If you’re reading this anywhere in the greater New York metropolitan area, you’re probably a glum person, though hopefully not around Christmas time.
So one might infer from a recently released survey that is coming as a shock to some in the New York area (see one reaction here).Along with New Jersey and Connecticut, New York ranked dead last in terms of life satisfaction in a study conducted by professors Stephen Wu of Hamilton College and Andrew Oswald from the Universit y of Warwick in the U.K.
The purpose of the study, according to Oswald, was to ascertain if objective criteria could be found by which to corroborate the stated opinions of personal satisfaction offered by people in opinion surveys. In other words: if we could predict, using empirical data, who should be happiest and where; ask them; and their answers correlate with the expected outcomes, then we know we can trust personal statements of satisfaction on a host of questions relevant to public policy.
The questionable part of the study comes in how this predicted picture of personal satisfaction by state came about. The factors controlling the predicted happiness responses were largely environmental: “precipitation; temperature; wind speed; sunshine; coastal land; inland water; public land; National Parks; hazardous waste sites; environmental ‘greenness’; commuting time; violent crime; air quality; student-teacher ratio; local taxes; local spending on education and highways; cost of living.”
Looking at the results of the survey and who scored the highest and happiest, there are some odd winners. Arizona scored highly, but isn’t Arizona, though beautiful in parts, a blistering, arid desert? Isn’t Phoenix one of the kidnapping capitals of the world due to the Mexican drug trade? And again, isn't Louisiana, the happiest of all, beset by environmental hazards quite often, as the events of Hurricanes Katrina and others made clear?
If sunshine is for smiles and cold weather is for frowns, it didn’t seem to stop Alaska, Maine, and Montana from coming in high on the list.
And if environmental factors are given such weight, why do California and New York rate so poorly? Los Angeles may be a smog bowl, but California in general is still one of the most beautiful and diverse climates in the country. As far as New York is concerned, New York City is, well, a city -- not always pristine, but not a dump either. And the rest of the state does not seem drastically dissimilar to other states.
There are also puzzling economic questions. According to 2007 census bureau data, the states of Tennessee, and in particular Louisiana and Mississippi, which all rated highly in terms of personal satisfaction in the survey, are also on the high end in terms of families living below the poverty line. Connecticut and New Jersey have some of the lowest poverty rates in the country, yet both rate near the bottom in life satisfaction.
To put it plainly, it is far from clear how all these factors came together to point to the states they do in an understandable way.
To finally arrive at one of the more obvious reactions to the study, similar results could have been found not by relying on a vague set of environmental happiness factors, but rather, the 2008 state electoral map. Now you will need to control for Hawaii, because honestly it’s an island paradise, and one would expect people to be happy. Besides Florida, which is a swing state, the Red states of the deep South seem to be occupying the higher end of the happiness spectrum, with the predictably blue states of New York, California, Connecticut and New Jersey, predictably blue.
It is also worth mentioning that Louisiana, the top ranking state in terms of happiness, was also ranked highly in terms of religious devotion, coming in 2nd in frequency of prayer among Louisianans and fourth in worship attendance according to Pew Poll numbers. Mississippi, ranking sixth in the satisfaction survey, was the highest across the board in terms of prayer, Church attendance, and belief in God. Though not definitive, this may point to another significant factor over-looked in the study.
According to the professors behind the study, “People’s happiness answers are true, you might say. This suggests that life-satisfaction survey data might be tremendously useful for governments to use in the design of economic and social policies.”
Ultimately, the thrust of the study’s importance is less about happiness in one state versus another, than about whether politics can and should properly be considered a science or a philosophy. The study above hopes to take a large step in the direction of the former. In other words, can all the fundamental questions be boiled down to a series of objective data inputs to arrive at the correct policy decisions, or must certain, more spiritual dimensions be considered based upon a fuller appreciation of human nature and the common good: faith, morality, public virtue, civic mindedness, patriotism, tradition, etc., which cannot be as easily measured and controlled by objective data.
Does the true statesman need a team of scientists, pollsters and meteorologists to feel the mood of the American people and communities, or does he see it on people’s faces on every street corner, hear it in the restaurants, read it in the papers, see it in the flags hanging from windows, feel it in the air and observe it in the pew?
Are the right degrees of precipitation, wind speed, student-teacher ratio, commute time, sunshine and "greenness," etc., a true analog of human happiness? Most people would believe that human beings are complex and fundamentally spiritual, and their happiness is defined by a bit more than the refrain from an old Carpenter’s song:
“Hangin' around
Nothing to do but frown
Rainy Days and Mondays always get me down.”
Paul Ciarcia