A
The views on the relation between wealth and happiness presented in text 1 and 2 are different. David Brooks, text 1, does not think that money has anything to do with happiness. In fact he contrasts being in a well-functioning marriage and other social relations with having a well-paid career. His main argument is that personal relations are much more important than having a great career and all the money that comes with it. Brooks makes an example with Sandra Bullock. Two important things happened to her in one month; she won an Academy Award for best actress – and afterwards came the news reports claiming that her husband is an adulterous jerk. In light of this Brooks argues that marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, you will be reasonably happy. If you have an unsuccessful marriage, it does not matter how many career triumphs you record, you will remain unfulfilled. Therefore personal relations are much more important than having a great career and lots of money. Brooks concludes that people in general have a tendon to overestimate the value of money.
Text 2, written by Stephanie Rosenbloom, has a different focus than text 1. Rosenbloom is looking at which way of spending your money gives most happiness. According to Rosenbloom it matters how we choose to spend our money – in fact she argues; if we choose to spend our money on something that we have wanted and thought about buying for a long time, it will make us happier than if we bought something random and spontaneous. As well Rosenbloom argues that money spent on experiences, such as holidays, concert tickets, sushi-rolling classes and French lessons will bring us more joy and happiness than money spent on things like clothes and shoes will. Another important thing Rosenbloom states is that money can bring out the worst in people – for instance jealousy and longing for materialistic goods. Rosenbloom also states that having lots of money can make you forget about the joy you can find in all the small things in life which might make you unhappy in the end.

In text 1 David Brooks makes use of different strategies to engage the reader. For instance he already engages the reader in the third line when he asks questions directly at the reader, “Would you take that as a deal? Would you exchange a tremendous professional triumph for a severe personal blow?”[1]. He might ask the reader but he answer it himself, “Nonetheless, if you had to take more than three seconds to think about this question, you are absolutely crazy”[2]. By doing so he uses ethos. He makes himself admirable and gives himself a sense of credibility. Throughout the text he refers to a couple of studies and by doing so he appeals to our logic by using logos. He says his opinion and makes it sound objective by referring to scientific studies. Again he makes himself sound trustworthy when he mention a few of the names of the experts behind the scientific studies, “..according to Carol Graham of the Brookings Institution and Eduardo Lora”[3] and “Research by Donald A. Redelmeier and Sheldon M. Singh..”[4] – the reader simply does not have to doubt Brooks whether he is right or not because of the objective research. Brooks also engages the reader by using topics almost everyone can relate to, “On a personal scale, winning the lottery does not seem to produce lasting gains in well-being”[5]. Winning the lottery is something that almost – if not everybody - have a dream of doing. But what people do not know is if winning the lottery will make them happier.

“Does spending make people happy?” – A question that is almost impossible to answer. In text 2 and 3 two journalist tries to answer this question but instead of coming up with a conclusion they end up with more questions than they had in the beginning. Rosenbloom argues that it matters how you spend your money and that most people will have a longer satisfaction if they spend their money on experiences instead of materialistic things. I agree, and I actually think most people will. Whenever I buy new shoes or a new shirt I feel so excited and happy – but it only last a couple of hours or definitely not more than a day or two – until I see something else I just have to have. Experiences, on the other hand, give me an inner satisfaction for days afterwards. For instance; a vacation or a holiday with friends and family is something you can remember and talk about years afterwards – you cannot do that about the new shoes you just bought last week. It does not mean that money has no influence on our happiness. Money can free us from worries and therefore we can focus and put our energy on something else and perhaps more important. This is exactly what text 3, written by Peter Singer, is about. Singer argues that wealthy people might actually be unhappier than normal middle-class people. I kind of agree with Singer’s argument too – but at the same time I disagree. I do not think that all those negative feelings mentioned in text 3 are direct consequences of having money. Instead I think that the feelings, the stress and the tensions might have something to do with priorities and values you have in life instead of the fact that you have a lot of money. Therefore I think that some types of spending are able to make you a happier person – as long as you are gaining something on a personal level. For example taking time off from work, attending Sushi-rolling courses, give your money to charity; all these things can make you happier – not because you are buying any materialistic things but because you are gaining something on a personal level, because you know what your priorities and values are and because you are spending your money wisely.

---------------------------------
[ 1 ]. P. 2, ll. 3-4
[ 2 ]. P. 2, ll. 10-11
[ 3 ]. P. 2, ll 22-23
[ 4 ]. P. 2, ll. 7-8
[ 5 ]. P. 2, ll. 26-27