Unhappy democrats?

[Wotan31]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060315_happiness_pew.html

So why are you all so unhappy? :confused: :p

[paddy]

Why are you all so mad! :confused: :p

[.Andy]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060315_happiness_pew.html

So why are you all so unhappy? :confused: :p
I'm not a democrat but perhaps it's partly because they aren't oblivious to the suffering of others?

[NT1440]

Should we just whip out that study that says Liberals are far less easily frightened than Conservatives as well?:rolleyes:

[Eanair]

So why are you all so unhappy?

ALL of us are unhappy? :p

I'm feeling rather wonderful, thanks.

(emphasis mine)

[leekohler]

Ignorance is bliss. I don't consider myself to be ignorant.

[Macaddicttt]

I find this terribly interesting since in my personal experience, happier people tend to be those who see the purpose of life being happiness in some way (collective or personal, etc.). In addition, religion supplants that reason for morality or ethics that does not translate exactly to happiness. I find it curious that according to this survey, religious people are happier, whereas those who are more concerned with the general happiness of the population (i.e Democrats), are less happy. It seems to contradict my anecdotal experiences.

[NT1440]

I assign meaning to my own life thank you very much. Makes me sooooo happy to not feel oppressed by a book.:)

Just my feelings.

[Macaddicttt]

I assign meaning to my own life thank you very much. Makes me sooooo happy to not feel oppressed by a book.:)

Just my feelings.

This is what I have found to be a prevailing attitude among non-religious people, and I wonder why this survey seems to contradict that attitude.

[NT1440]

This is what I have found to be a prevailing attitude among non-religious people, and I wonder why this survey seems to contradict that attitude.

In the scope of "the meaning of life" im extremely happy. As a day to day teenager, not so much.

I really doubt its a matter of "Im happy because I have a god" vs "Im happy because I dont have a god"

[Eanair]

I find it curious that according to this survey, religious people are happier, whereas those who are more concerned with the general happiness of the population (i.e Democrats), are less happy.

Perhaps those who are concerned with the general happiness of the population are more unhappy because there are still many things wrong in the world that would lessen the happiness of general populations and thus, make those who are concerned with such things more unhappy?

Wow, my brain just kinda stalled...

[Zombie Acorn]

Ignorance is bliss. I don't consider myself to be ignorant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Fig_57_-_men_4-yr_college_degrees.JPG

:D

[Rt&Dzine]

The article is from 2006. Democrats weren't happy in 2006. I wonder how happy Republicans are now?

[Eanair]

The article is from 2006. Democrats weren't happy in 2006. I wonder how happy Republicans are now?

Good catch.

Good point.

[.Andy]

:D
A degree doesn't make you any less ignorant.

[Zombie Acorn]

A degree doesn't make you any less ignorant.

I am willing to bet there is a positive correlation between attaining higher education and happiness.

[.Andy]

I am willing to bet there is a positive correlation between attaining higher education and happiness.
Why would having a higher degree make you any more happy? Why would being happier make you any less ignorant?

[Prof.]

We're unhappy cuz we've been oppressed for the past 8 years. :D

[Zombie Acorn]

Why would having a higher degree make you any more happy? Why would being happier make you any less ignorant?

Generally people who have higher education make more money, thus more happy. Generally people who have higher education are smarter than those who only graduate high school, thus less ignorant.

[NT1440]

Generally people who have higher education make more money, thus more happy. Generally people who have higher education are smarter than those who only graduate high school, thus less ignorant.

The italicized : Seems to be the core of GOP beleifs doesnt it? :rolleyes:

As for the underlined, thats complete BS and you know it. Ignorance has nothing, NOTHING, to do education levels.

[Zombie Acorn]

The italicized : Seems to be the core of GOP beleifs doesnt it? :rolleyes:

As for the underlined, thats complete BS and you know it. Ignorance has nothing, NOTHING, to do education levels.

Webster says otherwise.

g·no·rance Listen to the pronunciation of ignorance
Pronunciation:
\ˈig-n(ə-)rən(t)s\
Function:
noun
Date:
13th century

: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

[Iscariot]

Generally people who have higher education make more money, thus more happy. Generally people who have higher education are smarter than those who only graduate high school, thus less ignorant.

The people of Iceland are the happiest people in the world, and spend on average 3.2 less years in school than those in the US.

(Although I myself am extremely happy with my life, and spent at least 16 years in school.)

[.Andy]

Generally people who have higher education make more money, thus more happy.
Does money correlate with happiness?

Generally people who have higher education are smarter than those who only graduate high school, thus less ignorant.
I'd say this is loosely true. However it's entirely possible for people that haven't finished high school or done a tertiary degree to be incredibly smart. Conversely there are plenty that have attained higher education and are incredibly ignorant. A piece of paper (or two) means little in this regard.

[Zombie Acorn]

The people of Iceland are the happiest people in the world, and spend on average 3.2 less years in school than those in the US.

(Although I myself am extremely happy with my life, and spent at least 16 years in school.)

That is a different culture than the US, there may be other factors contributing. I am not saying you have to have a 4 year degree to be happy, just that I thought there would be a positive correlation between happiness and attaining higher education in the US (higher degrees in US generally = more money = happiness).

After all we are pretty materialistic.

[.Andy]

higher degrees in US generally = more money = happiness.
Is there any evidence of this though?

[NT1440]

That is a different culture than the US, there may be other factors contributing. I am not saying you have to have a 4 year degree to be happy, just that I thought there would be a positive correlation between happiness and attaining higher education in the US (higher degrees in US generally = more money = happiness).

After all we are pretty materialistic.

If by "we" you mean you and people like you, then you'd be correct.

I'm liberal, love macs, but am wearing $10 jeans (clearance time is great) and a $6 shirt. I'm not very materialistic.

[Zombie Acorn]

Does money correlate with happiness?


I'd say this is loosely true. However it's entirely possible for people that haven't finished high school or done a tertiary degree to be incredibly smart. Conversely there are plenty that have attained higher education and are incredibly ignorant. A piece of paper (or two) means little in this regard.

No doubt that there are exceptions to this rule, I am speaking in generalities. I believe if you look overall money does correlate with happiness. Poor people tend to not be able to afford things like health care, food, etc. On the back side more money could come with more responsibility which causes stress. So if the data was curved I wouldn't be surprised.

[Zombie Acorn]

If by "we" you mean you and people like you, then you'd be correct.

I'm liberal, love macs, but am wearing $10 jeans (clearance time is great) and a $6 shirt. I'm not very materialistic.

Sorry I meant as a nation. Being as the average CC debt in the US is something like 13k or some outrageous number id say we are pretty materialistic.

I have never been into anything besides electronics. I also wear cheap clothing, but I consider myself materialistic compared to other poor countries.

Is there any evidence of this though?

Not that I am aware of, I haven't looked though. I said I "bet".

[NT1440]

Sorry I meant as a nation. Being as the average CC debt in the US is something like 13k or some outrageous number id say we are pretty materialistic.

I have never been into anything besides electronics. I also wear cheap clothing, but I consider myself materialistic compared to other poor countries.
Why is it that you need to rely on your personal definitions and generalizations of massive amounts of people in order for your arguments to hold water?

[Zombie Acorn]

Why is it that you need to rely on your personal definitions and generalizations of massive amounts of people in order for your arguments to hold water?

The whole thread is based on generalities, do you think all democrats are unhappy? No, but when you take a massive amount of them and poll it appears that they are (or at least more unhappy than repubs).

In the same way when we look at our nation compared to others we are definitely materialistic.

I was only poking fun when I posted the statistics of 4 year degrees anyways. Most of the people I went to school with were democrats (including most of my professors).

[Rt&Dzine]

Does money correlate with happiness?


The article says it does. And Republicans have more money.

[Gelfin]

Biggie Was Right (http://www.threadless.com/product/831/Biggie_Was_Right)

[Ugg]

Perhaps those who are concerned with the general happiness of the population are more unhappy because there are still many things wrong in the world that would lessen the happiness of general populations and thus, make those who are concerned with such things more unhappy?

Wow, my brain just kinda stalled...

That is exactly how I've always viewed the disparity. Conservatives are much less interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man. As long as a conservative is personally happy, that's all that matters. Liberals tend to voice their discontent about the environment, social issues, etc, etc, so appear less happy while being more concerned about their fellow man.

[Zombie Acorn]

That is exactly how I've always viewed the disparity. Conservatives are much less interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man. As long as a conservative is personally happy, that's all that matters. Liberals tend to voice their discontent about the environment, social issues, etc, etc, so appear less happy while being more concerned about their fellow man.

I was unable to find anything that disregarded religion completely, but I bet we would be surprised.

"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

[mactastic]

I thought we agreed that these kinds of studies were useless the last time someone tried to post a "Democrats are better than Republicans because..." thread?

This kind of tripe is just masturbatory material for the kool-aid swillers.

[yg17]

This kind of tripe is just masturbatory material for the kool-aid swillers.

I would call it that if this poll was recent. But this data is more than 3 years old when republicans controlled the house, senate and the presidency. This link is completely useless and this thread is just flamebait.

[.Andy]

The article says it does.
From what I remember from previous discussions money and happiness only correlate up to specific incomes. i.e. up and out of poverty and into the middle class. Above that it is diminishing returns.

Nonetheless I can in all honesty say that I've been most happy when I'm not pursuing money and/or at my most poor. For instance my times at university have been the best time of my life. Lots of sports, lots of reading, lots of study. All things that cost little.

[NT1440]

I was unable to find anything that disregarded religion completely, but I bet we would be surprised.

"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Any studies on who actually volunteers more instead of throwing money around? ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

Any studies on who actually volunteers more instead of throwing money around? ;)

Much to my surprise as of 2004 it appears that republicans actually outpaced democrats in volunteer work 53.7 to 42.5% according to this study:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wGtJ66o3EyIC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=democrats+and+republicans+volunteering&source=bl&ots=nHH_C9t2DR&sig=ayGq-uODOA5kC737dYreXcrJ93A&hl=en&ei=px0SSuzCNIbUNISxxYMN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Thats still pretty good numbers on both sides as far as I am concerned. Democrats were more likely to give to the homeless.

[Ugg]

I was unable to find anything that disregarded religion completely, but I bet we would be surprised.

"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

When someone donates to a hate spewing church, I'd hardly call that a charitable donation.

Just because it's a tax free donation doesn't mean it's doing any good...

[Zombie Acorn]

When someone donates to a hate spewing church, I'd hardly call that a charitable donation.

Just because it's a tax free donation doesn't mean it's doing any good...

I am not religious so I can't really attest to which ones are hate spewing and so forth. I do know that quite a few decent churches run food banks and other activities for the poor. We may be dismissing charitable contributions on the side of the religious republicans, even if they do have alternate motives.

[MacNut]

masturbatory materialThat always makes me happy.:p

[CalBoy]

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060315_happiness_pew.html

So why are you all so unhappy? :confused: :p

There are many flaws I can see from this poll from the outset without delving further into what others have brought up.

Firstly, there is a difference in the ethnic and social composition of the two parties. Democrats tend to come from more economically and socially oppressed populations, and as such, they are going to be less happy from the outset because quite simply, they've had a much tougher life. It's very fallacious to imply that being a Democrat causes unhappiness (which I realize hasn't bee explicitly stated, but come on, who are we kidding?).

Virtually every one of the Democratic Party's major coalitions involves a minority in some way or the other. The party has the vast majority of black voters in its ranks, as well as Catholics (who often come from Hispanic backgrounds and tend to face racism), those in the LGTB community, single women (and especially single mothers), the urban poor, and most other racial minorities. Most of these people have faced or are facing adversity in their lives, and in all probability they have probably been hurt by it on numerous occasions (I reference the other thread about gay couples not being able to see each other when one is dying in a hospital). If that doesn't reduce overall contentment, I don't know what would.

I was unable to find anything that disregarded religion completely, but I bet we would be surprised.

"Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Much to my surprise as of 2004 it appears that republicans actually outpaced democrats in volunteer work 53.7 to 42.5% according to this study:

http://books.google.com/books?id=wGtJ66o3EyIC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=democrats+and+republicans+volunteering&source=bl&ots=nHH_C9t2DR&sig=ayGq-uODOA5kC737dYreXcrJ93A&hl=en&ei=px0SSuzCNIbUNISxxYMN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Thats still pretty good numbers on both sides as far as I am concerned. Democrats were more likely to give to the homeless.

I think there's a rather obvious question here that no one has asked: what about capability? Are Democrats and Republicans as two large groups equally capable of contributing? I mean a single mother working two jobs just to put food on the table is hardly in the same boat as an investment banker (at least by 2006 standards :p). Seeing as how the Democratic Party has a large urban poor voting base that needs these services the most, is it any wonder that they have a reduced ability to contribute?

Is there a fair way we can filter out such issues? And, how do we factor in familial considerations? Non-white families, for example, tend to have stronger family ties and will often lend each other a hand when necessary. This reduces the total amount available to donate in the world abroad, but it doesn't make the action any less charitable. The same can be said of those who babysit their cousins, help their family members with their taxes, schoolwork, or any number of other problems. Just because it doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

<Chart showing male college graduation rate along with partisan affiliation>


Does anyone else notice a trend here? In the 1955-1964 period the ratio between Dem:Rep male graduates was 31%:69%. However, over the next 50 years, the ratio continues to even out and by the 1995-2004 period it has decreased to 38.6%:61.4%. I wonder what these figures will look like in 2015; my bet is that the ratio will have decreased to near 1:1, especially as a BA continues to lose its worth in the marketplace.

[Zombie Acorn]

I think there's a rather obvious question here that no one has asked: what about capability? Are Democrats and Republicans as two large groups equally capable of contributing? I mean a single mother working two jobs just to put food on the table is hardly in the same boat as an investment banker (at least by 2006 standards :p). Seeing as how the Democratic Party has a large urban poor voting base that needs these services the most, is it any wonder that they have a reduced ability to contribute?


Why does the republican have to be the evil investment banker, while the democrat gets to be the noble single mother with 2 jobs? :D I know plenty of poor people around here with conservative views that work pretty hard for a living.

I do see your point if the Democrat's base is slightly worse off statistically though, it may very well interfere with their ability to contribute.


Is there a fair way we can filter out such issues? And, how do we factor in familial considerations? Non-white families, for example, tend to have stronger family ties and will often lend each other a hand when necessary. This reduces the total amount available to donate in the world abroad, but it doesn't make the action any less charitable. The same can be said of those who babysit their cousins, help their family members with their taxes, schoolwork, or any number of other problems. Just because it doesn't exist on paper doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I imagine the numbers only tell half of the story. I was actually pretty impressed that the stats were so high on both political sides of the issue, although I did expect the democrats to have higher volunteering contributions before looking it up (whether they do or not is open for debate I guess since many of the issues like you pointed out won't be counted).



Does anyone else notice a trend here? In the 1955-1964 period the ratio between Dem:Rep male graduates was 31%:69%. However, over the next 50 years, the ratio continues to even out and by the 1995-2004 period it has decreased to 38.6%:61.4%. I wonder what these figures will look like in 2015; my bet is that the ratio will have decreased to near 1:1, especially as a BA continues to lose its worth in the marketplace.

Anyone lived long enough to tell how easy it was to fund college in the past compared to today? Federal loans seem to be pretty easy to attain these days so that may have something to do with it even though tuition costs are skyrocketing.

[CalBoy]

Why does the republican have to be the evil investment banker, while the democrat gets to be the noble single mother with 2 jobs? :D I know plenty of poor people around here with conservative views that work pretty hard for a living.

It was an illustration of the parties' core members, but seeing as what's happened with the economy recently can you really deny my assessment of the investment banker? ;):p

I do see your point if the Democrat's base is slightly worse off statistically though, it may very well interfere with their ability to contribute.

I would contend that it's more than "slightly" worse off. With the exception of Asians and LGTB Democrats (both of which are not a terribly large part of the national electorate), the Democratic base tends to be on the poorer end of the spectrum. Even if there are a reasonable number of middle class Democrats that can donate some of their money, it is in all likelihood a lesser percentage compared to a wealthier individual who has more disposable income. The real way to measure charity is to measure it by the means available to a person.

Anyone lived long enough to tell how easy it was to fund college in the past compared to today? Federal loans seem to be pretty easy to attain these days so that may have something to do with it even though tuition costs are skyrocketing.

That would explain only why more people are going to college, not why the partisan ratio is leveling out amongst males.

[Wotan31]

I'm liberal, love macs, but am wearing $10 jeans (clearance time is great) and a $6 shirt. I'm not very materialistic.
Those statements are contradictory, no? A mac is a "premium" personal computer that's in the upper end of the consumer pc price range. Clearly someone whose done their homework, selected such a premium level product, and spent more money on it (than, say, a $599 hp notebook) has some level of materialistic drive, wouldn't you agree? And then participating on a internet discussion forum that's focused on said premium level product? Icing on the cake.

I'm not casting any stones here - I'll freely admit that I thoroughly enjoy owning some of my possessions as well, and would have a hard time giving them up. Getting to the point here, I find it difficult to believe anyone (in this country at least) who declares themselves to be "not very materialistic".

[Tomorrow]

Generally people who have higher education are smarter than those who only graduate high school, thus less ignorant.: Seems to be the core of GOP beleifs doesnt it? :rolleyes:

What makes you say that?

Conservatives are much less interested in the wellbeing of their fellow man.

I think it would be more accurate to say that conservatives are less interested in providing well-being to people and more interested in providing everyone the opportunity to build their own well-being. We don't want to deny anyone happiness, success, or anything even remotely associated with "the American dream." We would just rather see each person earn it for himself.

A mac is a "premium" personal computer that's in the upper end of the consumer pc price range. Clearly someone whose done their homework, selected such a premium level product, and spent more money on it (than, say, a $599 hp notebook) has some level of materialistic drive, wouldn't you agree?

I suppose it depends on why a person buys a "premium" product. If the purpose is to revel in the prestige, resale value, or other "warm and fuzzies" of buying a premium product for premium's sake, then I would call that materialistic. If you bought it because that just happens to be what you like, I don't think that's materialistic.

[Ugg]

I think it would be more accurate to say that conservatives are less interested in providing well-being to people and more interested in providing everyone the opportunity to build their own well-being. We don't want to deny anyone happiness, success, or anything even remotely associated with "the American dream." We would just rather see each person earn it for himself.


Typical response. It might have merit if everyone was created equal and had access to the same advantages. However, as we all know that's simply not the case.

Libertarianism died along with Alan Greenspan's and ronald reagan's fantasy land.

The sooner ya'll accept that, the better the world will be.

[NT1440]

Those statements are contradictory, no? A mac is a "premium" personal computer that's in the upper end of the consumer pc price range. Clearly someone whose done their homework, selected such a premium level product, and spent more money on it (than, say, a $599 hp notebook) has some level of materialistic drive, wouldn't you agree? And then participating on a internet discussion forum that's focused on said premium level product? Icing on the cake.

I'm not casting any stones here - I'll freely admit that I thoroughly enjoy owning some of my possessions as well, and would have a hard time giving them up. Getting to the point here, I find it difficult to believe anyone (in this country at least) who declares themselves to be "not very materialistic".

I dont even own a mac yet. I am a geek and I love OSX. I couldnt give less of a damn about a macs "status".

Its contradictory only to the close minded who cannot see the world in more than black and white. Because you consider it a premium product that makes me materialistic? Please.:rolleyes:

[Tomorrow]

Typical response. It might have merit if everyone was created equal and had access to the same advantages. However, as we all know that's simply not the case.

What a load - exactly what "advantages" do people need to have access to in order to make decent lives for themselves? It's pretty simple, really - stay on the right side of the law, finish school, get a job, and do good work. It really doesn't take more than that, and nobody needs to be given anything special to do those things.

Not everyone is going to be a CEO, or a surgeon, or an attorney, or a rocket scientist. That doesn't mean you can't be successful. The tools are there for anyone who wants them.

[Shivetya]

The article says it does. And Republicans have more money.

because they tend to be less stupid with their choices, those who make their own money tend to have more of it, if your waiting for a handout or someone else's money you will never have more than what someone else is willing to let you have.

[Zombie Acorn]

Typical response. It might have merit if everyone was created equal and had access to the same advantages. However, as we all know that's simply not the case.

Libertarianism died along with Alan Greenspan's and ronald reagan's fantasy land.

The sooner ya'll accept that, the better the world will be.

Previous generations worked for those advantages, why should you prosper off of another family's risks and hard work? If someones grandparents worked 3 jobs to put their kid through school so that they could make a high salary, why shouldn't the generation after that have an advantage?

Besides possible reform in some states (like california) for education I think everyone is afforded the basic needs to be successful. We have safety nets all over the place also.

[mactastic]

Previous generations worked for those advantages, why should you prosper off of another family's risks and hard work? If someones grandparents worked 3 jobs to put their kid through school so that they could make a high salary, why shouldn't the generation after that have an advantage?
And conversely, if someone's grandparents were junkies, who raised junkie kids, why shouldn't the generation after that have to face a disadvantage?

[NT1440]

because they tend to be less stupid with their choices, those who make their own money tend to have more of it, if your waiting for a handout or someone else's money you will never have more than what someone else is willing to let you have.

Link? Your whole post is full of ignorance and labeling that holds no water.

[iShater]

because they tend to be less stupid with their choices, those who make their own money tend to have more of it, if your waiting for a handout or someone else's money you will never have more than what someone else is willing to let you have.

I don't understand this statement, could you please explain what you mean?

[Rt&Dzine]

because they tend to be less stupid with their choices, those who make their own money tend to have more of it, if your waiting for a handout or someone else's money you will never have more than what someone else is willing to let you have.

Chicken or the egg? Rich people are Republican because the party benefits the rich. They squander their money on personal luxuries instead of helping the less fortunate.