From the Papers

At work yesterday, we had a seminar presentation from Professor Bruce Headey of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, at Melbourne University, he presented a paper co-authored with Professors' Mark Wooden, and Ruud Muffels.

The presentation was titled: 'Money doesn't buy happiness – or does it? A reassessment based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption'

It was quite an interesting topic. The general view from research is that money does not matter when it comes to looking at general life satisfication. While previous research had examined the relationship looking at income, the current study sought to use a measure derived from a combination of household income, wealth, and expenditure in relation to measures of satisfication with their well-being, and with their standard of living.

In summary,

Nothing in this paper should be read as indicating that psychologists have got it wrong in claiming that personality and personal relationships matter a lot more to happiness than money and material well-being. Nor do we necessarily deny the claim by some psychologists that giving top priority to material gain is toxic to happiness (Nickerson et al, 2003). All we claim is that by including wealth and consumption, as well as income, on the right hand side of equations, we have shown that money matters more to happiness than previously believed.

A link to the full paper is here. As I was sitting listening to the presentation, one of the things that I did notice as that he used many control variables (such as employment, gender, age, partnered [new word, not sure what that encompasses], he did not control for religious belief (be it Christian, Islamic, Hindu).

The research was also publicised in the SMH today as well.

UPDATE: Ross Gittins, wrote an article in the yesterdays Herald about wealth and happiness.

Some Politcial Reflections

Seeing that I am living in Kensington, I've been following the 'rapid rise' of Peter Garrett with a deal of interest. Before I do get on to that, I have been wondering a little about whether it would be a better system to have a fixed terms, and even fixed election dates ~ any thoughts here?

With respect to Peter Garrett. I have to admit that I would prefer not to have a candidate dropped onto the electorate, but am far more interested in seeing what an alternate Labour government would bring our country should they be elected. Anyway, I do look forward to debate, for in my mind thats we need, lively political debate. Garrett may well provide that, Latham seems to have a little. But we will see.