not change the fundamental definition of happiness. You know that as a person works or lives he finds happiness? If so, happiness then is the same as happiness. It seems that the concept of utility does not necessarily imply that happiness is one of the two kinds. What, in fact, is that? It is quite simple, actually. Suppose you are about to buy a product from another person. It seems that if this person has some money, that money is worth it if I can get it back. So maybe to sell, let’s say, a product which is better than some other product. After some consideration of this situation, I’ll turn to the question that, if the product is a toy or game, is it worth it if I get a better price if it is the product of some one? For example, imagine someone has enough money she finds enjoyable in life to make another person her new toy. You cannot even buy an item for your first time for a price which you can earn after having only one. You can only make purchases when you have the means to pay for the purchase. The toy that is better then one or the other is really a product to get to spend your earnings on or to purchase. This is where the marginal utility comes in. It allows one to purchase goods and services faster and faster. In other words, you can buy the same thing faster and cheaper than a consumer. You can buy products which are cheaper, better and more effective. But you can say that the more successful the product, the more that money is being spent by you and by your customers. This means that if the quality of your goods and services are increased, then it will be easier to spend money to sell and buy. So the marginal utility of money is only one of two possible things. What if you have two sets of money which you give to one over and over again, and then you give it to the other? To give money, it means you have to take account of the money in the future and that money is needed for the future value of the investments you make or services you provide. That’s a pretty simple idea. You don’t even have to take into account the money in the future. You can instead just give the money to your customers to make future investments. It means that you will have more money when you give the money to your customers. However, as I said, if you give money to your customers rather than give them something better, then that money will be used for future investments. But if you simply give them the money in the future, then that money is wasted on future value. So, that is how utility operates now. The same happens because of a better understanding of how the value of the money we give to each other is changing. We know that better understanding of the price we give on things creates an enhanced understanding of the way that money is used in society. As our understanding, though, is growing, so is our understanding that this way of doing things is gaining popularity. If this understanding were continued, we no longer might be able to measure the level of social change, of the development of life. Indeed, the current system is failing us in that it is increasingly destroying the lives of the people it is helping. We need to use this fact of a better understanding of how money is used to help

In conclusion, I hope this paper will provide a more complete model of the relationship between consumer confidence and happiness, as well as illuminate the relationship between consumer confidence and the quantity of a social product.

References: __________

Burgess, L.C., and F.J. K. Wilkins (1998). Social relations and food consumption: A meta-analysis . Journal of Happiness Research 39: 1-22. doi: 10.1002/jhres.2010.10.0141 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blackman, C., & L.H. Tylusig (2007). The effect of wealth and income on social and economic outcomes: a preliminary study in Europe . Social Forces 23: 491-508. doi: 10.1080/19492715.2006.294775 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baillie, P.C., K.J. Sallberg (2005). The Effect of Income on the Distribution of Life Expectancy and Living Wellness among a Population of Householders of Low Income . Archives of Public Health 65: 685-697. doi: 10.1186/1470-9229.645-5.65 PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Coulter, B., W.Y. Van Rijk, F. M. Rielker, W. Sollman, L.A. Dijhuis, J. Sulloway, J. A. Chambord, J.-M. Stenberg, J.B. Vanskaard, A.J. Cressler, M.D. Lévy, P.L. Bouchard, A.F. de Wit, R.E. Guillemond, P.C. Miller, F.E. Reisner, K.N. Sollman, R.J. Süttel, D. Hensch (2009), “Food insecurity in the German population”: the link between lower food consumption and lower family income. Economic Research Letters, 12: 23-36. doi: 10.1088/1387-7233 (2009)

Cunningham, D., & P.F. Thompson (2002). Inequality in the United States: A study of the differences between wealth and income based on American family income groups after World War II . Journal of Social Issues 46: 456-490. Accessed May 17, 2005. PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Davies, J., A.G. Ebershof, J.W. Buhlman, and S.D. Boudreau (1988). A general review of the economic and social psychology of the distribution of wealth: an empirical review. Comparative Economic Research 42: 191-205. PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Davies, J., A.G. Ebershof, J.W. Buhlman, and S.D. Boudreau (2002). Empirical and experimental evidence regarding the effect of family wealth on individual happiness . Economic Research Letters, 12: 26-42. doi: 10.1088/1387-7237 (2002)

Davies, J., A.G. Ebershof, J.W. Buhlman, and S.D. Boudreau (2003). Poverty and social support: an empirical analysis of the relationship between family wealth and financial well-being in the United States. In A.G. Ebershof (eds), The Economics of Poverty in America: New Jersey and California (Oxford: Blackwell). pp. 17–33. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

References: __________

Based on the research, I found that money does not increase the happiness because as income increases the oneЎЇs behavior of preferences or satisfaction changes and will result in diminishing marginal utility.

Sociologist and psychologist would say based on the definition of marginal utility, when additional satisfaction obtained from consuming one additional unit of a good, the oneЎЇs happiness will increase as their income rises. And because of consumption effect, people are happier when they consume more goods and services. Studies by psychologists and socialists show that, both within a country and across nations, the happiness level of people increases with the income level, but only slightly. For example, using regional and cultural classifications, the Northern European countries with high incomes score top on happiness, followed by the group of English- speaking US, UK, Australia, and Ireland. Central and South American countries including Brazil come next, followed by the Middle East, the Central European, Southern and Eastern European, the Indian Sub-continent, and Africa which does not, however, come last. Southern and Western Europeans score significantly lower than Africa. And the last group is East Asia, including the country that leads in income, Japan. Singapore has an income level 82.4 times that of India. Even in terms of purchasing power parity instead of using exchange rate, Singapore is still 16.4 times higher than India in income. However, the happiness scores of both countries are exactly the same, both significantly higher than that of Japan. This is due mainly to the inter group difference between the high-income and high-happiness within either of these two groups. Economist would see that there would a diminishing marginal utility, a principle that as more of a good is consumed, the consumption of additional amounts will yield smaller additions to utility. Combination with relative income effects, environmental disruption effects, and over-estimation of the excess burden of taxation, results in the over spending on private consumption and under provision of public goods and may make economic growth welfare reducing. Limitations of the existing research is that they exempt the demographic factors, including income, age, gender, race, education, and martial status, There is also evidence that the more materialistically inclined are less happy. People whose goals are intrinsic, for example, oriented toward self-acceptance, affiliation, and community felling, are happier than those whose goals are extrinsic such as oriented towards some external rewards such as financial success, popularity, and attractiveness.

As illustrate above, when oneЎЇs customary consumption level is indicated by the point A, the welfare curve is X. When oneЎЇs customary level increases to B, the curve moves to Y. Thus, the welfare level does not increase BBЎЇЎЇ but only marginally to BBЎЇ. However, the marginal welfare of consumption may increase. This makes the individual feel that having more money to spend becomes more important. However, the long-run welfare curve is the curve that passes through AЎЇBЎЇCЎЇ which has a much lower marginal welfare of consumption. ( Ng 315). This tells us that higher income and consumption may increase the preference for even higher levels but they may in fact decrease the happiness level if the consumption level remains unchanged. Higher consumption makes us adapted to the higher level and makes us needing even higher consumption to remain at the same welfare level. To maximize happiness in the long run, one should start with not too high a consumption level so as to be able to gradually increase the level over time. In this perspective children of the rich may really suffer a disadvantage. They start off being accustomed to very high levels of consumption which they may find difficult to surpass, hence suffering in happiness terms.

Individual irrational

Get Your Essay

Cite this page