【媒库文选】为何经济学家认为47.2岁是最痛苦的 - 经济学家杂志社投稿_期刊论文发表|版面费|电话|编辑部|论文发表- 经济学家

一、来稿必须是作者独立取得的原创性学术研究成果，来稿的文字复制比（相似度或重复率）必须低于用稿标准，引用部分文字的要在参考文献中注明；署名和作者单位无误，未曾以任何形式用任何文种在国内外公开发表过；未一稿多投。二、来稿除文中特别加以标注和致谢之外，不侵犯任何版权或损害第三方的任何其他权利。如果20天后未收到本刊的录用通知，可自行处理(双方另有约定的除外)。三、来稿经审阅通过，编辑部会将修改意见反馈给您，您应在收到通知7天内提交修改稿。作者享有引用和复制该文的权利及著作权法的其它权利。四、一般来说，4500字（电脑WORD统计，图表另计）以下的文章，不能说清问题，很难保证学术质量，本刊恕不受理。五、论文格式及要素：标题、作者、工作单位全称(院系处室)、摘要、关键词、正文、注释、参考文献(遵从国家标准：GB\T7714-2005，点击查看参考文献格式示例)、作者简介(100字内)、联系方式(通信地址、邮编、电话、电子信箱)。六、处理流程：（1）通过电子邮件将稿件发到我刊唯一投稿信箱（2）我刊初审周期为2－3个工作日，请在投稿3天后查看您的邮箱，收阅我们的审稿回复或用稿通知；若30天内没有收到我们的回复，稿件可自行处理。（3）按用稿通知上的要求办理相关手续后，稿件将进入出版程序。（4）杂志出刊后，我们会按照您提供的地址免费奉寄样刊。七、凡向文教资料杂志社投稿者均被视为接受如下声明：（1）稿件必须是作者本人独立完成的，属原创作品（包括翻译），杜绝抄袭行为，严禁学术腐败现象，严格学术不端检测，如发现系抄袭作品并由此引起的一切责任均由作者本人承担，本刊不承担任何民事连带责任。（2）本刊发表的所有文章，除另有说明外，只代表作者本人的观点，不代表本刊观点。由此引发的任何纠纷和争议本刊不受任何牵连。（3）本刊拥有自主编辑权，但仅限于不违背作者原意的技术性调整。如必须进行重大改动的，编辑部有义务告知作者，或由作者授权编辑修改，或提出意见由作者自己修改。（4）作品在《文教资料》发表后，作者同意其电子版同时发布在文教资料杂志社官方网上。（5）作者同意将其拥有的对其论文的汇编权、翻译权、印刷版和电子版的复制权、网络传播权、发行权等权利在世界范围内无限期转让给《文教资料》杂志社。本刊在与国内外文献数据库或检索系统进行交流合作时，不再征询作者意见，并且不再支付稿酬。九、特别欢迎用电子文档投稿，或邮寄编辑部,勿邮寄私人，以免延误稿件处理时间。

【媒库文选】为何经济学家认为47.2岁是最痛苦的

作者:

关键词:

摘要：

原标题：【媒库文选】为何经济学家认为47.2岁是最痛苦的年龄

Why economists believe 47.2 is our most miserable age

为何经济学家认为47.2岁是最痛苦的年龄

Tim Harford 蒂姆·哈福德

A few days ago， up popped a reminder that I had written myself back in January: “Blanchflower: Misery peaks at age 47.2”.

For years David Blanchflower， an economist， has been investigating the determinants of “subjective wellbeing” . Along with colleagues such as Carol Graham and Andrew Oswald， Blanchflower has focused on the way wellbeing seems to change over the course of each person's life. And with some of this work catching the headlines in January， I made a note to circle back to the topic.

Reader， I just turned 47. Peak misery awaits me at the end of November， when I will turn 47.2. And the idea doesn't seem nearly as funny to me now as it did during the happy， heady days of January.

The idea that happiness varies systematically over the course of our lives， with highs for the young and the old， and lows for those of us in middle age，is controversial. Part of the problem is that， as economist and happiness scholar Justin Wolfers puts it:“People tend to be incredibly unclear what they're trying to measure， or why.”

Should we， for example， try to measure “raw” wellbeing or adjust for other variables？ People with jobs， income， spouses and good health tend to be happier than people without， other things being equal — and people of my age are reasonably likely to have all of those things.

There is also the question of whether the data is showing us a problem that afflicts any group of people as they hit middle age， or something more specific to Generation X （born 1965-80）. A new study by Anne Case，Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and Arthur Stone finds that the fiftysomethings have been caught in the crossfire of two offsetting effects. People are more likely to suffer from painful ill health as they age， yet pain has worsened for each successive American generation. Those born in 1970 are more likely to suffer from pain at the age of （say） 40 than those born in 1960， who in turn suffer more than those born in 1950. What Case， Deaton and Stone are finding is not a mid life problem but a swelling wave of suffering rolling through the generations.

Blanchflower， Graham and Oswald are confident that their findings stack up， though: mid-life misery， they believe， is a robust reality. What is more，it's a substantial effect， “comparable to major life events like losing a spouse， losing a job or getting cancer”.

Misery has other ramifications， too. A new study， “（Un）Happiness and voting in US Presidential elections”， finds that the best predictor of voting for Donald Trump in 2016 was being unhappy or dissatisfied with your lot. That makes sense: if establishment politicians have failed to protect you from misery， it seems less crazy to roll the dice on a reality TV star， at least while he is the challenger rather than an incumbent.

But exactly how we should respond to this phenomenon is unclear. Oswald and colleagues have found evidence of a midlife crisis in orang-utans and chimpanzees in zoos. This suggests that there may be something fundamental happening. It also suggests there may be little we can do about it.

Oswald thinks that it is worth simply acknowledging that the midlife crisis is a robust statistical phenomenon. And he argues that we need “a mid-life policy of some kind”.

Perhaps. Generation X tends to fly under the radar in the culture war between boomers and millennials but we are the ones running the world. Most of the British cabinet， for example， are Gen-X-ers like me. So you'd think that taking care of 47-year-olds was something they'd have sorted out， almost by default. Then again， you'd think they'd have sorted out a coronavirus strategy and Brexit， too， but life is full of disappointments — particularly if you are about to hit 47.2.

前几天，突然弹出一条提示，是我1月时写给自己的：“布兰奇弗劳尔认为：人到47.2岁时，痛苦达到顶峰。”

多年来，经济学家戴维·布兰奇弗劳尔一直在研究“主观幸福感”的决定因素。布兰奇弗劳尔和同事卡萝尔·格雷厄姆及安德鲁·奥斯瓦尔德等人一道，着重探讨幸福感在每个人生命历程中似乎会产生变化这一点。有些研究成果在1月成了大新闻，于是我记下了这句，以便日后回看这个话题。

文章来源：《经济学家》网址: http://www.jjxjzz.cn/zonghexinwen/2020/1015/558.html