Might wonder why the economy, sad or dismal science that defined Thomas Carlyle, also engaged to happiness. Richard Lanyard, one of the main references of the debate, define the key determinants of our subjective personal satisfaction or happiness: family relationships, a stable and rewarding work, the community and friends, health, individual liberty, personal values, and, of course, the financial situation. Money is one of the components of happiness, but it is far less decisive. Of course we are referring to “normal” situations. Deprivation and poverty are hardly compatible with a successful personal statement.

But once settled the basic needs the money goes to a second term, or not, because it is found that similar comparisons with active springs that modify our subjective perception of what we mean by ‘basic needs. “If we win more money or our car is more expensive than our neighbors, we probably feel more satisfied, and vice versa. If a country has a per capita income above the neighboring country will also feel more satisfied. Comparisons also affect temporal terms. An increase or decrease in salary, as well as the loss or obtain employment, affect individual happiness, as compared to our previous situation. It is also true to the principle of adaptive expectations, is that increases in wealth have only a temporary and limited impact on happiness, and individuals we adapt to almost any situation, better or worse.?

In any case, comparisons with being hateful, are crucial when assessing the happiness or satisfaction or collectively. But how to measure levels of happiness? One way is to ask directly to the citizens their personal subjective opinion, say on a scale of 0 to 10. This is interesting information, but which is difficult to draw conclusions applicable, given the variability of what each one means by happiness. Another way is to use objective indicators that define what is meant by a social welfare state, and can be life expectancy, education level, the unemployment rate, etc.

But it is difficult to guess the combination of indicators suitable for the intended purpose, which brings us back to the initial state of subjectivity. The easy thing would be that some of the macroeconomic measures, notably the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, we are properly informed of the progress of social welfare. This idea is rejected, often vehemently, because GDP does not include aspects such as health, purity of air or the joy of living. However, it is also true that overall GDP has a correlation with the social welfare objective variables, and that economic progress is essential in the improvement. Money is not everything, but as the saying goes, it helps. ?