Happy White Day

White Day (ホワイトデー, Howaito dē^?) is a day celebrated in Japan on March 14, one month after Valentine's Day. It is also observed in South Korea.

Contents 1 In Japan 2 In South Korea 3 Origin 4 See also 5 References

 In Japan

In Japan, Valentine's Day is observed by females who present chocolate gifts (either store-bought or handmade), usually to a male, as an expression of love, courtesy or social obligation. A handmade chocolate is usually preferred by the receiver, because it is a sign that the receiving male is the girl's "only one". On White Day, the converse happens: males who received a honmei-choco (本命チョコ^?, "chocolate of love") or giri-choco (義理チョコ^?, "courtesy chocolate") on Valentine's Day are expected to return the favor by giving gifts, usually more expensive. Traditionally, popular White Day gifts are cookies, jewellery, white chocolate, white lingerie and marshmallows.^[1] Sometimes the term sanbai gaeshi (三倍返し^?, literally, "triple the return") is used to describe the generally recited rule that the return gift should be two to three times the cost of the Valentine's gift.^[2]

 In South Korea

White Day is also observed in South Korea with the men paying back women who have given them chocolate on Valentine's Day with candy instead of chocolate, with an additional later Black Day observed for those sharing singleness.^[3]

 Origin

White Day was first celebrated in 1978 in Japan. It was started by the National Confectionery Industry Association (全国飴菓子工業協同組合) as an "answer day" to Valentine's Day on the grounds that men should pay back the women who gave them chocolate and other gifts on Valentine's Day. In 1977, a Fukuoka-based confectionery company, Ishimura Manseido (石村萬盛堂), marketed marshmallows to men on March 14, calling it Marshmallow Day (マシュマロデー).^[4]
Soon thereafter, confectionery companies began marketing white chocolate. Now, men give both white and dark chocolate, as well as other edible and non-edible gifts, such as jewelry or objects of sentimental value, or white clothing like lingerie, to women from whom they received chocolate on Valentine's Day one month earlier. If the chocolate given to him was giri-choco, the man, likewise, may not be expressing actual romantic interest, but rather a social obligation.

Can Money buy Happiness ?

Can Money Buy Happiness? Gallup Poll Asks, and the World Answers

ScienceDaily (July 2, 2010) — A worldwide survey of more than 136,000 people in 132 countries included questions about happiness and income, and the results reveal that while life satisfaction usually rises with income, positive feelings don't necessarily follow, researchers report.

---

See Also:

Mind & Brain

• Social Psychology
• Psychology
• Consumer Behavior

Science & Society

• Disaster Plan
• World Development
• Public Health

Reference

• Happiness
• Psychologist
• Inferiority complex
• Self-concept

The findings, from an analysis of data gathered in the first Gallup World Poll, appear this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
"The public always wonders: Does money make you happy?" said University of Illinois professor emeritus of psychology Ed Diener, a senior scientist with the Gallup Organization. "This study shows that it all depends on how you define happiness, because if you look at life satisfaction, how you evaluate your life as a whole, you see a pretty strong correlation around the world between income and happiness," he said. "On the other hand it's pretty shocking how small the correlation is with positive feelings and enjoying yourself."
The Gallup World Poll conducted surveys on a wide range of subjects in a representative sample of people from 132 countries from 2005 to 2006. The poll used telephone surveys in more affluent areas, and door-to-door interviews in rural or less-developed regions.
The countries surveyed represent about 96 percent of the world's population, the researchers report, and reflect the diversity of cultural, economic and political realities around the globe.
This "first representative sample of planet earth," the authors wrote, "was used to explore the reasons why 'happiness' is associated with higher income." The researchers were able to look at a long list of attributes of respondents, including their income and standard of living, whether their basic needs for food and shelter were met, what kinds of conveniences they owned and whether they felt their psychological needs were satisfied.
The surveys included a global life evaluation, which asked respondents to rate their lives on a scale that ranged from zero (worst possible life) to 10 (best possible life). Participants also answered questions about positive or negative emotions experienced the previous day. And the poll asked respondents whether they felt respected, whether they had family and friends they could count on in an emergency, and how free they felt to choose their daily activities, learn new things or do "what one does best."
Like previous studies, the new analysis found that life evaluation, or life satisfaction, rises with personal and national income. But positive feelings, which also increase somewhat as income rises, are much more strongly associated with other factors, such as feeling respected, having autonomy and social support, and working at a fulfilling job.
This is the first "happiness" study of the world to differentiate between life satisfaction, the philosophical belief that your life is going well, and the day-to-day positive or negative feelings that one experiences, Diener said.
"Everybody has been looking at just life satisfaction and income," he said. "And while it is true that getting richer will make you more satisfied with your life, it may not have the big impact we thought on enjoying life."
Weiting Ng, of the Singapore Institute of Management; and James Harter and Raksha Arora, of The Gallup Organization, were co-authors on the study with Diener

Love or Money ?

Relationships and investing are both complex subjects in their own right - mixing the two can sometimes be a recipe for disaster. Here's what you should (and shouldn't) do with your money when you are seriously involved with someone.

Love and Money Point 1: Single vs. Joint Accounts

Couples and experts alike have debated over single and joint accounts for as long as most people can remember. The two sides are both striving for the same goal - creating a stronger marriage while maintaining financial responsibility. The arguments go something like this: 1.) joint accounts create a sense of unity that is vital to a relationship. If you separate the money, you take away a degree of integration that should be present in any long-term relationship, or 2.) separate accounts allow each the ability to retain their independence, actually strengthening the relationship. Which side is right? That depends.
Before you can even consider planning a financial future with someone, you have to look at what type of personality you each have. If you managed your finances, made your own investment decisions, and had qualified retirement accounts before you got involved, you will probably be very hesitant to give up that control to anyone - including the person with whom you may spend the rest of your life. On the other hand, if you were prone to spur-of-the-moment spending and liberal use of credit, odds are you would more readily opt to open joint accounts. In the end, the accounts should only be merged if (and this is absolutely vital) both parties have the same type of financial personality.

Love and Money Point 2: Both Parties Should Be Accountable for the Money

Before you get excited, realize this doesn't mean that one of you has the right to ask for money whenever you feel like it. Often, I'll receive letters from couples who complain that the woman (or man) feels like a child receiving an allowance. In some cases, this is a valid argument. More often than not, when the entire story is told, it turns out that the party in question simply cannot handle money.

Love and Money Example: The Story of Kent and Elizabeth

We can all take a lesson from Kent and Elizabeth Washington. Before they met, Kent owned a restaurant and made around $40,000 a year. His wife was an elementary school teacher who brought home about $23,000. Elizabeth was given $200 every week to buy groceries, and take care of small household expenses. She became so frustrated at receiving her 'allowance' that she actually gave Kent separation papers because he refused to change the way the finances were run. She felt that, as an educated woman earning her own salary, the money was rightfully hers. The truth of the matter was, at one point, both had separate checking accounts. Elizabeth took her weekly paycheck of $442.31 and deposited it into her account, just as if she were single. The total household expenses were just over $35,800 annually including rent, food, etc. Because she brought in 36.5% of the income, Kent decided that she should pay the same percentage of the bills. This worked out to around $13,067 annually. Two weeks into the new arrangement, Elizabeth had spent her paycheck and not paid any of the bills. She went to her husband and told him he needed to pay them. Kent refused. In the end, the bills were not paid, and she had no money left. This led to the current arrangement of an "allowance".
The moral? As cruel as this sounds, Kent was absolutely right. If you or your spouse cannot be responsible with the finances, you do not deserve to have control over them. This is especially true if you have children. The fact of the matter is, if Elizabeth had been on her own, her monthly expenses would have been higher because the cost-savings of living with someone else would have been eliminated. In only a few months she would likely be facing the possibility of bankruptcy.