Yesterday I described an act of kindness directed toward my family by someone none of us had met. The gesture was not one that most of my fellow economists would have predicted. But psychologists have shown that taking such steps makes people happier. 1/
Elizabeth Dunn (@DunnHappyLab) gave one group some money and told them to spend it on somebody else. She told a second group to spend the money on themselves. Afterwards, those in the first group were significantly happier than those in the second. 2/
ted.com/talks/elizabet…
The current lockdown provides an opportunity to reflect on whether Dunn’s finding holds for you. If, like me, you’re able to work from home, you haven’t suffered the devastating income losses that others have. But you’ve almost surely been spending less money on yourself. 3/
At the same time, you’ve probably been responding more generously to appeals from local relief organizations. For many of us, then, money we used to spend on private consumption we are now spending on behalf of others in the community. 4/
With so many reasons to feel less happy at the current moment, it would be difficult to measure the partial effect of this particular change in our spending patterns directly. But there is voluminous indirect evidence that speaks to this question. 5/
The literature on the determinants of human well-being is large and contentious. But one of its most robust findings is that beyond a certain point, further increases in most forms of private consumption don’t make us happier. They merely raise the bar that defines adequate. 6/
For prosperous Americans, then, the current reductions in private consumption haven’t made us any less happy. Couple that with Elizabeth Dunn’s finding that helping others makes us happier and the upshot is that our new spending patterns have made us happier on balance. 7/
The lockdown will eventually end, of course, and without further action we’ll return to the status quo ante. But as I explain here, some surprisingly simple changes in policy would let us retain and build on recent gains: 8/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Robert H Frank

Robert H Frank Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @econnaturalist

22 Jul
As Genevieve Guenther (@DoctorVive) points out, the climate conversation has finally moved past the mindless disputes with denialists that dominated recent discussion. But we now seem stalled in the absence of a consensus about what to do next.
In the face of record wildfires and 100°F Arctic temperatures, most people now accept that we face a deadly serious challenge. Now many ask, is rapid decarbonization even feasible at any cost? And if so, is there any prospect that voters would be willing to bear that cost?
On the first question, if you’re not familiar with the work of the energy engineer Saul Griffith, I urge you to read this short piece that explains how we can decarbonize rapidly:
medium.com/otherlab-news/…
Read 9 tweets
4 Jun
Will General Mattis end up being Citizen B, whose willingness to speak out proves explosively contagious?
In a recent thread about behavioral contagion’s role in debate, I described an example involving 10 citizens—A through J—who would oppose an authoritarian regime publicly if they thought it safe to do so. Citizen B was the pivotal figure in this example.
Each has a threshold indicating her/his willingness to speak out as a function of how many others are speaking out. A, for example, is willing to speak out no matter what. B and C are more cautious, each willing to speak out only if at least 20% of others are also speaking out.
Read 11 tweets
19 May
Economic Naturalist Question #15. Why don’t top-ranked private universities charge higher tuition than many of their lower-ranked counterparts? #EconTwitter
After posing this question, my former student Lonnie Fox noted that although the ratio of applications to available slots is far higher at top-ranked universities than at their lower-ranked counterparts, tuition payments vary little across schools of different rank.
Top-ranked schools typically admit less than 10% of applicants, whereas many lower-ranked schools admit more than 50%. Expenditures per pupil are also higher at top-ranked schools. If both costs and demand are higher at top-ranked universities, why don’t they charge more?
Read 12 tweets
25 Apr
Economic Naturalist Question #2: Why do brides often spend thousands of dollars on wedding dresses they will never wear again, while grooms typically rent cheap tuxedos, even though they will have many future occasions that call for one?
Jennifer Dulski, who got married six months before she took my class in 1997, posed one of my all-time favorite responses to my Economic Naturalist writing assignment.
Asking why brides buy and grooms rent is an interesting question because it would seem that each would do better by following the other’s strategy. Why don’t brides rent and grooms buy?
Read 11 tweets
4 Apr
The observations in the tweet below suggest another question: Why would the sacrifices necessary to make progress against both future pandemics and the climate crisis be much less painful than many believe? 1/
Progress against these challenges will of course require massive investment in renewable energy and similar outlays for hospital surge capacity and medical research. But experience in the current pandemic shows why these expenditures need not require painful sacrifices. 2/
This experience supports a robust finding from the large literature on the determinants of human well-being: Beyond a point that has long since been passed in the West, further increases in many forms of private consumption serve only to raise that bar that defines adequate. 3/
Read 23 tweets
25 Mar
Despite broader adoption of measures to increase social distancing, COVID-19 cases are still mounting rapidly. This has prompted some to call for a return to business as usual. But new evidence shows why such calls are lethally wrongheaded. 1/
For example, analysis of real-time temperature readings from Kinsa’s smart thermometers, in use by millions of Americans scattered across the country, now makes it possible to spot local outbreaks of illness much more quickly than by using standard CDC diagnostic data. 2/
Location-specific data indicate that stay-at-home orders are followed in a matter of days by significant declines elevated temperature readings, a reliable indication of reduced illness transmission. The earlier such measures are adopted, the more quickly contagion declines. 3/
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!