Happy Money The Science of Smarter Spending/ Elizabeth Dunn Michael Norton

Reading this book is the equivalent of reading a digest of Psych Lite Magazines.

The study of Happiness has developed a large body of literature. The bibliography of this book is brimming with articles (URLs included) from minor journals, newspapers and magazines. Frequently the authors cite themselves.

 The thesis of the book starts with the  commonly held belief that having more money does not bring happiness. The authors' research suggests that how one spends money can create more happiness. Five key principles are proposed: Buy Experiences, Make it a Treat, Buy Time, Pay now- Consume later, Invest in Others.

Buy experiences seems to be a sound suggestion. We grow accustomed to material possessions, or lose interest in them. Experiences such as novel travel opportunities and even smaller experiences such as  dinner with friends have a longer happiness value than material goods.

Make it a treat proposes that it is better to have expensive items as an occasional treat. They retain the happiness boost if they are not everyday purchases. The example of seasonal specials used by fast food chains rings true.

Buy Time is a proposal that one should buy things that free up your time from mundane, unenjoyable things. The example? Buy a roomba and stop vacuuming.  From my personal life I would offer : hire someone to do the lawn.

Pay now, Consume later is interesting. If you pay for your vacation in advance, you will feel like it's all free. In addition your happiness will be boosted by pleasant anticipation of the event. Could work.

Invest in Others proposes that by helping others -- giving money or time, or both -- will make the giver feel happier and wealthier. They state that giving time to help another makes you feel that you have more time.

The key idea proposed seem reasonable and have been proposed elsewhere. 

The core ideas of this book might work as a long journal article. As a book there are problems. The research relies too heavily on research projects involving "students" probably students at Harvard. Possibly undergrads recruited by grad students as part of research class. The sample results of one research project  highlights my concern about bias. When asked to name four material purchases and four experience purchases, all three sample results included extensive travel among the experiences and luxury goods among the material purchases. In other words, the results indicate the subjects have economic resources at their disposal.

Students as a rule are not spending their own money. Harvard students tend to come from comfortable material backgrounds. Can they really be a legitimate model for questions involving money for a wide sample of people?

The subjects derived a  great deal of long term happiness from travel. Might a set of subjects from a different economic background derive long term happiness from material things -- a warm coat in a Boston winter might bring more joy than a concert with friends?

The research on all the Key points has the same problem. The examples and anecdotes reflect a very wealthy educated population was studied. Examples drawn from real life feature the happy destination wedding of one author. The X- Canadian road trip taken by the authors and friends, an Hawaiian vacation taken by one of the authors. These are experiences that are limited to a small group of people with time and disposable income.  One study that was not done on "students" proposed that 600 respondents represented a representative sample of the WORLD.  Nice try. Not Valid.

The discussion of spending on things that save you time was cluttered with an antique diatribe against watching TV. Does anyone do that anymore?  No discussion of Video games, Youtube, smartphones, email, devices in general. The authors think TV is eating up our time.

In the last chapter "Invest in Others", the authors make a nice pitch for  the benefits of donating money to charities and worthy causes. They specifically mention a website called DonorsChoose.org. Teachers post requests for help to buy classroom materials. Donors can choose their project and see the positive impact their donation will have on the students. This sounds like a very nice way to donate small amounts of money and make a difference in children's lives. There are other projects which do similar matching between donors and recipients.

When the authors propose to know that the national  ratio of money spent on themselves vs. money donated to others was greater than 10 t0 1, their credibility falters. They say this is a terrible thing. Americans are not generous enough! The remarks in this chapter are best taken as feel good filler to puff this work out to book length. I need to note: 1) Tithing is a religious ideal, not a law. 2) People who have responsibilities nearly equal to their incomes can not be expected to give 10% of their income away. 3) Not all giving is in money. In kind donations don't show up in this ratio. 

In the same chapter the authors  make a childish argument in favor of wealth redistribution. A poll of Americans indicated that we Americans favor some disparity of income, but would prefer that the poor have more resources. Well, yes, we also want expensive  government services AND low taxes. It is not a real plan of action. The authors seem to be unaware of the real life implications of their filler here. Are they really supporting forced wealth redistribution? No- I think they just liked the idealistic vibe of what they wrote.

The best take away from this book is that buying experiences might make you happier than adding non essential material possessions to your life. Might/Maybe/Depends

Chose the Wrong Guy, Gave Him the Wrong Finger by Harbison

 The title was about the wittiest thing in the book.

Imagine if Austen's "Emma" had to choose between two bothers one very sensible and quiet, the other very emotional and dramatic. Add the now typical heroine's gay best friend.
That's the plot in a nutshell.

This story is very readable. The tone is light and the pace moves a long fairly quickly. There are some quirky characters like the gay best friend. The brothers themselves are nicely developed characters.

The author seems to be aiming at the 'new adult' female reader who wants a light romance to read this summer.