40+er here. I feel similarly. I wouldn't say I'm happier but I definitely worry a lot less about saying "no" and BS in general.
What's weird to me is that I never felt that transition happen. It just seems to have occurred over the last few years. A younger me had a real hard time saying no, now it's easy and liberating! I can't tell if it's an age thing or something else though.
38 and recently felt this transition happen. I realized that it's just as silly to constantly dwell on negative thoughts, as it would be on positive ones, so decided to try that for a few days.
I don't think I can transmit this feeling by explaining it, since it's something you can only decide for yourself, but I made the choice to focus on the positive. I still keep the cynical realness in the back of my mind, should I need it, but I don't want to spend most of my time there anymore.
It's been over a month now of much improved mood, hopefully this will stick.
Getting into Buddhist philosophy has helped me a lot with this. I'm no bubbly positive spirit or anything but I feel much more content and present over the last few months where I've finally dove in. Ram Dass is known for saying something along the lines of "You spend all of your time loving or hating things. Why not just love everything. It's easier."
If you're interested I'd recommend reading Thic Naht Hahn, Tolle, the Bhagavad Gita (get it with explanations, The Essence Of is great), etc.
I've found that whether or not I practice the teachings just continuing to read about them keeps me mindful.
Of a similar age. I've found that it's gotten way easier to have difficult conversations with people, and I attribute that to life experience and long-term perspective. A difficult conversation now can save ages of regret and ill will. Other people are responsible for their own feelings, even for their feelings about you. Sometimes you have to tell people things they don't want to hear. Things that will make them sad or angry. They may rage or cry. While sometimes those things are best left unsaid, other times you have to say them and face the consequences, knowing that it's better in the long run. The long run can be longer than you think.
I'm a similar age to you and I feel that around 40 people start to detach from their ego. How people view you becomes less important, and as a result you become more comfortable in yourself.
This is hands down my favorite change as I've gotten older. I just don't worry about so many things that I used to, and find that it's easier to focus on a few things that really matter to me.
Granted I have far more responsibility than when I was in my 20's, so I think it it's basically a wash there, but at least I'm not stressing about things that seemed really important over a decade ago.
I am in my 50s and also have stopped to worry about stuff. I also don't worry anymore about things "I should achieve". It hasn't happened until now so it probably ain't gonna happen ever. It's a thin line to walk though. I see people who don't ever seem to be be content, keep chasing things that they most likely won't achieve and are very frustrated with this. My body is also not getting any better so I have accepted that I shouldn't try stuff I did in my 20s.
To me it's a source of content and acceptance but depending on your personality it can go the other way.
I still have things I want to do but if they don't happen I am OK with that.
That may happen and would be great. I just don't think it's worth to put pressure on myself to achieve something I haven't been able to do for 30 years.
For example: I would love to run my own small company. But I have learned repeatedly that I am no good at selling and also not very creative in coming up with new products. So now I am content with a regular job.
Agreed, I think in your 20s and 30s you’re generally driven to find your place in the world - career, marriage, parenting. By our 40s, most of us have found at least some of that, care less about the rest and are able to have a better perspective. Maybe not happier in the sense of elation, but more content, more aware of what you do have, and more ok with not being the superbeing you thought you needed to be to be happy.
Around 40 you realize that you'll die relatively soon, so a lot of things come into perspective and stop worry you. Yolo attitude helps to live happier.
What helps me is the idea of having a fixed amount of “worries”, which you received at birth. At the beginning you have plenty and you spent your “worries” on all the things.
And later you realize you just have this amount of “worries” left. So you better spend them wisely. ;)
I know you meant this as a joke but there's some applicability here. Seeking happiness can produce a lot of negative emotions, as you become very aware that many other people are way happier than you (or at the very least, show off a high level of happiness while hiding the details). It's possible to get into this state where things are never happy enough in this pursuit of happiness.
But all the happy people I know have a deep appreciation for the little things in life, a gratitude for whatever good comes their way, no matter how slim it is. In that respect, they are optimizing for allowing all bits of happiness that comes their way to actually have an effect on them.
Growing up in a former Eastern bloc country transitioning towards capitalism (Bulgaria), I was able to witness the change in people's behaviours and social expectations. Greed and arrogance had suddenly become the order of the day in the 1990s, in exchange for the ability to gain status and material possessions previously unavailable (Western cars, modern clothing, etc.).
As a result, our current society is much more atomised and the feeling of connectedness is lost to a large degree. In the past people looked at happiness as a way to exist in a group, now it's everyone's own game of "finding truth and happiness" (often at the cost of screwing up others, even people from your family).
Very similar thing happened in Poland. I remember growing up in the 80s in a typical soviet-style appartment block house of 30 flats. My mother used to know almost every family in the building, she roughly knew what was going on in their lives, sometimes helped them in small ways or have gotten the help from them. It was like a small village community. Partly it was dictated by neccessity - due to constant shortages of goods, it was crucial to have "connections", that could help you buy things like refrigerators, cars or even stood in line for bread for you.
After the transformation of 1989, which in Poland was performed by the government in the form of the "shock therapy" (their term), lots of inequality appeared almost right away. Some people did well, some were barely getting by, and some lost their livelihood and were in very bad shape. The community atmosphere of the building vanished, it started to become vandalized or occupied by drunkards/homeless. Ties between families have loosened, the "connections" became unnecessary as the material needs were now efficiently satisfied by the market forces and basic capitalism. The building is now just a bunch of people that share the same roof, but otherwise don't want to have anything to do with each other (as is standard in other capitalist countries).
Keep in mind that this is a survey of people of each age living during the 2010s. Not a graph of how each generation's happiness has changed as they aged.
Inequality is deeply ingrained into Indian culture. The bureaucracy is crushing, making it extremely difficult to start a business or improve your station in life without money and the right connections. India is not a place where “all men are created equal” — your value and station in life is largely determined by your caste, birth location, and family name. The people who escape the trap are the exceptions that prove the rule.
I suspect that a combination of an inefficient bureaucracy (and the accompanying loss of opportunity and competitiveness in international markets) and gross social inequality has a large part to do with it — especially considering ~70% of the population lives in relatively poor villages dotting the countryside.
I'd say hundreds of millions living in crushing poverty is the biggest contributing factor. You'd have to be really tough to not be miserable in such circumstances.
I mean, the crushing poverty is the result of the caste system and the accompanying wealth inequality. If it were just poverty, it might be possible to dig out.
The lowest castes are effectively slave laborers. They’re willing to travel to places like Dubai to sell themselves into actual slavery for a chance to send one of their kids to a good school. They’re not dumb or unaware of the world outside their impoverished lives, they just have no access to it themselves.
US vs Western Europe: worse work-life balance, bigger families with more kids at an earlier age, more stay-at-home moms. Eventually the kids grow up, one or both of the parents advance in the career and happiness goes up. On the other hand, Europeans look for kids at an age where they already feel financially stable.
I think it’s what I call the “trough of disallusionment”.
For women in the US at least, your late 20s / early 30s are spent grappling with the reality that the job market is still grossly unfair. Women get fewer opportunities, lower pay and less power. It’s fucking depressing because there is still retaliation for speaking up — any women in power got there by propagating the status quo, and they’re honestly more likely to retaliate. I also suspect part of the increase in happiness is due to the number of women who extricate themselves from such situations and find happiness and satisfaction elsewhere.
I suspect Europe simply pushes the “trough of disallusionment” out further. Sure, there are stronger protections in the workplace, but they only really protect the people at the bottom. As you grow older, the burdens just accumulate.
In Germany I've seen several women first-hand start to become unhappy in their 60's and 70's because they now have to deal with their retired husband full-time.
German men, in my experience, tend to get quite obstinate in their old age, and more quick to challenge things they view as incorrect than they would in their youth. This turns into constant harassment for some wives.
I think that's a huge deal, and it's not just German men. Finding a new purpose after having a clear-cut one in the form of a job is something I think can be the difference between a depressed post-work experience or a happy one.
It could be worse in Germans, though. My (limited) observations of them say that they're on average more conscientious, work and duty-oriented than my fellow Poles. And, when the work/duty ends, it's easier for your life to become hollow.
In ex-USSR you need to account for a drastic change of world that 40+ years old had to live through, complete change of world views and moral, loss of social and financial security, and all other horrors of transition period. Very few people got out of it feeling better. As old people die and younger generations replace them I presume that the graph will start to look more and more like the other countries.
The collapse of communism opened up significant opportunities for wealth accumulation, but this mostly benefited younger people who were ambitious and willing to bend the rules.
There is very little wealth accumulation happening in CIS countries post-collapse for the vast majority of people. The wealthy young are usually just children of wealthy adults, of whom there aren't many.
There was a marginal uptrend in happiness and prosperity in the 2004-2008 era, when oil prices were high (for countries that had oil production), but mostly, inequality has been skyrocketing and salaries have been flat for a decade now if not more.
Some countries have never really climbed out of poverty after the collapse of communism (Ukraine, Moldova, Tajikistan, etc.)
Just turned 40 this week. I don't know if I'm happy then when I turned 30, but I am less stressed.
I had typed out a long paragraph about why I'm less stressed, but I realized the tl;dr is - I figured out what matters to me, and, more importantly, what doesn't. When you figure out what's NOT important, it's like a big weight being off your shoulders.
That and probably decreasing testosterone levels ;)
I'm not quite 40, but am happier now than when I was younger. A key part of that is financial. After 20 years of working I have a nice nest egg saved up. It is not enough enough that I can retire, but it is enough that I don't have to worry.
When I was younger, I was always stressed about how I would pay the bills. When layoffs would go around I would be super stressed , worrying about what if it happens to me. I'd also be stuck dealing with some asshole boss because I needed the money again causing more stress.
Right now there is a rumor going around that my company is not doing too well financially. In the past I would have been worried about it. Now my only thought is if I do get laid off, is where I do some traveling to. If it is during the summer, think I'll go spend some time in the Canadian Rockies. If during the winter, I'll go back to Australia.
I'm in my late 20s and a nest egg is years away, but having a a basic emergency fund and financial safety net did wonders for my peace of mind. For those who haven't done it yet, I think it's the most important financial goal to hit as early in your career as you can.
Long-term disability insurance and life insurance are nice to have too. Patio11 has been preaching this [1] but it took me a while to really get it. The technical detail of "own occupation" is really important here.
Yes long term disability is a must have. I usually get it through my employer.
When I was laid off last year I did have the option to continue the disability insurance, but it was a bit more expensive that what I was paying as an employee. IIRC it went from $50/month to $100/month.
What is nice is that my new employer picks up the tab 100%, but it is only 60%. Usually in the past I would pay a bit extra to get 75%, but that is not an option.
I've never thought about private disability insurance before, but it is something that I should look into.
Interesting that in the former USSR states if person is old enough to have lived during communism you will be unhappy under capitalism and the more you lived in the previous system the harder is to get used to the new system.
That's exactly the opposite impression I get from literally everyone I know who has lived (as an adult) in the former USSR and its satellite states (including many people who currently live in eastern Europe). Whether they're "happy" or not I can't say but nobody seems to want to return to a world where you can't buy a light-bulb unless you know someone. Many of them often make grim jokes about what that world was like.
Are these people who have lived (a signficant portion of their critically-thinking lives) under Communism or have an impression (mostly from parents, education, upbringing etc.) of what it was like under Communism in the past, relative to current times.
I've certainly had the same impressions as you from friends, but most of them would be under 35/40.
I know one person who is like that (in Poland). Mostly, she's bitter about how much she is exploited under capitalism - she could only find illegal work, so she's paid below minimum wage, has only 5-10 days of paid vacation and basically no worker rights whatsoever. Plus she has to worry about being fired and starving on the street. Whereas under communism, the state was officially obliged with providing her with job, so there was no fear of unemployment.
Several of the most interesting people I have known had older fathers who were active in their lives. I'd worry somewhat about degrading quality of sperm/DNA, but all that life experience (if learned from) can definitely help balance things out.
I certainly would have preferred to have parents who were older and more mature than the ones I did have. And when I think of my peers who had older parents I think they benefited.
Has the research changed on kids/no kids? I remember from psychology class that - kids or no kids doesn't make a difference to life satisfaction. Having a partner does.
I thought psychologoy was by know a persona-non-grata to any discussion?
Psychology has a huge replication crisis, the whole quack science is heavily subverted by politics in its institutions- meaning they are under suspicion of pushing any study that runs against a "traditional" family value outcome?
Even if that outcome, could also be had by a non-traditional family?
Kids is not "always better then no kids". Not having kids means you have less stress & more free time.
Furthermore, there are some tough moral questions you need to answer when creating a living being in this world. It's unfortunate that having kids is the default and there seems to be very little public dialogue about the moral dimensions of it all.
There is something that goes off the rails, when you dont have at least one kid.
Look at people who do not have one in there elder years. Look at them driving around dogs in buggys, dressing them up like replacement toddlers, look at those faces, tell me that they are truely happy.
In the coldwar days, there where a lot of people who argued in a similar line- club of rome, end of days, and so they went and got a vasectomy.
Which you can not easily reverse.
Result: Lots of sad faces, late stage in life. Sometimes logic doesent cut it, and this is one of those moments - dont break the chain of life, daughter/son - is one of this moments.
I dont encourage you to have many kids- one or two should do. But yes, having a navel, that links all the way to the first mamal, and see that history continue, something of one beeing immortal, learning to walk and talk - that is awesome.
the way our society is structured, we need to have kids so someone will be around to do the work when we retire. this practical reality tends to short circuit those debates pretty quickly. it also raises a lot of uncomfortable questions like "I already have a kid, was that cruel?" or "if it's immoral to bring a life into the world, does that imply my own life isn't worth living?". people are quite adept at avoiding uncomfortable thoughts.
One more reason to have kids earlier: if you have your kids in your 40s and so do your kids, you’ll probably never experience your grandchildren. Doesn’t matter today, might be important to you later.
30s here, I spend teen and early adult years in various forms of anxieties culminating in a super crap decade. Considering that path, I extrapolated that life will be, at best, constantly shitty if I work to stay afloat.
But it's not. To a point I do feel like a 14 year old kid these days. And at times.. I even have flashes of child like happiness. Before when I used to remember good times, it would either feel like good+old or nostalgic+old. But what I'm talking about is more like good+present.. just like when I was a child. Some burst of careless and strong inspiration. It doesn't last more than a minute, but knowing that your mind can still have these feels like newfound oxygen.
Sadly nothing tangible I can suggest doing to others. I'm not doing regular physical exercise, nor dramatically different diet. And note that my material situation is half shit (jobless, at my parents, dysfunctional family). So it's not a matter of finding a better spot either.
I guess my point is, don't underestimate your mind and capability for happiness, even in the worst of times, even if counting a decade.
My only hypothesis, is that after trauma you have a finer sense of what is good and bad for you and you kinda filter shit out (be it doubt, anxiety, low self esteem, social pressure) and think/go for simple but deeper fun thoughts/activities that tickle that sense of happiness.
ps: oh also, 30s is also an age where you usually have childrens so childhood is often in your mind. So maybe this is a normal time period to have more attuned brain toward this kind of mindstate.
That is because those of us who are older and happier tend to be less vocal. Go be young, be silly, be loud, make mistakes. The happy old folks will just smile and let you be, knowing that nobody can help but be who they are, and be the age that they are.
Self-reported? Asking questions sure is cheaper than doing fMRI scans, but cultural differences might result in significantly higher noise, making different generations’ and countries’ results uncomparable.
I think it’s being old enough, to be financially independent enough, to not take shit from anyone.
47 and paid off mortgage this week. Zero debt and have 1 kids college saved up in cash, and low 7 figure retirement savings.
Still need a job for other kids college and medical insurance. I’ll keep working at my employer until I drop dead, as I like the technical work, but I’m on the 3 day plan now. 3 bad days in a row and I’m gone, and I made them aware of that.
That "young kids & fat mortgage" is god to honest truth. I knew a manager that celebrated his reports buying their first cars or houses as it increased his leverage over them. Sickening, but true.
The point is to have enough saved up that you don't care. There is nothing more comfortable than the knowledge that you don't have to put up with BS from your employer, or for that matter from _any_ employer, one second longer than you feel like it.
I’m pretty sure it’s better for your employer as well. I know once I wasn’t dependent on work I was happy to call out bullshit in a way I wouldn’t before.
Is the source research for this public or is it (like the full text of the article) also paywalled?
Have read the teaser abstract and leading diagrams, and my main curiosity is how the groupings break down granularly: e.g. former-USSR & "Western Europe" are both extremely! internally diverse. Given the averages for both, I wouldn't be surprised if some WE countries are even above 8, and if some former-USSR's are lower again.
* India, US and China are also internally diverse, but at least are each individual countries.
"Among both males and females, the study found that people aged 40 and older are more likely to take antidepressants than younger people."
"The study also found that women are two and a half times more likely to take antidepressant medication as males, while 23 percent of women ages 40 to 59 take antidepressants, more than in any other age or sex group."
The Economist article includes wide-ranging information on the relationship between age and happiness in various parts of the world. The information you've provided addresses a small portion of that (the percentage of the population on anti-depressants as they age).
A population can be both more happy with age and (as a percentage) on more anti-depressants. Some potential explanations:
1. As we age, we have greater access to healthcare (money/quality employment/government), so those needing anti-depressants are able to get them more regularly
2. Even with access to healthcare, there may be greater willingness to make changes in life and confront unhappiness as we age
3. Perhaps those who age are happier overall because they're on anti-depressants. The Economist article doesn't address this possibility.
I feel like the flaw in your argument may be that increased anti-depressant usage among older adults indicates increased depression as a person ages. That doesn't take into account other factors that might cause anti-depressant usage to rise with age.
Antidepressant medications do not "cause happiness". They make it somewhat more possible (when they work at all, which is not a guarantee for a given drug in any individual) for a person to find ways of becoming less depressed. These are not performance-enhancing drugs; it is wildly inaccurate to compare antidepressant meds to steroids or stimulants (both of which _also_ have legitimate medical uses, but that's another topic). Taking an antidepressant when you are clinically depressed is much more comparable to taking anti-seizure medication if you are epileptic.
I would argue yes. Happiness is just a chemical reaction in your brain, whether it's through natural environmental factors or drugs, it's the same reaction.
The issue is that we've yet to find a drug that can provide unlimited happiness without side effects that make taking the drug not worth it.
If there is no tangible difference in the result what is the point in the distinction between how you got there?
I'm going to liken your question to a similar but slightly different example:
If I have diabetes, and I need insulin to be "healthy", can I ever truly be healthy?
You can swap that for any condition and any requirement of a substance, or even a requirement not to consume a substance. I personally feel like all your question does is invalidate the use of often needed medications, treatments, or other potentially stigmatized practices by people who need those things.
If I had depression, or anxiety, and someone was basically asking if I can ever be the same as others because I need medication, I think that would hit me incredibly hard. It doesn't feel like accepting or supportive language to me.
I'm not trying to be or not to be accepting or supporting. I was just trying to have a philosophical debate on what I felt was an interesting topic. So people's feelings weren't really a consideration of mine.
Your diabetes/insulin example is even more interesting than mine. As a person of color with higher risk of diabetes, I have family members who are diabetic and need insulin. Would I consider my diabetic family members healthy? Do they consider themselves to be healthy? If they were healthy, they wouldn't be diabetic or need insulin. But taking insulin makes them healthy. But then if they were healthy, they wouldn't need insulin, which they do. You really gave me something to think about and maybe even talk to my family members about. Thanks.
Even more, if there is a pill to cure diabetes, is a person who takes the pill more healthy than the person taking insulin?
It could be that the antidepressants are working. Or it could be that people over 40 have had enough time to accept that they have an issue that needs treatment. Or it could be that this subset of unhappy people is real but other trends outweigh it.
That the prevalence of a chronic illness increases with age is completely unsurprising. The fact that depression is (incorrectly) thought to be the opposite of happiness is a coincidence. I'm not sure that people get happier with age, but I am sure that depression statistics cannot disprove it (within reasonable bounds. Obviously it would if it turned out everyone over 40 were clinically depressed.)
This is a little myopic, GP is clearly trying to posit that "there are less unhappy people above 40 because they are more death-prone than their happy peers".
I've seen some science headlines that sound like that's the case, but I haven't read the papers so take it with a dumptruck full of salt.
I think this rating does not take into consideration local culture. For example, I don't think India has a culture that makes you introspect whether one is 'happy'. How about asking whether one is unhappy? My suspicion is that India will score low (as in, not unhappy) on that also.
39 and definitely agree. 20th, 30 - living in a poor country, settling in US, small kids, uncertainty.
39 - Silicon Valley salary, comfortable savings, six digits kids college account. Fun job, lots of respect for OSS contributions, great food, biking, fitness, luxury car. On top of that - coming home every day to kids who agree to play any online game I want! Main source of anxiety - aging parents living in a far-away country...
Anecdata, but my grandfather (now passed) was able to support a family of 8 children with a flight engineer job in Ukraine between late 50s to early 80s.
Free housing, international travel, crazy paid leave. 8 healthy successful children, no one starved.
I can't imagine being able to support more than 2 kids ever, without somehow becoming super-successful through sheer luck.
The graph in the US looks like "oh I hit 66, now I can retire, yay!".
Just taking a guess here but if you happened to be 25 with enough money to retire for life, you would have an even higher happiness rating since you achieved financial independence with your whole life ahead of you.
I'm almost done with my 30s and I don't feel that much different than my 20s. If anything I cared less about things as a teenager. As you get older you tend to have more things to think and worry about.
I think it does get happier (but a different type of happiness nonetheless) but it comes at a cost. My 30's taught me to care more for fewer and fewer things and focus on what I really want. I think we become wiser as we learn from our mistakes in our 20s and 30s. The cost I'd say is less energy levels.
177 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 297 ms ] threadWhat's weird to me is that I never felt that transition happen. It just seems to have occurred over the last few years. A younger me had a real hard time saying no, now it's easy and liberating! I can't tell if it's an age thing or something else though.
I don't think I can transmit this feeling by explaining it, since it's something you can only decide for yourself, but I made the choice to focus on the positive. I still keep the cynical realness in the back of my mind, should I need it, but I don't want to spend most of my time there anymore.
It's been over a month now of much improved mood, hopefully this will stick.
If you're interested I'd recommend reading Thic Naht Hahn, Tolle, the Bhagavad Gita (get it with explanations, The Essence Of is great), etc.
I've found that whether or not I practice the teachings just continuing to read about them keeps me mindful.
And daily metta meditation.
Granted I have far more responsibility than when I was in my 20's, so I think it it's basically a wash there, but at least I'm not stressing about things that seemed really important over a decade ago.
That combined with being able to sift through the shit storm that life throws at you, for the ideals you want and ignoring the rest, helps a lot.
To me it's a source of content and acceptance but depending on your personality it can go the other way.
I still have things I want to do but if they don't happen I am OK with that.
I think it's perfectly fine to be content with this perspective.
However, just a note that many, many people and figures past and present fell into their zone for the first time even in their 60s.
For example: I would love to run my own small company. But I have learned repeatedly that I am no good at selling and also not very creative in coming up with new products. So now I am content with a regular job.
And later you realize you just have this amount of “worries” left. So you better spend them wisely. ;)
But all the happy people I know have a deep appreciation for the little things in life, a gratitude for whatever good comes their way, no matter how slim it is. In that respect, they are optimizing for allowing all bits of happiness that comes their way to actually have an effect on them.
As a result, our current society is much more atomised and the feeling of connectedness is lost to a large degree. In the past people looked at happiness as a way to exist in a group, now it's everyone's own game of "finding truth and happiness" (often at the cost of screwing up others, even people from your family).
After the transformation of 1989, which in Poland was performed by the government in the form of the "shock therapy" (their term), lots of inequality appeared almost right away. Some people did well, some were barely getting by, and some lost their livelihood and were in very bad shape. The community atmosphere of the building vanished, it started to become vandalized or occupied by drunkards/homeless. Ties between families have loosened, the "connections" became unnecessary as the material needs were now efficiently satisfied by the market forces and basic capitalism. The building is now just a bunch of people that share the same roof, but otherwise don't want to have anything to do with each other (as is standard in other capitalist countries).
Former USSR component States are just......horrific.
The literature of the culture is not very happy ending-ish.
Interesting to see happiness in US females, a very solid and consistent lifelong upward trend after bottoming out in the late 20’s, early 30’s.
Vast difference from Western European women, almost a mirror opposite.
Western European men are almost a lifelong flatline.
I wonder why that is?
From some reason I’m left with a random thought along the lines of “egalitarianism of happiness” for Western European males.
I know India is still developing, but I wouldn't have thought it was that bad.
I suspect that a combination of an inefficient bureaucracy (and the accompanying loss of opportunity and competitiveness in international markets) and gross social inequality has a large part to do with it — especially considering ~70% of the population lives in relatively poor villages dotting the countryside.
The lowest castes are effectively slave laborers. They’re willing to travel to places like Dubai to sell themselves into actual slavery for a chance to send one of their kids to a good school. They’re not dumb or unaware of the world outside their impoverished lives, they just have no access to it themselves.
US vs Western Europe: worse work-life balance, bigger families with more kids at an earlier age, more stay-at-home moms. Eventually the kids grow up, one or both of the parents advance in the career and happiness goes up. On the other hand, Europeans look for kids at an age where they already feel financially stable.
For women in the US at least, your late 20s / early 30s are spent grappling with the reality that the job market is still grossly unfair. Women get fewer opportunities, lower pay and less power. It’s fucking depressing because there is still retaliation for speaking up — any women in power got there by propagating the status quo, and they’re honestly more likely to retaliate. I also suspect part of the increase in happiness is due to the number of women who extricate themselves from such situations and find happiness and satisfaction elsewhere.
I suspect Europe simply pushes the “trough of disallusionment” out further. Sure, there are stronger protections in the workplace, but they only really protect the people at the bottom. As you grow older, the burdens just accumulate.
German men, in my experience, tend to get quite obstinate in their old age, and more quick to challenge things they view as incorrect than they would in their youth. This turns into constant harassment for some wives.
Perhaps, the men are also depressed? Maybe if they feel like they're not useful any more because they don't work.
There was a marginal uptrend in happiness and prosperity in the 2004-2008 era, when oil prices were high (for countries that had oil production), but mostly, inequality has been skyrocketing and salaries have been flat for a decade now if not more.
Some countries have never really climbed out of poverty after the collapse of communism (Ukraine, Moldova, Tajikistan, etc.)
Please don't call organized crime a "willingness to bend the rules."
1991-2000 would have been a horrible time for the vast majority of Russians and citizens of former satellites.
Civil freedoms may have improved, but not economic or health outcomes.
Especially for late career or retirees.
I had typed out a long paragraph about why I'm less stressed, but I realized the tl;dr is - I figured out what matters to me, and, more importantly, what doesn't. When you figure out what's NOT important, it's like a big weight being off your shoulders.
That and probably decreasing testosterone levels ;)
When I was younger, I was always stressed about how I would pay the bills. When layoffs would go around I would be super stressed , worrying about what if it happens to me. I'd also be stuck dealing with some asshole boss because I needed the money again causing more stress.
Right now there is a rumor going around that my company is not doing too well financially. In the past I would have been worried about it. Now my only thought is if I do get laid off, is where I do some traveling to. If it is during the summer, think I'll go spend some time in the Canadian Rockies. If during the winter, I'll go back to Australia.
Long-term disability insurance and life insurance are nice to have too. Patio11 has been preaching this [1] but it took me a while to really get it. The technical detail of "own occupation" is really important here.
[1]: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/988094196274769920
When I was laid off last year I did have the option to continue the disability insurance, but it was a bit more expensive that what I was paying as an employee. IIRC it went from $50/month to $100/month.
What is nice is that my new employer picks up the tab 100%, but it is only 60%. Usually in the past I would pay a bit extra to get 75%, but that is not an option.
I've never thought about private disability insurance before, but it is something that I should look into.
This is a valid AI problem i think.
I've certainly had the same impressions as you from friends, but most of them would be under 35/40.
Furthermore, there are some tough moral questions you need to answer when creating a living being in this world. It's unfortunate that having kids is the default and there seems to be very little public dialogue about the moral dimensions of it all.
Look at people who do not have one in there elder years. Look at them driving around dogs in buggys, dressing them up like replacement toddlers, look at those faces, tell me that they are truely happy.
In the coldwar days, there where a lot of people who argued in a similar line- club of rome, end of days, and so they went and got a vasectomy. Which you can not easily reverse.
Result: Lots of sad faces, late stage in life. Sometimes logic doesent cut it, and this is one of those moments - dont break the chain of life, daughter/son - is one of this moments.
I dont encourage you to have many kids- one or two should do. But yes, having a navel, that links all the way to the first mamal, and see that history continue, something of one beeing immortal, learning to walk and talk - that is awesome.
But it's not. To a point I do feel like a 14 year old kid these days. And at times.. I even have flashes of child like happiness. Before when I used to remember good times, it would either feel like good+old or nostalgic+old. But what I'm talking about is more like good+present.. just like when I was a child. Some burst of careless and strong inspiration. It doesn't last more than a minute, but knowing that your mind can still have these feels like newfound oxygen.
I guess my point is, don't underestimate your mind and capability for happiness, even in the worst of times, even if counting a decade.
My only hypothesis, is that after trauma you have a finer sense of what is good and bad for you and you kinda filter shit out (be it doubt, anxiety, low self esteem, social pressure) and think/go for simple but deeper fun thoughts/activities that tickle that sense of happiness.
ps: oh also, 30s is also an age where you usually have childrens so childhood is often in your mind. So maybe this is a normal time period to have more attuned brain toward this kind of mindstate.
But the unhappy ones - they will grump at you.
47 and paid off mortgage this week. Zero debt and have 1 kids college saved up in cash, and low 7 figure retirement savings.
Still need a job for other kids college and medical insurance. I’ll keep working at my employer until I drop dead, as I like the technical work, but I’m on the 3 day plan now. 3 bad days in a row and I’m gone, and I made them aware of that.
That seems like an extremely fragile and precarious situation to put your employer into! No one likes ultimatums, it could hasten your termination.
Yes, that’s part of the happiness; me not giving a shit. An employers ideal engineer is someone young with kids and a fat mortgage.
A financially independent graybeard with loads of institutional and domain knowledge; they have less control.
My employer has participated in stack ranking and walked out 25 year employees with 5 minutes notice. 3 days is my being generous.
The point is to have enough saved up that you don't care. There is nothing more comfortable than the knowledge that you don't have to put up with BS from your employer, or for that matter from _any_ employer, one second longer than you feel like it.
Have read the teaser abstract and leading diagrams, and my main curiosity is how the groupings break down granularly: e.g. former-USSR & "Western Europe" are both extremely! internally diverse. Given the averages for both, I wouldn't be surprised if some WE countries are even above 8, and if some former-USSR's are lower again.
* India, US and China are also internally diverse, but at least are each individual countries.
https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi...
"Among both males and females, the study found that people aged 40 and older are more likely to take antidepressants than younger people."
"The study also found that women are two and a half times more likely to take antidepressant medication as males, while 23 percent of women ages 40 to 59 take antidepressants, more than in any other age or sex group."
https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/10/25/antidepressant-use-...
A population can be both more happy with age and (as a percentage) on more anti-depressants. Some potential explanations:
1. As we age, we have greater access to healthcare (money/quality employment/government), so those needing anti-depressants are able to get them more regularly
2. Even with access to healthcare, there may be greater willingness to make changes in life and confront unhappiness as we age
3. Perhaps those who age are happier overall because they're on anti-depressants. The Economist article doesn't address this possibility.
I feel like the flaw in your argument may be that increased anti-depressant usage among older adults indicates increased depression as a person ages. That doesn't take into account other factors that might cause anti-depressant usage to rise with age.
If you are sad and depressed and have to take medication to be "happy", can we really say you are happy?
If my car can go 200 mph, I wouldn't say I can move 200 mph. But then again drugs change you in a way that cars don't.
Of course there is the question of what is happiness and how can we objectively and empirically qualify it. So the entire question could be moot.
You can swap that for any condition and any requirement of a substance, or even a requirement not to consume a substance. I personally feel like all your question does is invalidate the use of often needed medications, treatments, or other potentially stigmatized practices by people who need those things.
If I had depression, or anxiety, and someone was basically asking if I can ever be the same as others because I need medication, I think that would hit me incredibly hard. It doesn't feel like accepting or supportive language to me.
Your diabetes/insulin example is even more interesting than mine. As a person of color with higher risk of diabetes, I have family members who are diabetic and need insulin. Would I consider my diabetic family members healthy? Do they consider themselves to be healthy? If they were healthy, they wouldn't be diabetic or need insulin. But taking insulin makes them healthy. But then if they were healthy, they wouldn't need insulin, which they do. You really gave me something to think about and maybe even talk to my family members about. Thanks.
Even more, if there is a pill to cure diabetes, is a person who takes the pill more healthy than the person taking insulin?
It could be that the antidepressants are working. Or it could be that people over 40 have had enough time to accept that they have an issue that needs treatment. Or it could be that this subset of unhappy people is real but other trends outweigh it.
1. I make a lot more money now so I'm financially stable
2. I've transitioned to a career that is rewarding
3. I don't have as many existential fears/anxieties
4. I have the drive and discipline to do what I need to do
Not everyone experiences these, and I'd imagine that without them, my 30's would be far worse than my 20's.
I've seen some science headlines that sound like that's the case, but I haven't read the papers so take it with a dumptruck full of salt.
39 - Silicon Valley salary, comfortable savings, six digits kids college account. Fun job, lots of respect for OSS contributions, great food, biking, fitness, luxury car. On top of that - coming home every day to kids who agree to play any online game I want! Main source of anxiety - aging parents living in a far-away country...
- lands a stable engineering job in a new factory in a small town right out of university
- housing not an issue, a big apartment close to the factory is provided by the enterprise
- has two kids with free health and child-care (zero street crime, drug usage unheard of)
- the authorities help mom find a job as a teacher in close proximity
- no fancy food, cars or clothing, but still, no big shortages, either
Free housing, international travel, crazy paid leave. 8 healthy successful children, no one starved.
I can't imagine being able to support more than 2 kids ever, without somehow becoming super-successful through sheer luck.
Just taking a guess here but if you happened to be 25 with enough money to retire for life, you would have an even higher happiness rating since you achieved financial independence with your whole life ahead of you.
I'm almost done with my 30s and I don't feel that much different than my 20s. If anything I cared less about things as a teenager. As you get older you tend to have more things to think and worry about.