China Daily discourses on the relationship of wealth and happiness:

Most, if not all, Chinese are financially better off thanks to 28 years of reform and opening up. But are we any happier?

Various
surveys and rankings attempt to answer this question. The municipal
government of Beijing even unveiled a plan last month to incorporate
residents’ levels of satisfaction as an important indicator of societal
harmony.

The limelight on subjective well-being adds a precious human touch to our pursuit of development.

Though
sociologists have presented varying percentages based on different
criteria, their answers tend to find we are generally happier, and the
number of optimists rises each year.

The Chinese Academy of
Social Sciences’ 2006 Blue Book on social progress says 70 per cent of
rural and urban respondents surveyed in 2005 reported a feeling of
happiness and were optimistic about their futures.

But each
survey reveals a worrisome fact that a sizable portion, 10 per cent at
the lowest, of respondents were not content with their lives or not
hopeful about the future.

We cannot be content with the fact that at least 130 million of our countrymen are not happy.

     The unnamed writer only glancingly mentions one obvious reason for unhappiness in the midst of economic growth: the increasing inequality that is tearing at the country’s social order.  It would be interesting to see how rates of happiness map onto household income.  Instead, the story takes a somewhat more philosophical turn, one that echoes both Marx and the Tao Te Ching:

When discussing reasons for discontent, the law of diminishing
utility is relevant. Following this logic, insatiable desires are to
blame.

It makes sense: When you have everything you need for a decent life, and more of the things you want, you may want more.

    Forget about "diminishing utility," Marx tells us that capitalism encourages and requires a never-ending destruction of old "needs" and the creation of ever more new "needs."  The logic of consumption demands that we always need and buy more.  Wonder why they didn’t cite that concept instead of the neo-classical notion of "diminishing utility"?  I guess China Daily has not gotten the memo about revival of Marxism.

     They also missed an opportunity to bring a little Taoism into the conversation.  Passage 19 (excerpted here from the Hendricks translation) tells us what to do to be happy:

Manifest plainness and embrace the genuine;
Lessen self-interest and make few your desires;
Eliminate learning and have no undue concern.

This, of course, runs counter to the demands of consumer society: if everyone "made few their desires," economic growth would obviously decline.  But, to a Taoist, that would be all right.  Happiness is not about wealth, it is about apprehending and following Way.

     After that, if people are still unhappy, the Tao Te Ching would tell us not to worry.  Some unhappiness is necessary for happiness, the one cannot exist without the other, as implied in passage 2 from the TTC:

When everyone in the world knows the beautiful as beautiful, ugliness comes into being;
When everyone knows the good, then the not good comes to be.
The mutual production of being and nonbeing,
The mutual completion of difficult and easy,
The mutual formation of long and short,
The mutual filling of high and low,
The mutual harmony of tone and voice,
The mutual following of front and back –
These are all constants.

     So, maybe that 10% of unhappy people is necessary for happiness of the 70% (I guess the other 20% are ambivalent).

     Although the China Daily analyst ignores this tie-in to Taoism, he or she is fairly persuasive with the more practical reasons given for current Chinese unhappiness.  It is all about the stresses of modern life: "These include, but are not limited to, rising housing prices, tight and
unstable job market, back-breaking schooling expenses and medical bills."  That sounds about right.

    And the kicker is the conclusion:

How can you feel happy when you always have to brace yourself for the unexpected?

It may be beyond the government’s reach, not to mention obligation, to guarantee higher income for every citizen.

But it does have a burden to create an environment where all citizens can feel a reasonable level of security.

There
was an inclusive "safety network" when the government encouraged
officials to leave public offices in 1980s in attempts to downsize
public service. The idea was to offer officials secure pay and benefits
so they would not have to worry about guarantees after their departure
from positions of power.

It is time the government displayed similar creativity and resolve to address a much larger sense of uncertainty.

     I read this a laying an analytic foundation for welfare state policies: things like a social security system, workman’s compensation, more support for education and child care costs.  If it was possible for those high level officials in the 80’s, why not the average person today?

     So, as the US has moved away from "welfare as we know it," it looks like China may be starting to shift in that direction.