From Business Insider
If you’ve done any reading on money and happiness, you know that one way to be happier pops up again and again: Spend your money on experiences rather than things.
The article talks about how Millenials say they prefer to spend their money on experiences rather than possessions and how this is a good thing because research shows that experiences make you happier in the long run than possessions. There’s nothing particularly disagreeable about that as a general statement, but there is an underlying Bobo smugness that often comes with advocating experiences over possessions that is irksome.
Consider the types of experiences we advocate as being better than possessions. “Travel, go to a concert, dine out”. Those experiences are great, of course. But when compared to all possible life experiences, these purchasable-experiences actually have a lot of similarities with possessions. The Onion nails it. Travel really is just another expensive consumer good.
Forming deep relationships (both romantic and non-romantic), completing an Iron Man Triathlon, raising children, having a particularly demanding career, learning an instrument, getting really involved in local politics, etc. These commitment-experiences will probably bring you more happiness than any purchasable-experience can but they are completely ignored in the discussion about the superiority of experiences over possessions.
"But, commitment-experiences are bought with time, not money, so comparing them to possessions doesn’t really make sense since there isn’t a trade off, right?"
"Yes, but then it’s clear we’re not really talking about happiness. We’re talking about money."
The fact is that consumer goods are extremely cheap these days. You can buy three flat screen televisions for the price of a single round trip plane ticket to Europe. You can buy a laptop for the price of taking a family of four to a football game. The result of this is that people who can afford these things can use expensive experiences as a signal of their wealth. But most people can’t afford three flat screen televisions or a laptop.
So, while there’s no reason to doubt the research that purchasing experiences will make you happier than purchasing things, experience advocacy has a tendency to sound very similar to Ferris Beuller’s Ferrarri advocacy.
I went into this book expecting to be completely convinced by their argument. After reading it, however, I feel like their results may be a bit specific to the university they did their research at. Like the women studied in the book, I also spent 5 years at a midwestern state flagship university that is consistently ranked among the top party campuses in the country. Despite these similarities, life at the university described in the book seems very different from my life at UW-Madison. So, I think it’s important not to read too deeply into the book’s somewhat grim view of modern college culture. However, the book does document real women who experienced real successes and failures in their college career and thus there are a lot of important lessons that can be learned from those experiences.
If you are in college, know someone in college, and especially if you are a parent of someone in college (or about to be in college) you should consider this a must-read. It highlights some very big, but fairly easily avoidable, pitfalls. Again, I wouldn’t generalize too much from what I see as the specific problems of “MU”, but there’s a lot of good advice to be found in it.
If you’re interested in the implications for higher-ed policy, it’s definitely interesting, but I’m not sure what they’ve discovered that wasn’t already known. It turns out, having wealthy parents is a huge boon, and most people finish college in the same socioeconomic class that they entered college in. There are legitimate reasons to be concerned that flagship universities are overly catering to wealthy party students willing to pay top dollar to spend four years at a five star resort while only nominally being educated, but I think more data is needed before we can generalize the findings of the book.
I’ve had this sitting in my drafts for a while and have decided to release it in honor of equal pay day. I lead off with a somewhat out-dated article, but I have seen basically the same arguments echoed on twitter today so I think it is still relevant.
President Obama repeated the spurious gender wage gap statistic in his State of the Union address. “Today,” he said, “women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.”
What is wrong and embarrassing is the President of the United States reciting a massively discredited factoid. The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers. In its fact-checking column on the State of the Union, the Washington Post included the president’s mention of the wage gap in its list of dubious claims. “There is clearly a wage gap, but differences in the life choices of men and women… make it difficult to make simple comparisons.”
If the President had said, “Controlling for occupational differences, positions, education, job tenure and hours worked per week, women only earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns” then it would be fair to say that he was using a wildly discredited factoid. Perhaps that’s how the average person will interpret what he said. Perhaps he’s even being intentionally misleading. Either way, we definitely shouldn’t take solace in the fact that the “correct” figure is five cents and we shouldn’t ignore the 77 cent figure either.
If we were to do a blind study of wages and we found that Group A was earning only 77% as much per hour as Group B, we’d be pretty interested in why that was. If we looked into the data and found that Group A tended to work as Psychologists, Educators, Counselors, Social Workers etc. and Group B tended to work as Engineers, Mathematicians, Computer Scientists and Doctors, we’d want to figure out what was causing these two groups to sort into such different professions. If we found out that Group A has blue eyes and Group B has brown eyes, we wouldn’t be satisfied concluding that blue eyed people just had different preferences. When we know Group A happens to have a long history of oppression at the hands of Group B, our hypothesis must be that the history of oppression is playing a role.
My chosen profession, software development, is one of these careers that women just don’t seem to “prefer”. Software development pays well. It offers a good deal of flexibility, plenty of opportunity for advancement, intellectual and creative challenges, high status, and job security among many other benefits. Obviously individual preferences vary, but to think that it would be normal for any sufficiently large subset of the human population to collectively not prefer this job is completely bonkers. Yet, we know that a very small proportion of women pursue careers in software development.
The reason few women become software developers is that many men in my field (and I suspect in many of the other higher paying fields that are also responsible for the gender gap) create an environment that is intimidating for women if not outright hostile. Not only that, but our culture teaches girls from a very young age what roles are acceptable for them to play in society. It is impossible to separate individual choices from these cultural factors.
The 77 cent figure is important because it is a good measurement of the extent of these cultural factors. We have no reason to believe that the general population of women should be earning less than the general population of men. To the extent that we know this is the case, we have every reason to believe that it is because our culture has a long history of female oppression that we have yet to overcome.