I think the top comment is getting at some issues, that this substack post seems to have a neoliberal (?) focus on material prosperity, but I'd try to frame the discussion maybe in a way to try to make it more obvious and then ask some questions about things.
Assume you are the richest person in the world.
What if you had to live in solitary confinement? (So, you wealth doesn't give you good relationships)
What if you were chronically sick? (Your wealth does not give you health)
What if you were not able to spend your money freely due to living under a dictator? (Your wealth does not give you freedom)
You could probably continue this thought experiment and maybe zero in on some specific problems.
What if you could be the wealthiest person but you literally had to work every waking hour? So, having wealth (in this thought experiment example) does not buy you free time.
What if you had access to being able to buy some of the best stuff but it costs more than it did for generations, forcing you to work more for "better" but more costly items? So having more money yourself doesn't say anything about how the market is developing around you.
Naturally, a counter-argument to some of the above is that money may allow you to buy things to solve some of these problems, but it doesn't always work out that way.
(I liked the article mostly in that it felt like it was expressing an obvious idea, that America has more "success" and thus "should" be happier but the author acknowledges there is some legitimate unhappiness that exist, and then it was kind of like a brainteaser to think about if people are rationally or irrationally unhappy in the USA)
Assume you are the richest person in the world.
What if you had to live in solitary confinement? (So, you wealth doesn't give you good relationships)
What if you were chronically sick? (Your wealth does not give you health)
What if you were not able to spend your money freely due to living under a dictator? (Your wealth does not give you freedom)
You could probably continue this thought experiment and maybe zero in on some specific problems.
What if you could be the wealthiest person but you literally had to work every waking hour? So, having wealth (in this thought experiment example) does not buy you free time.
What if you had access to being able to buy some of the best stuff but it costs more than it did for generations, forcing you to work more for "better" but more costly items? So having more money yourself doesn't say anything about how the market is developing around you.
Naturally, a counter-argument to some of the above is that money may allow you to buy things to solve some of these problems, but it doesn't always work out that way.
(I liked the article mostly in that it felt like it was expressing an obvious idea, that America has more "success" and thus "should" be happier but the author acknowledges there is some legitimate unhappiness that exist, and then it was kind of like a brainteaser to think about if people are rationally or irrationally unhappy in the USA)