READING SELECTION A
Does Economic Growth (development) Improve Human Morale?
By David G. Myers
注黄字体为课后生词
[1] During the mid-1980s my family and I spent a sabbatical year in the historic town of St. Andrews, Scotland. Comparing life there with life in America, we were impressed by a seeming disconnection between national wealth and well-being (happiness). To most Americans, Scottish life would have seemed Spartan. Incomes were about half that (income) in the U. S. Among families in the Kingdom of Fife surrounding (around) St. Andrews, 44 percent did not own a car, and we never met a family that owned two. Central heating in this place not far south of Iceland was, at that time, still a luxury.
[2] In hundreds of conversations during our year there and during three half-summer stays since (since then), we repeatedly noticed that, despite (=in spite of) their simpler living, the S
cots appeared no less joyful (happy) than Americans. We heard complaints about Margaret Thatcher, but never about being underpaid or unable to afford (pay for) wants (necessities). With less money there was no less satisfaction with living, no less warmth of spirit, no less pleasure (happiness) in one another's company. Are rich American is happier? [accompany sb. to somewhere]
[3] Within any country, such as our own, are rich people happier? In poor countries, such as Bangladesh and India, being relatively well off (rich) does make for (cause/ bring about) somewhat (a little) greater well being (happiness). Psychologically as well as (=and) materially, it is much better to be high caste than low caste. We humans need food, rest, warmth, and social contact.
[4] But in affluent (rich) countries, where nearly everyone can afford life's necessities, increasing affluence matters (vi.) surprisingly little. In the USA, Canada, and Europe, the correlation between income and happiness is, as University of Michigan researcher Ronald Ingle-hart noted in 1980s 16-nation study, "surprisingly weak [indeed, virtually (actually) ne
gligible". Happiness is lower among the very poor. But once (they are) comfortable, more money provides diminishing returns. The second piece of pie, or the second $ 50, 000, never tastes as good as the first. So (As) far as happiness is concerned, it hardly matters (vi.) whether one drives a BMW or, like so many of the Scots, walks or rides a bus.
[5] Even very rich people -- the Forbes' 100 wealthiest (richest) Americans surveyed by University of Illinois psychologist Ed Diener -- are only slightly happier than average (the ordinary people). With net (<->gross) worth all exceeding (surpassing) $ 100 million, providing ample (enough) money to buy things they don't need and hardly care about, 4 in 5 of the 49 people responding to the survey agreed that "Money can increase OR decrease happiness, depending on how it is used." And some (people) were indeed unhappy. One fabulously (extremely) wealthy man said he could never remember being happy. One woman reported that money could not undo (correct) misery caused by her children's problems. Does economic growth improve human morale?  (net weight<->gross weight)
[6] We have scrutinized (examined) the American dream of achieved wealth and well-being
(happiness) by comparing rich and unrich countries, and rich and unrich people. That (analysis) leaves the final question: Over time (in the long run), does happiness rise (increase) with affluence (wealth)?
[7] Typically (Absolutely) not. Lottery winners appear (seem) to gain (get) but (only) a temporary jolt of joy (happiness) from (because of) their winnings. Looking back, they feel delighted (happy) to have won. Yet the euphoria doesn't last (vi.). In fact, previously enjoyed activities such as reading may become less pleasurable (pleasant). Compared to the high (high spirit) of winning a million dollars, ordinary pleasures (become) pale.
[8] On a smaller scale, a jump in our income can boost (promote/ increase) our morale, for a while (a short time). "But in the long run," notes Inglehart, "neither an ice cream cone nor a new car nor becoming rich and famous produces（bring about） the same feelings of delight that it initially did. Happiness is not the result of being rich, but a temporary consequence (result) of having recently become richer." Ed Diener's research confirms that those whose incomes have increased over a 10-year period are not happier than those wh
ose income has not increased. Wealth, it therefore seems, is like health: Although its utter (complete) absence can breed (produce/ lead to) misery, having it does not guarantee happiness. Happiness is less a matter of getting what we want than of wanting (enjoy) what we have.
Are we happier today?
[9] We can also ask whether, over time, our collective (total/ comprehensive) happiness has floated upward (increase) with the rising economic tide. Are we happier today than in 1940, when two out of five homes (families) lacked a shower or bathtub, heat often meant feeding a furnace wood or coal, and 35 percent of homes had no toilet? Or consider 1957, when economist John Galbraith was about to describe the United States as The Affluent Society. Americans' per person income, expressed in today's dollars, was less than $ 8,000. Today it is more than $ 16, 000, thanks to increased real wages into the 1970s, increased nonwage income, and the doubling of married women's employment. Compared to 1957, we are therefore "the doubly affluent society"—with double what money buys inclu
less is more大道至简ding twice as many cars per person, not to mention microwave ovens, big screen color TVs, home computers, and $ 200 billion a year spent in restaurants and bars -- two and a half times our 1960 inflation-adjusted restaurant spending per person. From 1960 to 1990, the percentage of us with

版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系QQ:729038198，我们将在24小时内删除。