Arbeit Macht Glück?

by Will Wilkinson on June 20, 2007

Arthur Brooks (via Mankiw) in the WSJ writes:

For most Americans, work is a rock-solid source of life happiness. Happy people work more hours each week than unhappy people, and work more in their free time as well. Even more tellingly, people with more hours per day to relax outside their jobs are not any happier than those who have less non-work time. In short, the idea that our heavy workloads are lowering our happiness is twaddle.

Obviously, there is a point beyond which work is excessive and lowers life quality. But within reasonable bounds, if happiness is our goal, the American formula of hard work appears to function pretty well.

This may be one reason why Americans tend to score better than Europeans on most happiness surveys. For example, according to the 2002 International Social Survey Programme across 35 countries, 56% of Americans are “completely happy” or “very happy” with their lives, versus 44% of Danes (often cited in surveys as the happiest Europeans), 35% of the French and 31% of Germans. Those sweet five-week vacations and 35-hour workweeks don’t seem to be stimulating all that much félicité. A good old-fashioned 50-hour week might be a better option.

I think the wealthier societies become, the more work is likely to be a source of satisfaction, since the more likely it is that people will have the opportunity to work at jobs they find individually satisfying. This is even more likely to be the case when labor markets are relatively unregulated, making it easier for people to test the waters of lots of different kinds of careers, or to make big mid-career changes, without too much fear of of getting (semi-)permanently locked out of the market.

Whether or not work makes you happy depends on what kind of work it is; whether or not leisure time makes you happy depends on how you use it; whether or not money makes you happy depends on how you spend it. Work, leisure, and money are all good for happiness. What we need to understand is how different kinds of people can best match up with different patterns of working, relaxing, and spending.

  • It's not that big of a surprise that the Americans are happier the more they work and that the amount of working makes them happier compared to the Europeans. Here's two important reasons for this result:
    1. Material wealth is much more important to one's self-image and social acceptance within community in America compared to Europe. And the correlation between working hours and material wealth is - obviously - quite significant:).
    2. The unemployed are worse of - especially in term of wealth - in America compared to Europe. This means that getting a job raises one's happiness level in America much more than it does in Europe.

    And of course there is one more significant reason for the result. If we accept the correlation between work hours and wealth, we see that with long work hours comes most of the benefits of being wealthy as well. These include - fo example - family, social acceptance, love, security etc.

    But I agree with Will that work itself tends to make people more happy - even when the statistics are "cleared" from the abovementioned factors - in well developed societies. For the well-educated workers (who work the longest hours in US, don't they?) work is usually very rewarding. The same cannot be said about the less lucky (the ones who didn't have money for education and/or "genes" or supportive environment for building their value in labor market). These people are the losers in well-developed capitalist societies.

    I've pondered this question (in Finnish context, but I guess it sort of:) applies in US as well) and come up with a sort of solution that maximizes the overall happiness level within society and works in preserving the environment.

    The first 20 or so work hours/week should be (at least almost - 10-15%) tax free and then the income tax should rise progressively hour to hour, maybe 2,5% or 4% per hour. So for the 40. hour one pays maybe 60% tax. These taxes go to a collective basic income pool. Because the work the "hardest workers" do is rewarding in itself this shouldn't bother them too much (if it does, it's because they are jealous of the others) but the happiness level of the less well of rises as does their happinees level.

    Well, this is just side effect. My actual concern is that the environment can't cope with the amount of work that is currently done in the world. We should come up with some measures to make people do less work to preserve the environment for the future generations.
  • Will Wilkinson
    Matt, I'm not vehemently opposed to well-regulated employment insurance. And I don't have evidence at hand about the correlation between risk-taking and unemployment insurance, though I would like to look into it.
  • Will, I really like the stuff you've written that I've read and your bloggingheads appearances, even if I'm somewhat to the left economically of you. So I'm really asking this question in good faith.

    If moving around from job to job is so important for people's thriving and happiness, it of course follows that a flexible labor market is important, but does it not follow, equally if not more so, that large amounts of unemployment insurance and government retraining a la Denmark are important. Even if one can make a big mid career change, ie the market isn't locked up, if they don't have the requisite social net and governmental support, they won't be willing to use that labor market flexibility to their advantage. I really don't know your take on it, so if you have come out in support of generous unemployment benefits/insurance, I don't know.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: