Money as The Factor Influencing on Individuals Having The Highest Quality of Life

Introduction

To understand what can affect 'quality of life', we must unpick what quality of life really means. Quality of life is an individuals’ life being comfortable in where they are, having good physical and mental health, and happiness. This could be influenced by money, as with a large amount of money you can buy yourself the latest designer items, cars, jewellery, a nice house, etc. Can money be the most influencing factor in a ‘ high-quality life’ as it can buy an individual more material items which can provide either short-term or long-term happiness to an individual, which leaves the question of does the way you spend your money impact your quality of life i.e., it can be spent on your friends to enjoy social gathering and make memories and enhance social relations, as it is the biggest part of our identity (stated by Honah Liles in her essay on “can money can buy happiness” published on 24th of October 2020). If there was a correlation between income and quality of life, then we should see rich countries have the happiest citizens and poorer less developed countries have fewer happier citizens, however, there are other factors that play roles in ‘ quality of life’ that could be less significant but may impact an individual’s ‘quality of life’ overall.

What makes some countries happier than others?

One way to see if there is a correlation between money and high-quality life is to look at a country's GDP per capita and compare it to the world’ s happiest countries. For example, Finland is ranked first as the world’ s happiest country, scoring 7.842 out of 10 in overall happiness in 2021. This must mean Finland should be the happiest country in the world if we are to assume that there is a direct correlation between wealth and quality of life. However, according to ‘ statisticstimes’ Finland is ranked 14th in terms of GDP per capita, so this must mean that there isn’ t a correlation between wealth and happiness but ranked 14th out of 50 listed countries isn’ t exactly low, it is in the top 15 of countries with the highest GDP per capita. However, other factors play a part in an individual being ‘happy’ or having a high-quality life. An article published by Heikki Vononen on May 26th, 2020, states how there are low levels of corruption, how it is a well-functioning democracy with more than 80% of people from Finland trusting their police force. This can fall under how feeling comfortable makes up 'quality of life' and with a country with low corruption and trust for the police force, citizens will feel safer and safer in their country. This can be compared to results used in an article by ‘ Beth Mann’ on how 65% of citizens trust their police force. This lack of trust may give discomfort to some people, and they may not feel safe in their country, due to negative views of law enforcement and may not feel like they can be properly protected. Heikki Vononen’ s article also mentions how the gap between the rich and the poor is widening in most countries, however, in Finland the poorest members of the nation are looked after and this is one of their priorities. If money did have a direct correlation with 'quality of life', this would mean that poorer people would have a low quality of life, if this is the case then would this be the reason why the poorest people in Finland are looked after more or is it to close inequality in today's capitalist society. If poorer people in a nation were treated equally and looked after for support, then their quality of life would increase as they will have to worry about fewer things, this is seen with benefits and how as a nation, we essentially look after the poorest members by paying benefits tax.

In comparison to Finland, the USA is ranked 1st in terms of nominal GDP per capita, according to ‘ world population review’ and if we compare this to data also from ‘world population review’ we can see that the USA is ranked 19th with a happiness score of 6.951. So, as we see America has the biggest amount of GDP per capita but they are not even the happiest country in the world, does this mean that there isn’t a correlation between money and quality of life? However, it would be unfair to presume this because if we compare the population of Finland and the USA, (according to ‘world population review’) we can see that the USA has a population of around 332,915,073 and Finland has a population of around 5,548,360. With this significant difference in population, we can assume how due to Finland having a lower population compared to the USA, individuals in Finland would be easier to look after, as there is a low population it would be significantly easier and cheaper to look after the low population, compared to the USA which it would be significantly harder to look after such a huge population. If the population of a Nation felt as they were looked after more, then their quality of life would be a lot higher as they will feel safer in the country, they live in.

A look at the factors that influence 'quality of life'

To understand whether money can influence the quality of an individual’ s quality of life we first must take into consideration the other factors that can impact 'quality of life'. Those being an individual’ s physical and mental health, basic necessities being met (those being shelter, food, etc), the nation the individual occupies’ economy, family relation, war, etc.

Some could argue that most of the factors listed above are influenced by money as well, those being basic necessities being met (as having a high income means all your basic necessities will be met in addition to your own wants and needs), physical health can be influenced by money as with a high income an individual would have access to a large range of health facilities (those being healthcare, gyms or even personal trainers, with access to all of these facilities physical health can be well looked after- if medical conditions are a problem an individual would have access to good medical care), the economic position of the nation occupied by the individual (people with higher incomes spending their money can lead to multiplier effects and cause a growth in the economy).

I conducted my own research as many results and figures about an increase in income leading to an increase in happiness or well-being but most of them tend to contradict each other, so I decided to conduct my own research where individuals scored an average score of 7.7, when describing their current quality of life on a scale of 1-10, when asked about which factor (those being increased income, better physical health, better mental health, the economy to be in a better position, better family relations, avoidance of war, increase in necessities) would increase their quality of life 60% of participants said how increased income would increase their quality of life and when asked to describe their quality of life if they had the factor in their life that they voted, there was an average score of 9.1 on a scale of 1-10 of describing their quality of life, the issue with this is those different individuals will have different definitions of quality of life. With the 18.2% increase in quality of life, it can provide evidence that money can influence and increase an individual’ s quality of life. However, 50% of participants identified as lower-middle-class when asked which social class description fitted them best (out of working-class, lower-middle-class, strongly-middle-class, higher middle class, upper class). This could mean that people who feel as if they belong to the lower classes are more dependent on money, so an increase in income may make them feel as if their lives would be better with increased income. However, 20% identified as strongly middle-class and 30% identified as higher middle-class, this means that 10% of participants who weren’ t in the lower-middle-class category voted that an increase in income would increase their quality of life. This leaves the question that would the increased income be for their family as a whole, or for themselves individually as if it was for themselves as an individual then it would show that they want to meet their material needs, those being whatever the individual would like to buy, and those who would want it for their family as a whole would probably want to see an increase in living conditions, or to live in better areas, or just have no money problems whatsoever. This brings across another question of should the way you spend your money impact your quality of life?

Correlation between income and quality of life

If money did improve quality of life we should see a directly proportional relationship between the two factors, this may not be the case. In a study conducted by Michael Plant and Julian Hazell on the 23rd of June 2021, they conduct a study by using a phone app to ask a large sample of people how they felt throughout the day. Their findings were represented on this graph:

A few comments were made on this graph: 1. ‘Doubling income on this chart leads to only an increase in happiness by only 1 point’ this could show that money is a limiting factor when increasing happiness in this scenario and quality of life, by this I mean how too much money for an individual doesn’ t give an equal amount of happiness to the amount of money, but they will still have a good ‘quality of life’ , but the difference in ‘quality of life’ will not be big between someone who makes less money. This can be seen on the graph if we look at household income of 250,000 and household income of 400,000, we can see how the difference in happiness displayed on the graph is not great, in fact, both happiness scores are both over 65, but under 66, this could imply how it is important how you use the money or if you have friends or family to share your money with on experiences. We even see at a household income of around 620,000 happiness is lower than a household income of around 25,000 and 400,000 although the difference isn’ t great it proves how money, and ‘ quality of life’ are not directly proportional but still are two related factors.

Should how you spend your money impact your quality of life?

In the article ‘Money can buy happiness: Here’s how much you need and how to spend it, according to a financial therapist’ by Honah Liles on the 24th of October 2020, it is stated how there is a common theory regarding that spending money on experiences will make an individual happier rather than spending it on material objects. Honah references a 2014 review that found that experiences make people happier because they enhance social relationships as they play a bigger role in an individual’ s identity. This can show how spending money on material objects will provide less of a role in impacting an individual’ s quality of life rather than spending it on experiences which will provide an increase in an individual’ s quality of life. But what counts as experiences? This could mean that social gatherings are the key to a 'higher quality life', but is money really needed for this? Money could in fact enhance these social gatherings, things like trips abroad, or going on days out with friends or family will increase ‘quality of life’ . This evidence could argue how money is a limiting factor when it comes to increasing an individual’s quality of life as without having the opportunity to make memories and attend social gatherings then an individual’ s quality of life wouldn’ t increase.

When we talk about how you spend your money, and how you should spend it to enhance social gatherings, to essentially make more memories (which is stated by Honah Liles in her article) which is a big role in an individual’ s identity. However, this doesn’ t mean that you should always spend it on these things. As if we look at short-term and long-term happiness, it is argued that material objects will provide short-term happiness, but could this always be the case? An example for purchasing a material object that will provide short term happiness is how buying a For example, if an individual were to perhaps purchase a flat-screen tv and all the up-to-date movie websites (i.e., Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney plus, etc) it gives you the chance to watch the most recent and trending shows, this example is a long-term material object that an individual can buy as having a modern tv, along with all movie streaming platforms to watch the most up-to-date shows and movies do not come cheap, due to monthly subscription fees. This is a long-term purchase as when individuals purchase a TV, they will keep using that TV most days for years. However, this argument of how having increased income means they can buy long-term material objects such as a TV may not apply to most people. By this, I mean how middle-class and upper-class individuals can afford most of these things already, but the working-class individuals with money struggles and less disposable income may not be able to. This brings up the idea of how if middle-class or upper-class individuals received extra income, their quality of life wouldn’ t increase by much, due to the fact that most of their material needs have already been met, but with working-class individuals, their material needs may not have been met, this is because they have less income, so their necessities are less significant as only the basic necessities are being covered.

Similarly, in an article written by Sara Gervais titled ‘Can money buy happiness’ published 11th November 2015, she states how having a higher income can give you access to things such as homes in safer neighbourhoods, better healthcare, nutrition, and access to more leisure activities. This is a good way of perceiving if money should increase an individual’ s ‘ quality of life’ , an increase in income can provide an individual with nicer houses, with better standards of living or even with better security, this could make an individual feel safer in where they live as they live in richer neighbourhoods where crime is less likely to happen. ‘Quality of life’ may increase with access to more leisure activities as they take up an individual’ s free time and relieve boredom. Having a higher income means you will have access to better quality leisure activities, such as traveling, expensive sports such as golf, and activities like scuba diving, etc.

Elizabeth W. Dunn, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D. Wilson agree with the idea that the way you spend your money can impact happiness, this is demonstrated in their article ‘If money doesn’ t make you happy then you probably aren’ t spending it right’, which in their abstract they state how the relationship between money and happiness is weak and it may differ from the way that people spend it. They proposed several principles that are designed to help consumers get more happiness for their money, these would be: 1. To buy more experiences and fewer material goods (links back to Honah Lile’ s article, which further supports how you should spend it on making memories, as she stated in her article), 2. To use the money to benefit others rather than themselves (this could mean things like charities and donating to them and feeling good about yourself for doing a good deed), 3. Pay close attention to the happiness of others (this could show how if you notice someone has a low ‘ quality of life’ then your money can be used to improve their ‘ quality of life’ , this links with the 2nd point made in this article on how you should use the money to benefit others rather than yourself).

Conclusion

To conclude the evidence shown, money is a limiting factor in increasing an individual’s ‘quality of life’. I think this because I think that money and ‘quality of life’ are not directly proportional factors, although there is some relation between the two factors, it is limiting to a certain point. We can see this in the comparison between a nation’s GDP per capita and the well-being of a nation. For example, we see that Finland isn’ t the highest in terms of GDP per capita but is the highest in terms of ‘happiness’ and we see the opposite with America, being the highest in terms of GDP per capita, but not being the highest in terms of ‘happiness’. However, this doesn’t mean money cannot buy happiness, we see in Honah Lile’s article and Elizabeth W. Dunn, Daniel T. Gilbert, and Timothy D Wilson’s article that it is down to how you spend your money to increase your ‘quality of life’, as they show that if you don’t spend it on yourself, but on others by spending it to make memories as it is a bigger part of an individual’s identity according to Honah Liles in her article, this explains how having a ‘high-quality life’ consists of having good memories which can be enhanced by money i.e., spending money for trips out with your friends such as a holiday, trip to the city, etc. This shows how it comes down to how you spend your money and spending it selfishly will result in short-term happiness as purchasing material objects won’t always provide long-term happiness. So, choices like spending money on ‘selfish needs’ such as the latest designer clothes, cars, watches and other jewellery items, etc will make you happy in the short run but wont in the long run, so your overall quality of life will not increase.