Spouses are instruments of fun

That's the message I get from economist Betsy Stevenson who told Spousonomics that the value-added (= purpose) of marriage is "having more fun".

She and her partner Justin Wolfers go on to talk about how they literally ran regressions on happiness data before deciding whether to have a kid. The regressions, sadly, did not support their decision to reproduce, but they are glad they ignored their empirical tendencies because baby Matilda turned out to be a bundle of joy. So it wasn't a bad decision after all. Because she brought them joy. More happiness for me = good decision. That's the reasoning.

But had Matilda instead been a bundle of hell... or if she turns into one during her terrible twos.... well, then what?

Economists like to brag that they are more honest than practitioners of other disciplines because they are more willing to say repugnant things. And I'm fine with that. In fact, that's what drew me to economics.

But honesty is not the same as intelligence. And what has turned me off from economics is the reliance on happiness as an outcome.

We are a vaporous transient consciousness in an incidental universe, to borrow a phrase from Alain de Botton, and it's hard for me to see how anyone who recognizes that fact would base their lives (= their decisions) on optimizing some expected pleasure quotient.

Whenever you bring this up with an economist the standard reaction will be something like "well, but, we're not just talking about happiness. We're talking about utility."

Utility translates to anything you want, rendering the discussion so vague as to be effectively useless. Which is why when it comes to bringing their theories down from the level of the abstract, economists often end up talking about "happiness" and "fun" and "joy" in the way that Justin and Betsy do in the Spousonomics post.

I think the absurdity of seeking happiness can be partially revealed through mockery:

Sorry, Mom, I won't attend your funeral. That wouldn't be maximizing my utility function.

I love you, honey, so long as you are more fun than my next best alternative.


My former girlfriend, maybe because of insecurity, would regularly flat out ask me why I liked her and wanted to be with her. I would usually start my response by fumbling over clichés such as well because you're sweet and smart and funny, &c... Eventually I arrived at an answer that never seemed to satisfy her, but satisfied me, at least. It goes something like this:

A romantic relationship -- maybe any relationship -- starts for any number of cliché reasons such as traits you observe in the person, but any relationship that persists because of those initial reasons is in trouble. A relationship should not be a contract you make to keep someone you [initially] admired around, nor do I think it should be an arrangement to exchange mutual happiness or comfort or whatever. A relationship is probably best thought of as an investment (through exchanged vulnerabilities) you make in a fellow vaporous transient consciousness to go through this incidental universe a little less alone.