Talk:Quality of life
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quality of life Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Script error: No such module "Banner shell". User:MiszaBot/config
Economic/Utility Theory View
An economist would suggest that quality of life is not derived from a raw numerical value of earnings, but rather the happiness (often refered to as utility) that it creates. Because it is impossible to compare utilities directly, dollars are generally used as the common medium.
New Ideas from Dead Economists (Todd Buchholz) cites a prime example in sayting that, "Baseball great Willie Mays used to say that he would play for free." While this isn't literally true -- he would need enough to survive day to day -- it means that most of what he earns (even if it were only tens of thousands) is improving his utility. The same, common theme can be used to compare a teacher to a trash collector.
The teacher does not only gain the value of their wage, but also the satisfaction of their work. If a teacher would happily teach for $5/h, even a $10/h wage represents $5/h above the value which they demand for their lost time. By contrast, a trash collector might be unwilling to do their job for any less then $20/h. Despite half the wage, a utility theorist would recognize that the teacher had a higher quality of life then the trash collector because they are being compensated more then the perceived value of their time.
The same issue could be addressed from the demand side. If two people purchase the same item (a book for example) for $10, they don't necessarily received the same value from that item. If one were willing to pay no more then $10 and the other were willing to pay $60, the latter would gain $50 in value through the transaction. An addicted bookworm could, on a very tight salary, generate a higher personal utility then someone who realizes little value above the dollars spent on their purchases.
Obviously, this represents an over-simplification of the issue, but it notes that the actual quality of life needs to be based on the additional value we receive *from* the activities we do (both work and play) and not just dollars which are transacted.
Wiki Education assignment: Psychology of Financial Planning II
Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment
— Assignment last updated by Wfmira (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Update Data
World Happiness Report can be updated to 2023.
uSwitch is an advertisement.
Change NGO to Non-governing organizations.CliftonPJ (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)