対人能力ゼロのナンパ６
451 ：('∀`)：
During the 19th century, there were several gold rushes in various parts of the world.
Gold would be discovered, often by accident, then as news of the discovery got out, thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people would rush to the area to search for gold.
This is the origin of the name, “gold rush.”
They would travel to remote parts of the world and live in terrible conditions in the hopes of becoming rich.
However, these gold rushes would generally last just a few years before the gold which was easy to get ran out.
The first and most famous was the California gold rush.
It started in 1849, when it became known that gold had been discovered near San Francisco.
More than 250,000 people from all over the world came to California, hoping to get rich.
A few did, of course, but most either turned to other jobs or went on to other gold fields.
Of those who stayed, many made fortunes in other areas.
Selling goods and food to miners was profitable.
Even more profitable was agriculture, and many of the former miners turned to raising crops or cattle.
In this way, the gold rush changed the history of California and the whole Western United States.
Quick: think about what would make you really, really happy. More money? Wrong. 2.5 smiling, well-adjusted kids?
Wrong again. Now think about what would make you most unhappy: losing your sight or a bad back? No, the bad back.
The fact is, we are terrible at predicting the source of joy. (Sex is the big exception, but you get the point.) And whatever choices we do make, we likely later decide it was all for the best.
These are insights from happiness economics, perhaps the hottest field in what used to be called the dismal science.
Happiness is everywhere?on the best-seller lists, in the minds of policymakers, and front and center for economists?yet it remains elusive.
The golden rule of economics has always been that well-being is a simple function of income.
That's why nations and people alike strive for higher incomes?money gives us choice and a measure of freedom.
But a growing body of studies show that wealth alone isn't necessarily what makes us happy.
After a certain income cap, we simply don't get any happier. And it isn't what we have, but whether we have more than our neighbor, that really matters.
So the news last week that in 2006 top hedge-fund managers took home $240 million, minimum, probably didn't make them any happier, it just made the rest of us less so.
Now policymakers are racing to figure out what makes people happy, and just how they should deliver it.
Countries as diverse as Bhutan, Australia, China, Thailand and the U.K. are coming up with "happiness indexes," to be used alongside GDP as a guide to society's progress.
In Britain, a labor economist specializing in happiness?David (Danny) Blanchflower?was recently appointed to the Bank of England advisory board,
and the "politics of happiness" will likely figure prominently in next year's elections.
Gold would be discovered, often by accident, then as news of the discovery got out, thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of people would rush to the area to search for gold.
This is the origin of the name, “gold rush.”
They would travel to remote parts of the world and live in terrible conditions in the hopes of becoming rich.
However, these gold rushes would generally last just a few years before the gold which was easy to get ran out.
The first and most famous was the California gold rush.
It started in 1849, when it became known that gold had been discovered near San Francisco.
More than 250,000 people from all over the world came to California, hoping to get rich.
A few did, of course, but most either turned to other jobs or went on to other gold fields.
Of those who stayed, many made fortunes in other areas.
Selling goods and food to miners was profitable.
Even more profitable was agriculture, and many of the former miners turned to raising crops or cattle.
In this way, the gold rush changed the history of California and the whole Western United States.
Quick: think about what would make you really, really happy. More money? Wrong. 2.5 smiling, well-adjusted kids?
Wrong again. Now think about what would make you most unhappy: losing your sight or a bad back? No, the bad back.
The fact is, we are terrible at predicting the source of joy. (Sex is the big exception, but you get the point.) And whatever choices we do make, we likely later decide it was all for the best.
These are insights from happiness economics, perhaps the hottest field in what used to be called the dismal science.
Happiness is everywhere?on the best-seller lists, in the minds of policymakers, and front and center for economists?yet it remains elusive.
The golden rule of economics has always been that well-being is a simple function of income.
That's why nations and people alike strive for higher incomes?money gives us choice and a measure of freedom.
But a growing body of studies show that wealth alone isn't necessarily what makes us happy.
After a certain income cap, we simply don't get any happier. And it isn't what we have, but whether we have more than our neighbor, that really matters.
So the news last week that in 2006 top hedge-fund managers took home $240 million, minimum, probably didn't make them any happier, it just made the rest of us less so.
Now policymakers are racing to figure out what makes people happy, and just how they should deliver it.
Countries as diverse as Bhutan, Australia, China, Thailand and the U.K. are coming up with "happiness indexes," to be used alongside GDP as a guide to society's progress.
In Britain, a labor economist specializing in happiness?David (Danny) Blanchflower?was recently appointed to the Bank of England advisory board,
and the "politics of happiness" will likely figure prominently in next year's elections.
|
|
|