Quality of Living

The ideas being discussed today are the differences between the terms "Quality of Life" and "Standard of Living."

I'd say that the main difference is that the term "Quality of Life" deals with a person's entire life, and not just the material possessions. "Standard of Living" deals strictly with material things, such as how much money the person makes, the country they live in, their government system, whether they have access to clean water, and what food they have access to. Standard of Living seems much less sincere, and it almost seems as if each person is being measured as an object, not a person. Quality of Life is far more sincere and seems to be a real representation of how the people are doing.

Recently, places have started to measure people's over happiness as an indicator of how the general public is doing. I think that this is an absolutely fantastic idea. They say that money can't buy happiness, which is why this is a far better representation of the economy's status.

But then again, I find that whenever I have a substantial amount of money, I'm quite content with my life. The whole measuring people's happiness business, as revolutionary an idea as it is, must be extremely difficult to monitor. Money, as heartless as it seems, really does make people happy. You see someone receive a large paycheck, and they instantly become happier - that's just the way it is. As much as I hate to say it, (I know, I'm being contradictory) money is what makes the world go 'round, and it's a mostly accurate depiction of a place's quality of life.

As cool as it is, measuring happiness, it just seems a little unpractical, if you know what I mean. Quality of life should probably be more about you rights and things, and not so much about happiness - it could be a real time-waster for our government.