s="" necessities,="" increasing="" affluence="" matters="" （9）="" little.="" in="" the="" u.s.,="" canada,="" and="" europe,="" correlation="" between="" income="" happiness="" is,="" as="" university="" of="" michigan="" researcher="" noted="" a="" 1980s="" 16-nation="" study,="" “virtually="" （10）="" ”.="" is="" lower="" （11）="" very="" poor.="" but="" once="" comfortable,="" more="" money="" provides="" diminishing="" returns.Even very rich people are only slightly happier than average. With net worth all （12） $100 million, providing （13）money to buy things they don't need and hardly care about, 4 in 5 of the 49 people responding to survey agreed that “Money can increase or decrease happiness, depending on how it is used”. And some were indeed unhappy. One fabulously （14） man said he could never remember being happy. One woman reported that money （15） misery caused by her children's' problems.At the other end of life's circumstances are most victims of disabling tragedies. Yet, remarkably, most eventually recover a near-normal level of day-to-day happiness. Thus, university students who must cope with disabilities are （16）able-bodied students to report themselves happy, and their friends agree with their self-perceptions.We have （17） the American dream of achieved wealth and well-being by comparing rich and unrich countries, and rich and unrich people. That leaves the final question: Over time, does happiness rise with affluence?Typically not. Lottery winners appear to gain but a temporary jolt of joy from their winnings. On a small scale, a jump in our income can boost our morale, for a while. But in the long run, neither an ice cream cone nor a new car nor becoming rich and famous produces the same feelings of delight that it initially （18） . Happiness is not the result of being rich, but a （19） consequence of having recently become richer. Wealth, it therefore seems, is like health: Although its utter absence can breed misery, having it does not guarantee happiness. Happiness is （20） a matter of getting what we want than of wanting what we have.'>

During the mid-1980s, my family and I spent a（1）year in the historic town of St. Andrews, Scotland. Comparing life there with life in America, we were impressed by a （2） disconnection between national wealth and well-being. To most Americans, Scottish life would have seemed （3） . Incomes were about half that in the U.S. Among families in the Kingdom of Fife surrounding St. Andrews, 44 percent did not own a car, and we never met a family that owned two. Central heating in this place （4）south of Iceland was, at that time, still a luxury.In hundreds of conversations during our year there and during three half summer stays since, we （5） notice that, （6）their simpler living, the Scots appeared （7） joyful than Americans. We heard complaints about Margaret Thatcher, but never about being underpaid or unable to afford wants.Within any country, such as our own, are rich people happier? In poor countries, being relatively well off does make （8） somewhat better well off. But in affluent countries, where nearly everyone can afford life's necessities, increasing affluence matters （9） little. In the U.S., Canada, and Europe, the correlation between income and happiness is, as University of Michigan researcher noted in a 1980s 16-nation study, “virtually （10） ”. Happiness is lower （11） the very poor. But once comfortable, more money provides diminishing returns.Even very rich people are only slightly happier than average. With net worth all （12） $100 million, providing （13）money to buy things they don't need and hardly care about, 4 in 5 of the 49 people responding to survey agreed that “Money can increase or decrease happiness, depending on how it is used”. And some were indeed unhappy. One fabulously （14） man said he could never remember being happy. One woman reported that money （15） misery caused by her children's' problems.At the other end of life's circumstances are most victims of disabling tragedies. Yet, remarkably, most eventually recover a near-normal level of day-to-day