Consumed by possessions and driven by the American Dream, society is compelled by wealth and materialism; it is a competition of who has the most money, the biggest house, and the newest car. For many Americans today, happiness is defined by materials and wealth, yet those who appear to have the most are left as the emptiest of people. Contrary to popular belief, money creates an illusion of prosperity and, ultimately, when used for status or to buy possessions out of pride, it does not bring anyone true happiness, for the satisfaction money provides lasts only until a certain point.

Studies have proven that money does not take part in one’s contentment but instead contributes to his or her lonesomeness. In Brad Tuttle’s article “The Reason You’re in Love With Material Possessions? Loneliness,” from TIME, Tuttle states that researchers have found a connection between materialism and isolation: “Through surveys and the work of other researchers, the study points to loneliness as the root of material possession love. . . When someone suffers from “social deficits” (i.e., loneliness), he’s more likely to grow attached to possessions” (Tuttle 1). Clearly, those who are lonesome gradually become attached to possessions; consequently, their lives begin to revolve around earthly materials. Yet, while these materials and money may provide temporary pleasure, this “happiness” has no value once the person’s life ends, and their possessions are left behind.

“You could have millions of dollars, live in a huge house, have no friends or family, and be alone,” said sophomore Courtney Oltman. “You have money to do whatever you want but not have anyone to share it with.”

Furthermore, happiness cannot be measured by one’s income, for having a lower income than another does not necessarily equate to a lower degree of well-being. Many Americans believe that the more money and possessions one has, the happier he or she must be; because money brings us possessions that may make us happy, many assume that wealth equals joy. However, the pleasure materials provide is not forever. In David McRaney’s “The Fascinating Scientific Reason Why ‘Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness,’” from Alternet, researchers have found that while money may contribute to one’s happiness, eventually, it reaches a point at which it stops affecting one’s satisfaction. McRaney states, “A person who makes, on average, $250,000 a year has no greater emotional well-being, no extra day-to-day happiness, than a person making $75,000 a year” (McRaney 1). Evidently, the man with the larger income is not necessarily the man with a better well-being. As shown in McRaney’s article, one’s income does not define one’s happiness nor is the happiness wealth may bring everlasting.

“Just because you’re rich doesn’t mean you’re automatically happy,” said sophomore Katelynn Terman.

All in all, one’s wealth can contribute to his or her happiness, but this “happiness” is only temporary; when one’s life ends, his or her money and possessions will be left behind, and the richest man will have as much as the poorest man. With society driven by materialism, there is no say whether we will ever stop allowing money to define our happiness; however, hindering empty possessions from creating a deception of happiness is the first step. If we begin to shift our focus less on buying earthly materials for pride and more on taking advantage of wealth for good, such as charity or strengthening personal relationships, it can be one step toward changing the definition of happiness.

Works Cited

McRaney, David. “The Fascinating Scientific Reason Why ‘Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness.’”

Alternet. Alternet. 25 January 2012. Web. 15 April 2016.

Tuttle, Brad. “The Reason You’re in Love With Material Possessions? Loneliness.” Time. Time

Inc. 26 July 2011. Web. 15 April 2016.