Buying Happiness In America

With social media playing a huge role in society, us Americans are becoming more materialistic. We are being influenced by people who give us these unrealistic expectations in life and always making us want more in life than what we have. We try living up to these expectations by buying elaborate accessories, when in reality they serve no purpose to us, making us feel empty on the inside.  Like Steinbeck said, “We trample friends, relatives and strangers who get in the way of our achieving it; and once we get it we shower in on psychoanalysts to try to find out why we are unhappy” (Steinbeck). Despite all of this, us Americans still claim to be realistic, yet we pay $800 for a phone just so we can be like everyone else. We buy name brand clothes that are overpriced. We pay $7 for a cup of coffee. The list goes on and on. The American Dream Steinbeck relates to is not something someone can buy, rather is it something you earn. As Steinbeck said, the American Dream is “yearnings toward what we wish were and hope we may be: wise, just, compassionate, and noble. The fact that we have this dream at all is perhaps an indication of its

Only a couple of decades ago, hard work and determination guided people to obtain a piece of the opportunity America is all about. Lately there is a surge in having our fifteen minutes of fame and work less, buy more. There are Americans who feel that materialism is the way to obtain true American happiness. TV ads bombard the population with information on what is truly needed to be the best. All media outlets convey how to be more like the famous. Commercials inform on how this star uses this phone and this athlete buys this car. In trying to assimilate to others, some continue to spend even though they cannot afford it. In “Framing Class, Vicarious Living,

Happiness is an emotion that can be very easily obtained however it can be very hard to get that intense of joy sometimes. The emotional state of being content is one of the most amazing feelings in the world. Although there is always that clique question, “Does money create happiness?” To answer that no it does not and there is various ways to prove it. Money is just a piece of paper that controls most of your life ,but happiness is not one of them.

In contrast, the proponents of scientific management wanted to use the government to impose order through an interlocking pattern of rigid rules and laws. As engineers they too saw science as the panacea for the nation's ills; however, their vision was one of a scientifically planned community, free of wasteful spending and unnecessary expenditures. The scientific managers pictured society operating as a well oiled, highly efficient, economic machine ran by a team of educated nonpartisan experts. As professionals they were convinced that they possessed the necessary knowledge to reduce inefficiency and waste; therefore, it was up to them to impose social order upon a corrupt and often unruly populace. No two individuals epitomize these divergent views of Progressivism better than Jane Addams and Frederick Taylor.

In the late 19th century, when a period of social activism and economic reform, historically known as the Progressive Era (Maligned), coincided with the capitalistic expansion at an unprecedented rate, a series of ideas on eradicating systematic soldiering and increasing the overall productivity quiet sprouted at steel industry, later growing into the theories of scientific management in the next two decades. Scientific management, also known as Taylorism, was one of the earliest attempts to apply scientific methods to optimize of management and achieve economic efficiency. Its founder, Frederick Winslow Taylor, was also the prominent figure in the Efficiency Movement in the U.S. The principles of scientific management have shaped American industry and on management science in three major ways since the 1880s. On the corporate level, scientific management had streamlined manufacturing process; on the individual level, it instilled many fundamental management ideas into the American industry; as the leading thought during the Progressive Era, it laid the foundation for various disciplines, many of which serve as guidelines even for modern-day industries.

The American dream is a subjective idea that can mean money and fame for some or just the idea of freedom to others. What we believe is our path to reach this dream determines whether or not we are blinded by corporations’ image of the “American Dream”. Corporation’s main goal is to subtly coerce consumers into believing in the corporate world’s idea of the “American Dream”. They accomplish this by placing consumer’s into general categories which depicts how they will consume and place them in a cycle of false-consciousness which ultimately leads to the circulation of money within the rich and the stunting of the poor’s “hope” and possibility to obtain a better life. The barrier that stops low class citizens from advancing creates a “new primitive” society in which everyone blindly participates in the “norm” and becomes stuck in time.

To begin, Lorie Johnson in Source C, highlights the harmful effects of marketing on our overall “delusion” of the “American Dream”. Johnson states, “…parents get trapped into buying the heavily sugared cereal…” and “…places that sell music probably have stock in hearing aid…” Johnson’s commentary on marketing here shows us the significance of the “Almighty Dollar” within our everyday lives. These ruthless marketing systems can invoke a sense of want into the consumer, which can only be fed through the use of the “Almighty Dollar.” As a result material wealth takes precedence over attaining stature, due to extreme marketing techniques.

Instead of the right to happiness, the “right to own property” was the way to live (John Locke). Americans are not satisfied because they want to be someone and to be noticed in society. It takes the new smart phones and fancy raiment to be someone in this country. No matter how much stuff Americans have, they always insist “Something is missing” (Sizemore). Dissatisfaction also comes from the fact that the United States must never stop improving, it’s important that the nation keep up with the rest of the world. For example, a person with a VCR won’t get to watch any of the new movies, because they don’t make them on VHS. Other countries see America as “absurd” due to the constant craving of improvement (Lapham 194). However, they don’t know what it feels like to be constantly moving; constantly growing. Improvement has become a more important factor in life than health; according to a study “quality of life as measured by social health has decreased” (O’Neill 193). The fact that the nation has this ambition to be more than what we are keeps us from reaching Nirvana. It’s not only by a factor of money and material items that we are never satisfied, but wanting to learn more and gain as much knowledge as possible in the limited amount of time also keeps us from satisfaction. Those who oppose are incorrect when they say Americans are satisfied because this nation is growing at an incredible speed and it’s due to affluenza rather than

The United States of America is the most powerful and wealthy country in the world. The varieties of class, individuality, religion, and race are a few of the enrichments within the "melting pot" of our society. The blend of these numerous diversities is the crucial ingredient to our modern nation. Even though America has been formed upon these diversities, its inhabitants- the "average American"- have a single thing in common; a single idea; a single goal; the American Dream. The Dream consists of a seemingly simple concept; success. Americans dream of a successful marriage, family, successful job, and own a Victorian-style home with a white picket fence and an oak tree with a swing tire in the front yard. The

“One needs to cultivate the spirit of sacrificing the little me to achieve the benefits of the big me” (Chinese saying, Page 155). America has gone from sacrificing oneself for the good of others, to sacrificing others for the good of oneself. Charles Darwin had long predicted this phenomenon and coined it as the “survival of the fittest.” By definition, it is “a 19th century concept of human society, inspired by the principle of natural selection, postulating that those who are eliminated in the struggle for existence are the unfit” (“Survival of the fittest”, Dictionary.com). The American society, once based on collectivism, has changed drastically and is now based on individualism. The shift can be

Although Americans do look better and feel better with the extravagant items they purchase, money doesn’t buy happiness for long term goals. Like many will argue, like Atlantic senior editor Derek Thompson did in his 2013 article, “Yes, Money Does Buy Happiness: 6 Lessons on the Newest Research on Income and Well-Being,” money can only buy happiness for short term goals; it won’t last very long for everyone and it could lead to worse scenarios when the money is gone. Thompson (2013) included statistics on richer countries that are proven to be happier, explaining, “First, the lines go up. More money, more happiness. Second, the lines go up in parallel, more or less. Across language, culture, religion, ethnic background, the same amount of extra money seems to buy the similar amount of extra happiness.” Thompson (2013) found the same similar pattern in many other countries and concluded that they are more happy than poorer countries. Although poorer countries don’t have as many resources or many things like richer countries do, Seth Borenstein, in his 2017 article for The Independent, “Norway Beats Denmark to be Named the Happiest Country in the World by the UN,” can beg to differ. Borenstein (2017) says, “While most countries were either getting happier or at least treading water, America's happiness score dropped 5 per cent over the past decade” (Borenstein, 2017). That shows that America, one of the richest

Frederick W. Taylor was ahead of his time for his concept of Scientific management. It was a revolutionary way of running a business, that swept all over the globe, and his ideas were applicable to many different industries. Substituting disorder and conflict for a new untested method of control, cooperation, and science. Taylor understood there were no incentives for working harder. Knowing this, he payed workers based on output, allowing workers to make more money on any given day. It seemed like everyone would enjoy and prosper under this system, but that was not the case. Workers liked the opportunity to make more money in this system but many of them resisted this new idea. Being under constant supervision made work much harder for them.

The year 1911 saw Frederick Winslow Taylor publish a book titled ‘The principles of scientific management’ in which he aimed to prove that the scientific method could be used in producing profits for an organization through the improvement of an employee’s efficiency. During that decade, management practice was focused on initiative and incentives which gave autonomy to the workman. He thus argued that one half of the problem was up to management, and both the worker and manager needed to cooperate in order to produce the greatest prosperity.

Maurie Backman, finance writer for the Motley Fool argues that money can buy happiness - if the money is spent right. To be more specific, money and savings can be used to purchase free time to enjoy some leisure activities, such as buying a new TV to watch better pixelation and broadcasting, watching a movie with close friends, etc. These leisure activities did make people happier, according to a survey of 6,000 adults, which was conducted by researchers at the University of British Columbia and Harvard Business School in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Backman emphasizes, “....part of the reason [Americans] are so behind on savings is because [Americans] are paying for

Scientific Management Theory by Frederick W. Taylor – Throughout the industrial world employees are the large part of the organisation and Fundamental interests of employees are necessarily aggressive. So as a manager it is necessary to arrange mutual relations with employees so their interests become identical. In case of any single individual the greatest prosperity can exist only when that individual has reached his highest state of efficiency and that is, when he is turning out his largest daily output (Frederick Winslow Taylor, 2007).