Even from purely economic point of view, some argue that there is a limit to growth. Others argue that economic growth can lead to more inequalities. Viner (1968) rejects the use of income for measuring happiness for a number of reasons:

• Due to the diminishing-utility principle increase of income does not lead to the same proportionate increase in happiness. On the other hand with more income there are more evils which need to be warded off for the same amount of positive satisfaction. For example, doubling of income may require greater expenditure on transportation and health.

• The amount of total welfare depends on how the income is distributed among different classes of people. In the ancient or primitive society when the income was low inequality was also low. As the overall standards started improving income inequality also started increasing. However, at the global level today one observes that the less developed countries are more rigidly stratified and more unequal than the developed countries.

• The income changes do not consider the transfer of commodities from the class of the “free goods” class to the class of the “economic goods”.

• Income criterion does not include the services offered by state.

• The improvement of income may be accompanied by the increase of disutilities and dissatisfactions accruing from the change in the production process. People are happier with more income if they do not have to work harder, for longer time or in more hazardous industries than before. If they have to work harder and longer and if they are susceptible to greater hazards, they may actually be unhappy having higher income.

• Satisfaction is not the same thing as desire. Income measures assume that price or real income can measure the satisfaction. In fact they measure the desire and not the satisfaction.