answer

watching

views

31 Aug 2018

Consider if and how people respond to changes in their economic status. A lot of people found themselves in pretty dire straits following the "great recession" of a few years back. Do we have any data or indications of long-term changes in the psychological and basic needs as opposed to the higher order such as esteem? For example, when they recovered did they return to their old pattern of needs or revise them because of the experience?

answer

watching

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Lelia LubowitzLv2

1 Sep 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

What does this article suggest to us about how people should go about to truly maximize their level of utility from their limited incomes?

Can Money Buy You Happiness?

It's true to some extent. But chances are you're not getting the most bang for your buck.

New research is suggesting that happiness is determined not by how much money one earns, but rather, how one spends it. University of British Columbia associate professor Elizabeth Dunn explains why. Photo: Getty.
By

Andrew Blackman November 10, 2014

It's an age-old question: Can money buy happiness?

Over the past few years, new research has given us a much deeper understanding of the relationship between what we earn and how we feel. Economists have been scrutinizing the links between income and happiness across nations, and psychologists have probed individuals to find out what really makes us tick when it comes to cash.

The results, at first glance, may seem a bit obvious: Yes, people with higher incomes are, broadly speaking, happier than those who struggle to get by.

But dig a little deeper into the findings, and they get a lot more surprising and a lot more useful.

In short, this latest research suggests, wealth alone doesn't provide any guarantee of a good life. What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. For instance, giving money away makes people a lot happier than lavishing it on themselves. And when they do spend money on themselves, people are a lot happier when they use it for experiences like travel than for material goods.

With that in mind, here's what the latest research says about how people can make smarter use of their dollars and maximize their happiness.

Experiences Are Worth More Than You Think

Ryan Howell was bothered by a conundrum. Numerous studies conducted over the past 10 years have shown that life experiences give us more lasting pleasure than material things, and yet people still often deny themselves experiences and prioritize buying material goods.

So, Prof. Howell, associate professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, decided to look at what's going on. In a study published earlier this year, he found that people think material purchases offer better value for the money because experiences are fleeting, and material goods last longer. So, although they'll occasionally splurge on a big vacation or concert tickets when they're in a more money-conscious mode, they stick to material goods.

But in fact, Prof. Howell found that when people looked back at their purchases, they realized that experiences actually provided better value.

What we find is that there's this huge misinformed forecast, he says. People think that experiences are only going to provide temporary happiness, but they actually provide both more happiness and more lasting value. And yet we still keep on buying material things, he says, because they're tangible and we think we can keep on using them.

Cornell University psychology professor Thomas Gilovich has reached similar conclusions. People often make a rational calculation: I have a limited amount of money, and I can either go there, or I can have this, he says. If I go there, it'll be great, but it'll be done in no time. If I buy this thing, at least I'll always have it. That is factually true, but not psychologically true. We adapt to our material goods.

It's this process of hedonic adaptation that makes it so hard to buy happiness through material purchases. The new dress or the fancy car provides a brief thrill, but we soon come to take it for granted.

Experiences, on the other hand, tend to meet more of our underlying psychological needs, says Prof. Gilovich. They're often shared with other people, giving us a greater sense of connection, and they form a bigger part of our sense of identity. If you've climbed in the Himalayas, that's something you'll always remember and talk about, long after all your favorite gadgets have gone to the landfill.

And, crucially, we tend not to compare our experiences with other people so much. Keeping up with the Joneses is much more prominent for material things than for experiential things, he says. Imagine you've just bought a new computer that you really like, and I show up and say I've paid the same amount for the one with a brighter monitor and faster processor. How much would that bug you?

In experiments he has run, it bugs people a lot. But when people are told to imagine they've gone on vacation to New Zealand, and someone else has had a slightly better vacation, it bothers people somewhat, but you still have your own experiences and your own memories, and so it tends to trouble you less.

In a recent paper called Waiting for Merlot, Prof. Gilovich and colleagues showed that we also get more pleasure out of anticipating experiences than anticipating the acquisition of material things. People waiting for an event were generally excited, whereas waiting for material things seemed to have an impatient quality.

Don't adapt to what you buy.

One of the main reasons why having more stuff doesn't always make us happy is that we adapt to it. Human beings are remarkably good at getting used to changes in their lives, especially positive changes,says Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California, Riverside. If you have a rise in income, it gives you a boost, but then your aspirations rise too. Maybe you buy a bigger home in a new neighborhood, and so your neighbors are richer, and you start wanting even more. You've stepped on the hedonic treadmill. Trying to prevent that or slow it down is really a challenge.

One approach that can work, she says, is consciously trying to foster appreciation and gratitude for what you have. The process of adaptation, after all, comes from taking what you have for granted, so you can slow it down by reminding yourself of why you value what you have.

It could be as simple as setting aside time every day to follow the traditional advice of counting your blessings. Or you might want to keep a daily journal or express your gratitude to other people. The key is to find a way to remain conscious of everything you own and avoid simply adapting to having it around.

Because you're working against your natural inclination, Prof. Lyubomirsky acknowledges that feelings of gratitude and appreciation can be very difficult to sustain. If your journal or daily list becomes just a stale routine, it will no longer have much effect. You might have to keep switching techniques.

Increasing variety, novelty or surprise can also help you to enjoy your possessions more. When things become unchanging, that's when you adapt to them, Prof. Lyubomirsky says.

If you keep a painting hanging in the same spot on the same wall, for example, you'll stop noticing it after a while. But swap it with a painting from another room, and you'll see each of them with fresh eyes, and appreciate them more. Try sharing your possessions with other people, too, and opening yourself up to new experiences, she says.

This could even mean depriving yourself of your possessions for a while, perhaps by lending them or sharing them with someone else. Elizabeth Dunn, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia and co-author of the book Happy Money, recently conducted an experiment where she sent people home with a big bag of chocolate, telling some of them to eat as much of it as they could and others that they were forbidden to eat it. A third group could choose how much to eat.

The result? The people who had been forbidden from eating chocolate were able to enjoy their next chocolate bar much more than those who'd either eaten a lot or consumed their normal amount. Giving something up temporarily can actually help to preserve our capacity to enjoy it, Prof. Dunn says.

Try Giving It Away

The paradox of money is that although earning more of it tends to enhance our well-being, we become happier by giving it away than by spending it on ourselves.

That's the finding from a series of studies by Prof. Dunn. She began by handing out cash to students on campus and telling some to spend it on themselves and others to spend it on someone else. Those who spent money on other people were happier than those who treated themselves.

Prof. Dunn has since repeated the experiment in other countries across the world and has extended it to look at whether people were still happy when giving away their own money rather than free money handed to them by a professor. She found that in countries as diverse as Canada, South Africa, and Uganda, giving away money consistently made people happier. This was even true when people were giving away their own money, and even when they themselves were relatively poor.

She also worked with economists to analyze survey data from 100 countries in the Gallup World Poll, and found that people who donated money to charity were happier, in poor and rich countries alike.

The fact that we were able to observe the same effect that we'd seen in Canada in places like South Africa and Uganda was probably the biggest surprise of my career, she says. A lot of us think we'll give to charity one day, when we are richer, but actually, we see the benefits of giving even among people who are struggling to meet their own basic needs.

What moves the needle in terms of happiness is not so much the dollar amount you give, Prof. Dunn says, but the perceived impact of your donation. If you can see your money making a difference in other people's lives, it will make you happy even if the amount you gave was quite small.

Be Sure to Buy Time, Too

It's also important to consider how what you're buying will affect how you spend your time. That big house in the suburbs may seem like a good idea, but a 2004 study by Alois Stutzer and Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich found that people with longer commutes reported lower overall life satisfaction, all other things being equal. They calculated that you would need a 40% raise to offset the added misery of a one-hour commute.

Use money to buy yourself better time, says Prof. Dunn. Don't buy a slightly fancier car so that you have heated seats during your two-hour commute. Buy a place close to work, so that you can use that final hour of daylight to kick a ball around in the park with your kids.

Another way to buy yourself time, Prof. Dunn says, is by outsourcing tasks you dislike. Whereas hiring personal assistants used to be the preserve of the wealthy, it is now easier and more affordable to hire freelancers and virtual assistants online to help you with either regular administration or just individual tasks.

She's currently doing research on how people actually spend the time they save by outsourcing tasks and whether it makes them happier. The preliminary findings, she says, are that most people do become happier by buying time for themselves, but only if they use the time in the right way.

Our hypothesis is that people will be much more likely to derive an emotional benefit if they think of it as windfall time and use it to do something good, rather than just taking it for granted, she says.

But while buying time is a good idea, putting a dollar value on your time may not be. In another piece of research in progress, Prof. Dunn is finding that when people think of their time as money, it makes them less likely to spend even small amounts of time on things that are not financially compensated. Seeing time as money may have a number of destructive consequences, she says.

Money Only Brings Happiness Up to a Point

When looking at all of these research results, there's an important caveat to bear in mind. Those in the field divide happiness into two components, and you need to have both parts working together to be truly happy. But only one of those components keeps improving the more you earn. The other tops out after a certain point.

The first measure of happiness is evaluative. Prof. Lyubomirsky defines it as a sense that your life is good, you're satisfied with your life, you're progressing towards your life goals.That's the measure used by economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson, who have conducted extensive research comparing economic data and happiness surveys across the world. We found very clear evidence that in just about every country around the world, rich people are happier than poor people,says Prof. Wolfers. And people in rich countries are happier than people in poor countries.

The other component of happiness affective looks at how often you experience positive emotions like joy, affection, and tranquility, as opposed to negative ones, explains Prof. Lyubomirsky. You could be satisfied with your life overall but you may not actually be happy at the time, she says. Of course, happy people experience negative emotions, just not as often. So you have to have both components.

Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton of Princeton University found that when they looked at affective measures, happiness did not rise after a household reached an annual income of approximately $75,000. (They did, however, find a consistent rise in overall life satisfaction, matching the results of Profs. Wolfers and Stevenson.)

The bottom line: When you don't have much money, a little extra can go a long way, because you have more essential needs to fulfill. As you accumulate more wealth, however, it becomes more difficult to keep buying more happiness.

Don't Get in Over Your Head

Finally, although much of the research in this field is on spending money rather than saving it, the researchers agree that spending more than you can afford is a route to misery. Taking care of your basic needs and achieving a level of financial security is important.

Prof. Gilovich says that although his research shows that life experiences give more happiness than material goods, people should of course buy the essentials first. His findings hold true across a broad range of income levels and demographic groups, but not for people with very low incomes. Those people don't really have discretionary income; it pretty much all has to go on necessities, he says.

Some studies, meanwhile, have shown that debt has a detrimental effect on happiness, while savings and financial security tend to boost it. A survey of British households found that those with higher levels of debt reported lower happiness, and a separate piece of research on married couples showed that those in more debt had more marital conflict.

Savings are good for happiness; debt is bad for happiness. But debt is more potently bad than savings are good, Prof. Dunn says. From a happiness perspective, its more important to get rid of debt than to build savings.

So before you go out and spend all your money on a dream vacation, make sure you've taken care of the basics, paid off your debts, and have enough money to shield yourself from the worst of life's troubles.

Financial advisers are actually right, Prof. Howell says. The first thing you should be doing with your money is building up a safety net. If you go into debt to buy these great life experiences, the stress you'll feel when the credit card bill comes in will probably wipe out the good that you got from the experience.

Mr. Blackman is a writer in Crete. He can be reached at [email protected].

limehedgehog555

6. Though political pundits on television and radio inform the public, they also have to be concerned with

a. Entertainment value to increase their ratings.b. All of these.c. Making their audiences feel better about America.d. Being factually correct.

7. Social movements have been important sources of social, political, and economic change in the United States.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

8. A double standard exists on the part of advocacy organizations because issues facing advantaged subgroups get more attention than those facing disadvantaged subgroups.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

9. Contemporary political observers echo the two views of de Tocqueville and Madison in how they view the role of political groups.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

10. A national advocacy organization is an interest group

a. That only represents businesses.b. That informally represents broad groups of Americans who have similar interests.c. That represents all Americans whether they are powerful or not.d. That only represents minorities or people with less power in society.

11. The American people believe that justices on the US Supreme Court

a. None of these.b. Should be appointed for life.c. Should be elected and only for a 10-year term.d. Should be elected for life.

12. Regional, cultural, religious, occupational, and ethnic diversity all tend to increase the formation of political groups and social movements.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

13. In the United States, political parties are

a. Relatively rareb. Are a relatively accidental feature of the American historyc. None of thesed. Mentioned in the Constitution

14. Why are interest groups, political organiztions, and social movements so numerous in the US?

a. All of these.b. Because federalism and the separation of powers have created multiple points of access to political institutions.c. Because of the 1st Amendment, which protects speech. association, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.d. Because the way people are elected to Congress does not do a very good job of representing minorities, who have to find other ways of getting their needs met.

15. What is the margin of error for a sample of 1000 voters?

a. Plus or minus 3%.b. Plus or minus 1%c. Plus or minus 5%d. Plus or minus 2%

16. E.E. Schactschneider says about the interest groups that claim to work for poor people

a. That they may be making things worse for these people.b. That they do a good job even without handing out small benefits to attract people to their group.c. None of these.d. That they are able to accomplish a great deal even though the poor do not join those groups.

17. Why do the campaign staffs of presidential candidates pass up large states like California and Texas to concentrate on smaller states like New Mexico or Ohio?

a. The large states are just a few and there are more votes altogether in the small states.b. It is easier to persuade people in the small states.c. The large states are reliably red or blue, so the campaigns go after states where the vote is closer and they can take all of the votes even with a small win.d. The large states are just too expensive for campaigning.

18. Jackson notes that equality is generally defined as

a. Equality of process.b. Equality of opportunity.c. Equality of outcomes.d. Equality of results.

19. In an open primary, the voter can choose which primary election--Democratic or Republican--he or she would like to vote in.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

20. The womenâs movement can be very active on an issue such as affirmative action in higher education, which afffects their more affluent members, but overlook welfare reform, an important issue for their more disadvantaged or marginalized members.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

21. It is sometimes called "first-past-the-post" and sometimes "winner-take-all," but this kind of election means

a. No matter how many votes are cast and how many candidates the one with the most votes wins.b. None of these.c. The candidates have to have run-off elections until one wins two thirds of the votes.d. The top two candidates have to have a run off election.

22. Public opinion matters because in a democratic system we believe that government policy should follow the public will.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

23. With regard to ideology, Americans

a. Tend to identify with a party by their mid 20s.b. Tend to choose a political affiliation early in life.c. Tend to stay identified with a political party consistently the rest of their lives.d. All of these.

24. Alexis de Tocqueville

a. Found few religious associations in America.b. Wrote at the time of the American revolution in the 1780s.c. Wrote his great book Democracy in America at a time when Americans were forming many interest groups and associations in the 1830s.d. Was appalled at the number of commercial and manufacturing associations he found in America.

25. According to Strolovitch, in judging the effectiveness of an advocacy organization which claims to represent the marginalized,what are the guiding questions we should ask?

a. How active for the intersectionally marginalized are they? Because without that the organization is a failure.b. What coalitions do they form? Because coalitions are the key to success.c. What institutions do they target and what coalitions do they form? Because the political activity is the most important barometer.d. How active for the intersectionally marginalizedn are they, what institutions do they target, and what coalitions do they form?

26. How do the two dominant political parties prevent minor parties from emerging?

a. By using their vast funds and media resources to disparage minor party candidates.b. By refusing to give successful third party candidates leadership positions in the legislature.c. By poaching popular third party candidates before they begin to help their party.d. By manipulating election rules in debates and public funding to discriminate against the minor parties.

27. Since 1836, the republic has been dominated by how many political parties at a time?

a. Threeb. Fivec. Oned. Two

28. As sample size increases, the margin of error

a. Is greater than or equal to the margin of error.b. Stays the same.c. Decreases.d. Increases.

29. Affirmative advocacy

a. Looks for over-represented and under-represented issues in setting the agenda for activityb. Actively seeks out coalitions and works with others at the state and local levelc. All of thesed. Has a proactive agenda

30. The cell-phone only population is likely to include more young people, which pollsters have to take into account

a. TRUEb. FALSE

31. One method that schools use to politically socialize young people is

a. Ask students to watch TV news.b. Tell students who to vote for.c. Ask student to participate in mock elections.d. Ask students to read newspapers.

32. In addition to the legislative branch, advocacy groups target the executive and judicial branches.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

33. The problem with opt-in internet panels is that

a. Participants self-select, leaving out significant sections of the public.b. All of these.c. They have a greater margin of error.d. They do not use scientific methods.

34. An example of an organization which claims to represent a large demographic group is

a. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).b. All of these.c. The Japanese American Citizen's Leagues (JACL).d. The National Organization of Women (NOW).

35. Conservative and liberal ideologies differ mostly on

a. Campaign finance reform.b. Defense policy only.c. Economic and social issues.d. Civil rights.

36. Despite the fears of some that advocates for marginalized groups appeal to the courts too much, evidence shows that they in fact use the courts reluctantly and as a last resort.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

37. Are Americans more likely to vote in presidential elections than other types of elections?

a. No, Americans like to vote for direct democracy issues rather than indirect democracy representation.b. Yes, consistently American participate in presidential elections over other elections.c. Only in years when the presidential election is particularly interesting.d. No, because Americans are more interested in local issues.

38. The key way in which political parties enable democracy is

a. They stimulate interest among members of the mass publicb. All of thesec. They keep elected officials responsived. They allow a broader spectrum of participants to become involved in politics

39. In democracies around the world, multi-party systems are much more common and one sees small parties that advocate for one issue, one religion, or one demographic group.

a. TRUEb. FALSE

40. Poll results vary based on

a. Whether the method used was approved by the Census Bureau.b. Mean, median, and mode.c. Survey mode, sample size, and population definition.d. The statistical application of the Weights and Measures Bureauâs guidelines.

41. Voters who like a third party are nevertheless inclined to vote for a dominant party candidate for fear they will waste their votes.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

42. National organizations that file amicus curiae briefs are targeting

a. The Congress.b. The courts.c. The presidency.d. The Federal Reserve Bank.

43. Small racial, ethnic, or religious groups in the US

a. Don't have quotas for seats in the schools or government as they do in India.b. Do not have a party which is dedicated to their interests.c. Do not have legislative representation as is the cases in other countries with proportional representation.d. All of these.

44. When is the candidate's website NOT a good source of information?

a. To find more information about the candidate's biography.b. To find out more about the candidate's positions on the issues.c. To find an unbiased account of the candidate's voting history.d. To find out which prominent people and organizations support the candidate.

45. According to the "funnel of causality," party identification is more psychological than anything.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

46. The agencies which connect people to government are called "linkage mechanisms."

a. TRUEb. FALSE

47. Some theorists argue against the pluralists with a "rational actor" argument that says

a. That people are rational and want to maximize benefits and minimize effort, so they do not spend their time and resources to organize.b. That rational people always seek public goods.c. That it is rational to organize to acquire more public goods.d. That rational people really do not want the public goods as much as theorists think.

48. According to Jackson, the digital revolution has given us more information about the candidates,

a. And the candidates usually approve of the things written about them.b. And the information is usually quite accurate.c. But the information is not always accurate.d. But it is not very detailed.

49. Red states mean states that usually vote for the Democratic Party, while blue states mean those that are reliable for the Republican Party.

a. FALSEb. TRUE

50. According to Jackson, what is a core political value that nearly all Americans accept?

a. Equalityb. Democracyc. Libertyd. All of these

Few fields of empirical economic research offer virtual unanimity of findings. Yet, independent work on the economic impact of stadiums and arenas has uniformly found that there is no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development (Baade and Dye, 1990; Baim, 1992; Rosentraub, 1994; Baade, 1996; Noll and Zimbalist, 1997; Waldon, 1997; Coates and Humphreys, 1999). These results stand in distinct contrast to the promotional studies that are typically done by consulting firms under the hire of teams or local chambers of commerce supporting facility development. Typically, such promotional studies project future impact and almost inevitably adopt unrealistic assumptions regarding local value-added, new spending, and associated multipliers. They often use a regional input-output model that depends on outdated technical coefficients which are treated as invariant to shifts in supply and demand (Center for Economic and Management Research, 1991; Deloitte & Touche, 1994, 1996; KPMG, 1996; Economic Research Associates, 1996; KPMG, 1998; C.H. Johnson Consulting, 1999). The academic work on the economic impact of sports facilities and teams does not rely upon projection. Rather, it compares the local economic performance of areas with and without stadiums, arenas, and teams, controlling for other variables that affect local economic conditions. Among cross-section studies, for example, Baade (1994) found no significant difference in personal income growth from 1958 to 1987 between 36 metropolitan areas that hosted a team in one of the four premier professional sports leagues and 12 otherwise comparable areas that did not. Looking at 46 cities over the 1990-94 periods, Waldon (1997) found that higher high school graduation rates and more spending on police are what encouraged economic growth, while the presence of a major league sports team actually put a drag on the local economy. Both Baade and Waldon controlled for other factors affecting underlying trends in economic growth. Time-series studies confirm the cross-section results. Baade and Sanderson (1997), for example, found no perceptible net increase in economic activity or employment in 10 cities that acquired new sports teams between 1958 and 1993 after factoring out other economic trends affecting each area. They did observe a reordering of leisure expenditures within the cities that acquired new teams, but there was no evidence that the new sports teams brought output or employment growth to the local area. A more recent study, by Coates and Humphreys (1999), finds that new stadiums and sports teams actually reduce per capita income in the host communities. This result is consistent with a higher (negative) multiplier for the displaced leisure expenditures than for the expenditures on a new team or in a new stadium because the latter likely involve substantial leakages from the local economy to the remote residential locations of some players and team owners. The conclusion that sports teams and facilities do not stimulate economic growth is surprising to many people. With live telecasting of games, daily coverage on television news and in the sports sections of newspapers, professional sports play a huge role in U.S. culture. Yet sports teams are small businesses. Yearly average team revenues in 1999 are around $55 million in the NHL, $75 million in the NBA, $85 million in MLB and $100 million in the NFL. For a medium-sized city like St. Louis, the baseball team accounts for less than 0.3 percent of local economic activity; for a large city like New York, a baseball team contributes less than 0.03 percent of economic output. Sports teams typically employ between 70 and 130 people in their front offices. Beyond this, they hire approximately 1000-1500 day-of-game personnel who work in unskilled, low wage, temporary, part-time jobs. An NFL team is assured of playing 10 home games a year (including preseason games). At four hours of work per game, an NFL team provides day-of-game employment for the equivalent of 20 to 30 full-time, year-round jobs. As we shall see, however, it is problematic to attribute even these jobs to the sports team. Of course, the controversy about the economic impact of professional sports teams on their local economy is not just about the teams themselves, but also about how specific local restaurants, hotels, and other businesses might be affected. However, even if one assumes, optimistically, that on average people spend as much outside the sports facility as they do inside, the economic impact of sports teams in proportion to a typical metropolitan economy is diminutive. Apart from their relatively small size, there are three key reasons why professional sports teams do not promote economic development: the substitution effect; extensive leakages; and the likely negative effect on local government budgets. The analysis of these three effects that follows describes the situation when a team or a facility is new to an area. Of course, in many cases, the choice is whether or not to build a facility for a team that is already there. In such a case the incremental consumer surplus, external benefits or new spending will be considerably less. From the city's perspective, however, the opportunity cost of not building a facility with public funds may be perceived to be the loss of the team and all of its attendant benefits.

-------------------------------------------------Question

1. . The authors discuss the role of leakages in determining the impact of sports teams on the local economy. What are they talking about? Be specific so as to convince me that you read the article carefully

raspberryarmadillo231

Weekly leaderboard

Home

Homework Help 3,900,000

Economics 400,000

Unlock all answers

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related questions

Related Documents

ECO 181 Study Guide - Quiz Guide: Capital Good, Net National Product, Fixed Capital

Weekly leaderboard