Analysis Of Maybe Money Does Buy Happiness After All
Formal Academic Critique
Hussam Azzuni (63286)
American University of Sharjah
Writing 102- 39
In the article “Maybe money does buy happiness after all” David Leonhardt (2008) argues that money is a major factor that contributes in the happiness of most of the people. David Leonhardt is the current editor of a New York Times website which involves politics. He was previously the paper’s Washington bureau chief and as an economic columnist, he wrote an e-book about economic growth “Here’s the Deal: How Washington Can Solve the Deficit and Spur Growth”, and he also won a Pulitzer award for one of his commentaries. In addition, he had studied applied mathematics in Yale University (NY Times, n.d.). According to the information that we …show more content…
In fact, he is against the Easterlin paradox about happiness. Leonhardt’s article used a lot of supporting strategies to support his argument such as polls, studies from two economists, newspapers, and statistics. However, despite his arguments were slightly convincing but he failed to strengthen most of his arguments because they were inaccurate and lacked a lot of explanation and proofs. For example, Leonhardt (2008) said, “People in poor countries, not surprisingly, did become happier once they could afford basic necessities. But beyond that, further gains simply seemed to reset the bar” (para. 4). Here, he does not provide any evidence on how these poor people will become happier, because there might be other reasons that led to happiness that the author did not count. In addition, the author stated in his article that life in rich countries is more satisfying than poorer ones (Leonhardt, 2008, para. 8) However, this statement does not depend on any actual proof that money causes happiness. In fact, there are many reasons that may contribute in happiness such as health, age, and family relationship. Moreover, the author also said, “From 1950 to 1970, the economy’s output per person grew more than sevenfold” (para. 1) he mentioned these statements without providing any evidence or statistics that can prove his point. Furthermore, the author had some fallacies in his article. For example, “when you’re richer, you can decide to work less – and spend more time with your friends,” (para.22) there is hasty generalization in this statement because not everybody who is rich will lessen their working time, and there are people who inherited their wealth who never worked. The appearance of all these fallacies and the lack of evidence made his argument
Hussam Azzuni (63286)
American University of Sharjah
Writing 102- 39
In the article “Maybe money does buy happiness after all” David Leonhardt (2008) argues that money is a major factor that contributes in the happiness of most of the people. David Leonhardt is the current editor of a New York Times website which involves politics. He was previously the paper’s Washington bureau chief and as an economic columnist, he wrote an e-book about economic growth “Here’s the Deal: How Washington Can Solve the Deficit and Spur Growth”, and he also won a Pulitzer award for one of his commentaries. In addition, he had studied applied mathematics in Yale University (NY Times, n.d.). According to the information that we …show more content…
In fact, he is against the Easterlin paradox about happiness. Leonhardt’s article used a lot of supporting strategies to support his argument such as polls, studies from two economists, newspapers, and statistics. However, despite his arguments were slightly convincing but he failed to strengthen most of his arguments because they were inaccurate and lacked a lot of explanation and proofs. For example, Leonhardt (2008) said, “People in poor countries, not surprisingly, did become happier once they could afford basic necessities. But beyond that, further gains simply seemed to reset the bar” (para. 4). Here, he does not provide any evidence on how these poor people will become happier, because there might be other reasons that led to happiness that the author did not count. In addition, the author stated in his article that life in rich countries is more satisfying than poorer ones (Leonhardt, 2008, para. 8) However, this statement does not depend on any actual proof that money causes happiness. In fact, there are many reasons that may contribute in happiness such as health, age, and family relationship. Moreover, the author also said, “From 1950 to 1970, the economy’s output per person grew more than sevenfold” (para. 1) he mentioned these statements without providing any evidence or statistics that can prove his point. Furthermore, the author had some fallacies in his article. For example, “when you’re richer, you can decide to work less – and spend more time with your friends,” (para.22) there is hasty generalization in this statement because not everybody who is rich will lessen their working time, and there are people who inherited their wealth who never worked. The appearance of all these fallacies and the lack of evidence made his argument