How much money do people need to be happy?(qz.com)
qz.com
How much money do people need to be happy?
https://qz.com/1211957/how-much-money-do-people-need-to-be-happy/
272 comments
There are still lots of QOL improvements to be made above, say, $150k. It may depend a lot on if you have kids and where you live. This is especially true when compounded with typical retirement savings and kid expenses.
For example:
- Housekeepers who come often
- Paying someone to manage the yard
- Private school and college funds for kids
- International vacations for the whole family
- Paying for family to visit you if you are working adults
For example:
- Housekeepers who come often
- Paying someone to manage the yard
- Private school and college funds for kids
- International vacations for the whole family
- Paying for family to visit you if you are working adults
Definitely depends heavily on region and your family situation. Using just actual dollar values makes this discussion difficult. A $150k lifestyle in the Bay Area with a spouse and 2 kids is vastly vastly different standard of living than $150k as a single dude in an apartment in a suburb of Atlanta. In the Bay Area for example, you’re not doing ANY of those things you listed making just $150k.
I've brought this up multiple times before, but even on 150k in the bay area, you're still living well. After tax, and rent at 4k/month, your remaining pay is greater than the gross income of most mid level software engineers in Europe. If you can't manage to survive on that, you're doing soemthign wrong.
Yea, it’s not bad, but you don’t have a nanny, gardener, and private school for the kids on $150k.
The normal explanation is that the happiness derived per dollar decreases with every dollar.
The idea being that a couple making $200k jointly per year spending $800/mo on a maid gives them far, far less happiness than a homeless person getting their first warm meal and shower this month.
The idea being that a couple making $200k jointly per year spending $800/mo on a maid gives them far, far less happiness than a homeless person getting their first warm meal and shower this month.
A working couple with young kids getting a regular maid for the first time can be life changing. It's not the same as your homeless example, but may be easy to underestimate or trivialize.
I second the housekeeper. I spent $40K on mine last year, and it was the best thing I have ever spent money on. I've done dishes once in the past year, and I generally come home to a made bed. Imagine getting all of that, but then know that you are providing a near livable wage with flexible schedule. She can be a good mom and make money.
Or just don't spend it. You don't have to spend more just because you make more. If you save (invest) the money, you can retire earlier.
> Of course, stepping from 40K to 100K in salary is practically life altering. Unless you absolutely suck at budgets you can easily get out of debt and start having real vacations. You can afford hobbies, etc.
I live in the Netherlands where 40K is quite a reasonable income. I really dont get why you would need 100k to do the things you need. Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
People here in general don't have any debt (except for mortgages) and a vacation to an Asian country is 1-2k/month'(yes people sometimes do take 2 months vacations here). Even a month of Australia is only 3-4k. Hobbies? I don't know what kind of exotic hobbies people have in the bay area but even flying drones (relative expensive) is relative affordable if you get started with a cheap Chinese drone before you buy an Expensive one.
Rent, family size, location, etc probably makes a huge difference but I really don't think 100k is the magical number that you need to become happy.
I live in the Netherlands where 40K is quite a reasonable income. I really dont get why you would need 100k to do the things you need. Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
People here in general don't have any debt (except for mortgages) and a vacation to an Asian country is 1-2k/month'(yes people sometimes do take 2 months vacations here). Even a month of Australia is only 3-4k. Hobbies? I don't know what kind of exotic hobbies people have in the bay area but even flying drones (relative expensive) is relative affordable if you get started with a cheap Chinese drone before you buy an Expensive one.
Rent, family size, location, etc probably makes a huge difference but I really don't think 100k is the magical number that you need to become happy.
> I live in the Netherlands where 40K is quite a reasonable income. I really dont get why you would need 100k to do the things you need. Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
What I have found is that the majority of "happiness from money" comes from the financial security, not actually spending the money. The reduction in stress going from a chronically broke PhD student to having 5 years of living expenses in savings is huge.
It's the knowledge that you can immediately solve almost every problem that pops up with a bit of money, and figure out the details later. Missed your flight? Book another one. Car trouble? Call assistance and take an uber. Lost your job? Take a short vacation and then hit up your network on LinkedIn.
And in most countries in Europe, you can feel secure with a lot less in income/savings than in the US. You don't need to worry about what your health insurance does not cover, probably don't have any student loan debt - and probably don't need to worry about a college fund for kids, can commute by public transport in cities, have better unemployment protections, and so on.
What I have found is that the majority of "happiness from money" comes from the financial security, not actually spending the money. The reduction in stress going from a chronically broke PhD student to having 5 years of living expenses in savings is huge.
It's the knowledge that you can immediately solve almost every problem that pops up with a bit of money, and figure out the details later. Missed your flight? Book another one. Car trouble? Call assistance and take an uber. Lost your job? Take a short vacation and then hit up your network on LinkedIn.
And in most countries in Europe, you can feel secure with a lot less in income/savings than in the US. You don't need to worry about what your health insurance does not cover, probably don't have any student loan debt - and probably don't need to worry about a college fund for kids, can commute by public transport in cities, have better unemployment protections, and so on.
> It's the knowledge that you can immediately solve almost every problem that pops up with a bit of money, and figure out the details later. Missed your flight? Book another one. Car trouble? Call assistance and take an uber. Lost your job? Take a short vacation and then hit up your network on LinkedIn.
And then your expectations shift, you require more expensive things to acquire that base level of prosperity and satisfaction, and you have a whole new set of problems which feel just as stressful, relatively speaking.
And then your expectations shift, you require more expensive things to acquire that base level of prosperity and satisfaction, and you have a whole new set of problems which feel just as stressful, relatively speaking.
This seems to be a common assumption but I have not found it to be true in my experience at all. My spending habits appear stagnant and mostly rooted in my childhood experiences, and it's a continual battle to spend more.
There's that idea that giving poor people money will have them just spend it gambling or buying drugs, doesn't seem to be true, either.
A lot of these just sound like justifications to pay people less, or an odd way to shame people for wanting something material. Money is power, and power is always valuable.
There's that idea that giving poor people money will have them just spend it gambling or buying drugs, doesn't seem to be true, either.
A lot of these just sound like justifications to pay people less, or an odd way to shame people for wanting something material. Money is power, and power is always valuable.
Do you mind me asking how your spending habits have remained constant? Do you rent or own? What part of the country do you live in? Have you any kids?
I am speaking about spending habits, you seem to be talking about relative cost of life events. I don't have kids but kids are usually not what people are referring to since kids are a cost increase for all parties, rich and poor.
Basically, if I usually buy a certain Ikea table if I need a table, I still buy that Ikea table, and it still feels too expensive to me, regardless of the fact that I earn a lot more now. If I get an apartment that I like, I don't have any desire to get a more expensive one. I only want a more expensive one if the current one is really bothering me for some reason. I'm still uncomfortable with purchases of certain amounts, or buying things for myself in general (particularly, clothes and furniture). It's physically painful to spend certain amounts of money.
There's a set point in my brain for how things are supposed to cost, and that point is very hard to move. I.e., it takes actual effort to explain to my brain that I can spend more now. There's nothing automatic like the general wisdom suggests.
Basically, if I usually buy a certain Ikea table if I need a table, I still buy that Ikea table, and it still feels too expensive to me, regardless of the fact that I earn a lot more now. If I get an apartment that I like, I don't have any desire to get a more expensive one. I only want a more expensive one if the current one is really bothering me for some reason. I'm still uncomfortable with purchases of certain amounts, or buying things for myself in general (particularly, clothes and furniture). It's physically painful to spend certain amounts of money.
There's a set point in my brain for how things are supposed to cost, and that point is very hard to move. I.e., it takes actual effort to explain to my brain that I can spend more now. There's nothing automatic like the general wisdom suggests.
Getting to that point of equilibrium takes some spending, however. Lots of college debt, rent, moving expenses to get where you want your career to be, etc.
This is probably not true based on what I have read. Of course some people get stuck on a hedonistic treadmill, but most people don't. I think when you can take time off from work and afford safe living and food is no longer a concern, indulge in hobbies, that is enough for most people to be happy. Studies I read say that experiences will provide longer term happiness over "stuff". You can always jump off the treadmill of needing the next better possession.
I agree except with the "most". I see far too many people driving new BMWs and Mercedes that I know on average make sub $100k salaries. I'd say most are in the treadmill, but definitely "many" are happy living within their means.
Fair enough. It is a common "problem".
Just an edit: I think it goes back to our shortening attention spans and modern conveniences quite a lot. Being bored and comfortable with it at some level is an important life skill.
Just an edit: I think it goes back to our shortening attention spans and modern conveniences quite a lot. Being bored and comfortable with it at some level is an important life skill.
It's probably important to note the Netherlands has a high degree of decommodification (i.e. a lot of state provisions), with the US having some of the lowest in the developed world.
The result of that is that distributive justice is a lot stronger, and the impact of a regressive tax system is magnified. A median salary in the US might generate unsatisfactory, whereas in the Netherlands even a below-median salary has quite good outcomes because of this.
For example, the median healthcare insurance expenditure in the Netherlands is about $1.5k a year, and healthcare outcomes are quite good. Tuition fees in university for undergrad and graduate degrees are about $2.5k a year across the board, with a tiny fraction of students being the exception like dental or piloting schools. Student loans are currently at 0% and set to go to 1% next year. Tuition-waving subsidies exist for children of poor parents. Childcare is heavily subsidised. Traffic policy and public infrastructure is such that a car is not necessary, and employers tend to reimburse all public transportation costs for most employees. Lastly, it just feels like culturally the Netherlands is slightly more sensible with its consumerism and interest in toys. Most seems to be spent on things with higher lifetime values, meaning the effective value of money seems to do a bit better, but that's just intuition from anecdotes.
In short, when you get your after-tax income, you tend to be able to spend a very large portion of it on things you don't really need, but just enjoy. Nice food, vacations, hobbies. There just isn't an need for a $100k salary for your kids to go to a nice school, have childcare or a good insurance, or a car to get your family places. Nor do you need $100k to cover interest payments + principal on 6% student debt of $100k.
That having been said, your numbers on Asian/Australian vacations definitely cater to a certain tourist. I've done a month in Asia on 1k, but I was 19. Similarly I could do 3k in Australia, but I'd be a certain kind of vacation. You AirBnb and eat some simple Asian takeaway like food and travel by bus. That's not everyones idea of a holiday. It's a different vacation from getting taxis to hotels and eating in restaurants.
The result of that is that distributive justice is a lot stronger, and the impact of a regressive tax system is magnified. A median salary in the US might generate unsatisfactory, whereas in the Netherlands even a below-median salary has quite good outcomes because of this.
For example, the median healthcare insurance expenditure in the Netherlands is about $1.5k a year, and healthcare outcomes are quite good. Tuition fees in university for undergrad and graduate degrees are about $2.5k a year across the board, with a tiny fraction of students being the exception like dental or piloting schools. Student loans are currently at 0% and set to go to 1% next year. Tuition-waving subsidies exist for children of poor parents. Childcare is heavily subsidised. Traffic policy and public infrastructure is such that a car is not necessary, and employers tend to reimburse all public transportation costs for most employees. Lastly, it just feels like culturally the Netherlands is slightly more sensible with its consumerism and interest in toys. Most seems to be spent on things with higher lifetime values, meaning the effective value of money seems to do a bit better, but that's just intuition from anecdotes.
In short, when you get your after-tax income, you tend to be able to spend a very large portion of it on things you don't really need, but just enjoy. Nice food, vacations, hobbies. There just isn't an need for a $100k salary for your kids to go to a nice school, have childcare or a good insurance, or a car to get your family places. Nor do you need $100k to cover interest payments + principal on 6% student debt of $100k.
That having been said, your numbers on Asian/Australian vacations definitely cater to a certain tourist. I've done a month in Asia on 1k, but I was 19. Similarly I could do 3k in Australia, but I'd be a certain kind of vacation. You AirBnb and eat some simple Asian takeaway like food and travel by bus. That's not everyones idea of a holiday. It's a different vacation from getting taxis to hotels and eating in restaurants.
It's cultural, I think. In the US, we are very consumer driven. We are bombarded with propaganda constantly telling us that the one thing missing from our lives is whatever that person is selling. Some of those people are selling credit. That wouldn't be so bad, except that Americans are also highly competitive. We hate losing, and someone else having more stuff than us is losing. Our entire measure of the value of a human being is their wealth.
Consequently, many Americans spend nearly everything they make on stuff that ultimately contributes very little, if anything, to their contentment. Since buying those things didn't actually make them happy, they figure they need more money, and more debt, to buy more things. It's a trap we've created for ourselves.
Oh, and our health care system is ridiculously expensive.
Consequently, many Americans spend nearly everything they make on stuff that ultimately contributes very little, if anything, to their contentment. Since buying those things didn't actually make them happy, they figure they need more money, and more debt, to buy more things. It's a trap we've created for ourselves.
Oh, and our health care system is ridiculously expensive.
I guess that is the whole point? I.e., you stop needing to be frugal and/or don’t have to count € when spending money on basic things like food or transportation. Also, more things become ‘basic’.
Another point that makes a difference is that if you ever want to get a mortgage and buy a house, the maximum the banks will give you is a constant multiplier times your annual salary. In Ireland it’s 3.5x — good luck trying to buy a house on a €140k budget in Dublin.
In my case, my total effective comp increased about 8x in the last 5 years after being corrected for taxes and CPIs of the countries I lived in, and I kind of concur with the OP in that it’s more of a log curve than linear. Things get progressively ‘easier’ but less lifestyle-changing over time.
Another point that makes a difference is that if you ever want to get a mortgage and buy a house, the maximum the banks will give you is a constant multiplier times your annual salary. In Ireland it’s 3.5x — good luck trying to buy a house on a €140k budget in Dublin.
In my case, my total effective comp increased about 8x in the last 5 years after being corrected for taxes and CPIs of the countries I lived in, and I kind of concur with the OP in that it’s more of a log curve than linear. Things get progressively ‘easier’ but less lifestyle-changing over time.
> the maximum the banks will give you is a constant multiplier times your annual salary.
The multiplier isn't constant or fixed but dependent on interest rates. So there are certainly multipliers that work in certain periods, like about 4x now in the Netherlands. But that'll go down once rates rise, it's only a constant insofar as the long-term interest rates appear somewhat constant (or rather, sticky) in a given period of time. At the end of the day they look at ability-to-pay, and interest rates factor in to that, which are variable.
The multiplier isn't constant or fixed but dependent on interest rates. So there are certainly multipliers that work in certain periods, like about 4x now in the Netherlands. But that'll go down once rates rise, it's only a constant insofar as the long-term interest rates appear somewhat constant (or rather, sticky) in a given period of time. At the end of the day they look at ability-to-pay, and interest rates factor in to that, which are variable.
So, I think a difficult aspect of frugality is that is borders close with cheapness. Cheapness is a problem, and imagine if all your customers became cheaper and you lost a few. Well, you would have to become more frugal which means firing providers of services. It becomes a negative trend.
I live near Seattle where $100K is probably a reasonable income (give or take $30K).
Now, I make more than that by a large margin where my cash target side of the house is roughly $300K not including stocks. I live pretty well, so what do I do with the extra money?
Well, I trickle down. I have four employees for my house and land. When you not only provide for yourself, but you provide for others then I claim that there is extra happiness to be had. My house keeper, for instance, makes $40K with an average of 20 hours of week, flexible timing, and a monthly stipend for benefits.
You can buy happiness, but only if you spend it on people rather than things.
I live near Seattle where $100K is probably a reasonable income (give or take $30K).
Now, I make more than that by a large margin where my cash target side of the house is roughly $300K not including stocks. I live pretty well, so what do I do with the extra money?
Well, I trickle down. I have four employees for my house and land. When you not only provide for yourself, but you provide for others then I claim that there is extra happiness to be had. My house keeper, for instance, makes $40K with an average of 20 hours of week, flexible timing, and a monthly stipend for benefits.
You can buy happiness, but only if you spend it on people rather than things.
Wow, that's an awesome salary! What do you do for a living, and how did you get there?
Principal Software Engineer: I write ridiculous amounts of code, and I lead teams with an emphasis of building up people.
I also live in the Netherlands and feel the same. I make less than 2k a month and already don't know what to do with my money. That being said, it probably helps if you have a reasonable healthcare system. If you get ill in the US, you're basically screwed.
I make less than 2k a month and already don't know what to do with my money.
In my experience, the best way to fix that "problem" is to get some kids :)
In my experience, the best way to fix that "problem" is to get some kids :)
Just a house for your family will eat up all of that 40k here in Toronto (that’s basically interest-only on the average $1m house in the suburbs). You’d have nothing left.
Although we still live very well in absolute terms, a lot of people I know have and will have a worse quality of life than their parents did, despite being more successful and earning more money! It’s kind of depressing.
Although we still live very well in absolute terms, a lot of people I know have and will have a worse quality of life than their parents did, despite being more successful and earning more money! It’s kind of depressing.
A month in Australia for 3-4k? I want a cost breakdown for this. Say you get a deal and airfare is $500, that leaves about $100/day for the month. You could probably find a hotel at that rate, but then you're left with nothing to spend on food and activities. What am I missing? Friends and relatives who'll let you stay with them?
I believe it would only be possible to maintain yourself as a backpacker on $100 per day. This might be lower in the bush but true in most urban locations in Australia.
Van rental is $40/day. Leaves a budget of $60/day for fuel, food and fun. Quite easy if you prepare most meals yourself and limit purchases that are prohibitively expensive in Australia, e.g. alcohol, cigarettes, taxis, restaurants, etc.
I don't know how health care works anywhere else, but health expenses can range from $250 for a standard checkup, which I just got (note: it's supposed to be covered for free, but apparently insurance companies are now rejecting claims willy nilly in order to save money) to $10,000 for delivering a baby, to astronomical numbers for anything else.
It really leads to a persistent feeling of danger, so yes, making 100k instead of 40k could literally save your life, or at least keep you from being an indebted loan shark victim for the rest of your life.
It really leads to a persistent feeling of danger, so yes, making 100k instead of 40k could literally save your life, or at least keep you from being an indebted loan shark victim for the rest of your life.
> It really leads to a persistent feeling of danger, so yes, making 100k instead of 40k could literally save your life, or at least keep you from being an indebted loan shark victim for the rest of your life.
Right, that problem just doesn't exist in the Netherlands.
Basically everyone pays, I would guess, around $150 a month median for insurance, with a standard deviation of probably around $25. That covers anything life threatening and quite a bit more.
There's a bit of co-pay on things like dental and there's a mandatory own-risk of about $500 a year on certain procedures.
If you're about 10% below the median income in the Netherlands you get an insurance subsidy which tops out slightly above $100 a month.
Right, that problem just doesn't exist in the Netherlands.
Basically everyone pays, I would guess, around $150 a month median for insurance, with a standard deviation of probably around $25. That covers anything life threatening and quite a bit more.
There's a bit of co-pay on things like dental and there's a mandatory own-risk of about $500 a year on certain procedures.
If you're about 10% below the median income in the Netherlands you get an insurance subsidy which tops out slightly above $100 a month.
And also, most importantly, even if you lose your job you are still 100% covered. If you get some weird condition that requires a dozen operations and expensive medicine, it won't have any effect on your payments either. There's no such thing as denied coverage due to preexisting condition or anything silly like that - essentially if you are a lawful resident you can just go to hospital and get treated for free, regardless of your financial status.
But on the other hand taxes are significantly higher than in US, in order to finance that system. It's a trade off...
Absolutely.
The point I'm trying to make here though, which I lightly implied, is that regressive tax systems and distributive justice lead to overal higher happiness.
i.e., if there are diminishing marginal returns of happiness from money, it makes sense that Total Happiness in a country is optimised through a substantially regressive system. That's one of the interesting things about it.
The point I'm trying to make here though, which I lightly implied, is that regressive tax systems and distributive justice lead to overal higher happiness.
i.e., if there are diminishing marginal returns of happiness from money, it makes sense that Total Happiness in a country is optimised through a substantially regressive system. That's one of the interesting things about it.
> regressive tax systems and distributive justice lead to overal higher happiness.
I suspect by "regressive tax" you mean "a tax rate that increases as the amount subject to taxation increases" . Wikipedia defines "regressive tax" to be the opposite one- where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
Or you're making a fairly non-obvious and interesting claim!
I suspect by "regressive tax" you mean "a tax rate that increases as the amount subject to taxation increases" . Wikipedia defines "regressive tax" to be the opposite one- where the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.
Or you're making a fairly non-obvious and interesting claim!
I believe NL taxes are in fact regressive in the usual sense of the word. I'm curious what the justification for this claim is as well.
> I believe NL taxes are in fact regressive in the usual sense of the word.
They're definitely not?
> I'm curious what the justification for this claim is as well.
My claim makes no sense cause I used the wrong (opposite) word! Apologies, please read it the other way around.
They're definitely not?
> I'm curious what the justification for this claim is as well.
My claim makes no sense cause I used the wrong (opposite) word! Apologies, please read it the other way around.
I wrote that comment a bit carelessly. the income tax itself is progressive, but things like VAT are regressive and ultimately make up a far greater share of tax collected.
the EU as a whole actually has a more regressive tax system than the united states (although they spend the proceeds very differently), but in the netherlands, the regressive and progressive taxes essentially cancel out so that overall taxes are flat.
here are some sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/other... https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/12/i... https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/12/05/...
the EU as a whole actually has a more regressive tax system than the united states (although they spend the proceeds very differently), but in the netherlands, the regressive and progressive taxes essentially cancel out so that overall taxes are flat.
here are some sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/09/19/other... https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/12/i... https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/12/05/...
Very interesting, thanks!
I looked into the Dutch case. It indeed appears that there's no progressive effective tax, but rather a flat tax. Each group pays about an equal share of the tax burden as their share of the income.
The study published in EBS is a great start, but it is omitting some important elements. Taxation of cars is left out, despite them being a luxury good whose costs are carried by the more affluent class. Transaction tax on real estate, same thing, omitted and mostly a rich-people thing. Real estate taxes, same thing. Nor are capital gains taxes or company's income taxes included, thereby omitting income effects from entrepreneurship and ownership in companies, these capital effects and its taxes of course scale with affluence.
What it does include on the other hand, are various insurances. e.g. insurance to unemployment (including the 'final unemployment': pensions) and sickness. These aren't really taxes per se, but rather individual insurances earmarked per person.
Finally, it hints at combining tax rates with redistribution. For example, healthcare subsidies get deducted from medical insurance premiums in the study. But it's only one of many different forms of redistribution. They don't make similar deductions for rent subsidies (which are quite substantial). I felt that was lacking, either include it all or nothing at all.
Which brings in perspectives... this study essentially adds sales tax to the traditional income tax as a way of determining collective burdens, which is super interesting. But the authors do not change the denominator from income to something else that's related to sales tax. So it's a claim about income+expense tax, as a percentage of income. Rather than say taking all your taxes, including those related to expenses, as a percentage of total expenses. If you did this, you'd see tax systems become progressive again, as rich people have a higher savings rate (i.e., income that's not spent, and thus not hit with sales tax). The authors do mention in the beginning of the article, but don't discuss the implications after. If you wanted, you could see this as a form of deferred taxes.After all, un-spent after-tax income isn't taxed with sales-tax, until it's spent. When its spent, it's taxed, removing the regressive element. And if it's not spent but saved/invested instead, you don't pay sales tax, but you do have to pay tax on capital in the Netherlands. Which is exactly the tax that this study left out!
So, extremely interesting and it's definitely the case that we can't blatantly call the Netherlands progressive without sales tax context. But to make the opposite claim, to say the Netherlands is regressive or flat, probably can't be made as easily either. It really depends on your perspectives.
I looked into the Dutch case. It indeed appears that there's no progressive effective tax, but rather a flat tax. Each group pays about an equal share of the tax burden as their share of the income.
The study published in EBS is a great start, but it is omitting some important elements. Taxation of cars is left out, despite them being a luxury good whose costs are carried by the more affluent class. Transaction tax on real estate, same thing, omitted and mostly a rich-people thing. Real estate taxes, same thing. Nor are capital gains taxes or company's income taxes included, thereby omitting income effects from entrepreneurship and ownership in companies, these capital effects and its taxes of course scale with affluence.
What it does include on the other hand, are various insurances. e.g. insurance to unemployment (including the 'final unemployment': pensions) and sickness. These aren't really taxes per se, but rather individual insurances earmarked per person.
Finally, it hints at combining tax rates with redistribution. For example, healthcare subsidies get deducted from medical insurance premiums in the study. But it's only one of many different forms of redistribution. They don't make similar deductions for rent subsidies (which are quite substantial). I felt that was lacking, either include it all or nothing at all.
Which brings in perspectives... this study essentially adds sales tax to the traditional income tax as a way of determining collective burdens, which is super interesting. But the authors do not change the denominator from income to something else that's related to sales tax. So it's a claim about income+expense tax, as a percentage of income. Rather than say taking all your taxes, including those related to expenses, as a percentage of total expenses. If you did this, you'd see tax systems become progressive again, as rich people have a higher savings rate (i.e., income that's not spent, and thus not hit with sales tax). The authors do mention in the beginning of the article, but don't discuss the implications after. If you wanted, you could see this as a form of deferred taxes.After all, un-spent after-tax income isn't taxed with sales-tax, until it's spent. When its spent, it's taxed, removing the regressive element. And if it's not spent but saved/invested instead, you don't pay sales tax, but you do have to pay tax on capital in the Netherlands. Which is exactly the tax that this study left out!
So, extremely interesting and it's definitely the case that we can't blatantly call the Netherlands progressive without sales tax context. But to make the opposite claim, to say the Netherlands is regressive or flat, probably can't be made as easily either. It really depends on your perspectives.
Oops, thanks for the correction!
This is the big mistake people always make: focusing on the tax rate. Wake up. The tax rate does not matter. At all! What matters is the end result: your buying power. How much good stuff (goods and services) are you getting in return for the time you spend working? THAT is what matters.
Only if you plan to live in that country for the rest of your life, and you're absolutely sure that the economy will never change, so your buying power always stays the same.
Had to get a TB test prior to starting a new job. Everything was covered for me but there's the cost of health care itself in the US plus the little cuts that add up to. If can't get validation, parking is expensive. A little sign above the check-in desk said that there would be a $25 charge to fill out worker's comp forms.
At least they had movies on and weren't blasting Fox News.
At least they had movies on and weren't blasting Fox News.
>I really dont get why you would need 100k to do the things you need. Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
No one said you need it. They're saying at that income a lot of pain points go away. As others pointed out, much of it has to do with a reduction of stress. A lot of small problems can be solved with money. It doesn't mean that people will solve them with money - but knowing that you can eases the brain quite a bit.
And then of course, there's health care. With good employer paid insurance, the deductible for a couple is about $3300. So if you have any kind of chronic medical condition, you'll pay that much each year at least. If your employer did not pay and you had to purchase it (e.g. you are self-employed), it'll cost perhaps $500/mo for the premium, with a deductible anywhere from $6000 to $10K.
>Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
There is that as well. People here tend to change their smartphone every 2 years, and always buy a brand new expensive one. They'll pay a pretty high fee for cable TV. They'll insist on 50-100 Mb/s Internet, when, in my experience, 15Mb/s was fine for a couple (no degradation in quality for services like Netflix). They'll generally pay $15-30K for new or recently new cars. And many people change cars too often.
No one said you need it. They're saying at that income a lot of pain points go away. As others pointed out, much of it has to do with a reduction of stress. A lot of small problems can be solved with money. It doesn't mean that people will solve them with money - but knowing that you can eases the brain quite a bit.
And then of course, there's health care. With good employer paid insurance, the deductible for a couple is about $3300. So if you have any kind of chronic medical condition, you'll pay that much each year at least. If your employer did not pay and you had to purchase it (e.g. you are self-employed), it'll cost perhaps $500/mo for the premium, with a deductible anywhere from $6000 to $10K.
>Perhaps people need to become a bit more frugal?
There is that as well. People here tend to change their smartphone every 2 years, and always buy a brand new expensive one. They'll pay a pretty high fee for cable TV. They'll insist on 50-100 Mb/s Internet, when, in my experience, 15Mb/s was fine for a couple (no degradation in quality for services like Netflix). They'll generally pay $15-30K for new or recently new cars. And many people change cars too often.
student loan debt. there are many that graduate with $20k-$100k+ of debt. I'm frugal/cheap, got by with 30k salary in big city a year out of school was tough. Many coworkers that were more normal in spending habits were breaking even or using savings to make ends meet.
At 30k salary, I was able to save $400-$500/month in Boston. It would have been near zero if I had student debt (6%+ interest). Frightening thinking back, but I was always one major repair on my car or mid level health issue away from spending an entire years worth of savings.
At 30k salary, I was able to save $400-$500/month in Boston. It would have been near zero if I had student debt (6%+ interest). Frightening thinking back, but I was always one major repair on my car or mid level health issue away from spending an entire years worth of savings.
The obvious fix is that graduating shouldn't require someone to go into 100k+ debts.
The entire cost for my graduation is probably come in under 1000€ total, 800€ will be tuition and the rest directly university related spending. (There is an additional 2k€ spending on stuff like a new laptop, software, etc. that wasn't necessarily required but made things easier).
The entire cost for my graduation is probably come in under 1000€ total, 800€ will be tuition and the rest directly university related spending. (There is an additional 2k€ spending on stuff like a new laptop, software, etc. that wasn't necessarily required but made things easier).
Fixes are obvious, implementing it is the hard part. The propaganda for everyone to get a college degree is ingrained into the system. This sprouted countless for profit colleges charging obscene rates of $20k-$30k per year.
Another obvious fix would be to spread good jobs around the country so we don’t have such concentrated HCOL cities. That’s as easily done as the suggestion of lowering cost of graduation to your sugessted price point. We have an entire political party against free or near free education, which means more taxes to pay for it. I don’t fully disagree with some of their stances. Many degrees don’t provide financial value, and can be learned online or have meet ups to discuss topics. A college degree for a college degree sake is what’s happening to much of the populous.
Another obvious fix would be to spread good jobs around the country so we don’t have such concentrated HCOL cities. That’s as easily done as the suggestion of lowering cost of graduation to your sugessted price point. We have an entire political party against free or near free education, which means more taxes to pay for it. I don’t fully disagree with some of their stances. Many degrees don’t provide financial value, and can be learned online or have meet ups to discuss topics. A college degree for a college degree sake is what’s happening to much of the populous.
Obviously it wouldn't be easy. The US education and employment system would have to ease of college degrees. Where I live, about 80% of my class had a job by the time they graduated secondary school. 20% went on for a higher education afterwards, of which only about 30% (or 6% of the original class) moved into College/University (the difference is muddy here).
And at every step, people jumped straight into employment from school.
US High School should focus on that. If a student graduates they should already have a job offer signed, that should be their primary target. If they don't they should be moving into higher education. College and other Institutions should have the same goal.
And at every step, people jumped straight into employment from school.
US High School should focus on that. If a student graduates they should already have a job offer signed, that should be their primary target. If they don't they should be moving into higher education. College and other Institutions should have the same goal.
> but I really don't think 100k is the magical number that you need to become happy.
-> Most thorough study yet about the subject comes out, says 100k is the magical number.
You: Well I'll keep believing my thoughtless, data less opinion anyway.
Me: Rolls Eyes
Sure, you can be skeptic, but at this point, if you needed to take a decision based on this, you'd do better go with the 100k magic number, the odds are definitly more in its favor then your belief.
-> Most thorough study yet about the subject comes out, says 100k is the magical number.
You: Well I'll keep believing my thoughtless, data less opinion anyway.
Me: Rolls Eyes
Sure, you can be skeptic, but at this point, if you needed to take a decision based on this, you'd do better go with the 100k magic number, the odds are definitly more in its favor then your belief.
There is also a huge difference between $150k with no/manageable debt, and $150k with a lot of debt. Some people can't figure out how to budget even with a high income. "I deserve this, I make good money/work hard/whatever" is a dangerous statement.
Agree with most of your points!
Just one thing: you don't need a "buy/rent a jet" income to not have to commute to work daily. Retiring early appears to be surprisingly easy with decent income and good spending habits. Taking a year or two off even more so. Eg with the 80k (the more expensive car you mentioned), you can live handsomely for 4+ years in South-East Asia or Eastern Europe.
Just one thing: you don't need a "buy/rent a jet" income to not have to commute to work daily. Retiring early appears to be surprisingly easy with decent income and good spending habits. Taking a year or two off even more so. Eg with the 80k (the more expensive car you mentioned), you can live handsomely for 4+ years in South-East Asia or Eastern Europe.
>Just one thing: you don't need a "buy/rent a jet" income to not have to commute to work daily
$3mil let's you live on $50k/year for 60 years. And realistically, more than that due to interest - 2% of 3mil is 60k, so if you have it well-invested you could live off it with $50k/yr indefinitely.
$3mil let's you live on $50k/year for 60 years. And realistically, more than that due to interest - 2% of 3mil is 60k, so if you have it well-invested you could live off it with $50k/yr indefinitely.
With that kind of money (i.e., so much money you can risk not earning anything for 10 years straight) you can open yourself up to a higher risk-profile.
Stocks for example have averaged, inflation adjusted, about 6% in the past 50 years. 6.6% in the past 60 years and 8.2% in the past 40 years, for comparison. So let's say 6%. This is inflation adjusted, and dividends reinvested.
At that point you're earning $180k a year. Even if you spend $100k, you'll be accruing money over time while maintaining purchasing power. In 50 years, you'd add another $4m of inflation-adjusted wealth for example, but that's wildly underestimating reality as that doesn't figure in the compound effects of adding $80 to your wealth each year.
Stocks for example have averaged, inflation adjusted, about 6% in the past 50 years. 6.6% in the past 60 years and 8.2% in the past 40 years, for comparison. So let's say 6%. This is inflation adjusted, and dividends reinvested.
At that point you're earning $180k a year. Even if you spend $100k, you'll be accruing money over time while maintaining purchasing power. In 50 years, you'd add another $4m of inflation-adjusted wealth for example, but that's wildly underestimating reality as that doesn't figure in the compound effects of adding $80 to your wealth each year.
The amount of principle required to sustain $1 of annual real consumption in perpetuity costs between $25 and $35. $50 is far beyond enough - you'll die with far more money than you started with.
in which case, you get to put your kids in a great position.
That is presuming you weren't essentially forced to pay this early to help your kids in the first place. Say, housing, education (incl. extracurricular), incidentals.
The truth is, most people can barely afford to save due to aforementioned high costs.
The truth is, most people can barely afford to save due to aforementioned high costs.
I believe Bill Gates at one point said that there wasn't a lot of idfference, lifestyle wise between $10m and $10b.
I think the biggest difference would be the outsized political, social influence and your own private jet.
But of course even at $10m you could easily afford to rent a jet pretty frequently.
I think the biggest difference would be the outsized political, social influence and your own private jet.
But of course even at $10m you could easily afford to rent a jet pretty frequently.
if you have $10mil, you're not burning much more than ~$400k a year if you're smart. a charter flight across the continental US costs at least $6k. so you could definitely do that from time to time, but if you do it even once a month you are blowing almost a fifth of your yearly budget on transportation. you are probably gonna feel that.
edit: the figure I used is just the cheapest possible aircraft you can rent. if you actually want a jet, you are looking at $10,500 and up, which would make your monthly flight eat more like 32% of your budget. most people are going to find this untenable.
edit: the figure I used is just the cheapest possible aircraft you can rent. if you actually want a jet, you are looking at $10,500 and up, which would make your monthly flight eat more like 32% of your budget. most people are going to find this untenable.
Anyone else find that even as they do their best to be frugal, expenses pile up as fast as your paycheck does?
In my case, as soon as I started making decent money, I got a hearing and glasses (I didn't have them before), started taking physiotherapy to fix my shoulders, going to the dentist, changing the oil in my car on schedule, buying shoes as they wore out instead of pushing them until they gave me hip and knee problems, etc... I wouldn't say I was "unhappy" about any of those things before I could afford them, but I simply didn't spend money on them.
In my case, as soon as I started making decent money, I got a hearing and glasses (I didn't have them before), started taking physiotherapy to fix my shoulders, going to the dentist, changing the oil in my car on schedule, buying shoes as they wore out instead of pushing them until they gave me hip and knee problems, etc... I wouldn't say I was "unhappy" about any of those things before I could afford them, but I simply didn't spend money on them.
> Anyone else find that even as they do their best to be frugal, expenses pile up as fast as your paycheck does?
I've definitely experienced this. There are lots of things that you ignore when you're poor because they're just not feasible, but once you've got the money, they're not only feasible but foolish to not do.
I've definitely experienced this. There are lots of things that you ignore when you're poor because they're just not feasible, but once you've got the money, they're not only feasible but foolish to not do.
At some point the growth in expenses goes into things much more trivial than those you are enumerating. Things that you can obviously cut without any loss.
At some other point, either your expenses fail to keep up or you start to have such blatantly unneeded expenses that it is obvious that you can same some money with minimum effort.
And none of that even require a very large salary.
At some other point, either your expenses fail to keep up or you start to have such blatantly unneeded expenses that it is obvious that you can same some money with minimum effort.
And none of that even require a very large salary.
Yes. Waiting on new job to start then might get new tires (tread is good but they're 8-9 years old). Might get some basic household stuff I've neglected (new pillow). Haven't been to a dentist in a while so...yeah, scared to do that but nothing is wrong as far as I can tell knock wood.
I'm always struck by this proverb:
> “Two things I ask of you, Lord; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.
One thing I didn't see in the comments here, though I may've just missed it, is that with more money you have more of an opportunity to give it away. You can make a real difference for people in need. I suspect not many in the HN crowd tithe, by which I mean giving 10% of your income to charity, but perhaps it's something to consider, and probably more fulfilling than a slightly nicer car.
> “Two things I ask of you, Lord; do not refuse me before I die: Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you and say, ‘Who is the Lord?’ Or I may become poor and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.
One thing I didn't see in the comments here, though I may've just missed it, is that with more money you have more of an opportunity to give it away. You can make a real difference for people in need. I suspect not many in the HN crowd tithe, by which I mean giving 10% of your income to charity, but perhaps it's something to consider, and probably more fulfilling than a slightly nicer car.
I like your post. As a Christian myself, I've always found it likewise fascinating.
God's teachings on money are sprinkled throughout scripture.
You are right: God expects us to give from what He provides us with.
One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. Proverbs 11:24-25
Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf. Proverbs 11:28
Better is a little with righteousness than great income with injustice. Proverbs 16:8
He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty. Proverbs 22:16
Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. Proverbs 23:4
Basically, the concept of sacrificial giving is that it does hurt to give it. Jesus made it clear that giving from your surplus is fairly meaningless. Trusting in God and being obedient are what He expects. When you feel led to give, give. The more you sow, the more you reap. But Jesus is very plain in telling us to give in secret so as to please God. Men you give in public to be seen and approved by men is wrong.
Tithing is something that is largely forgotten in the post-Christian world we now find ourselves in. Peace.
God's teachings on money are sprinkled throughout scripture.
You are right: God expects us to give from what He provides us with.
One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. Proverbs 11:24-25
Whoever trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like a green leaf. Proverbs 11:28
Better is a little with righteousness than great income with injustice. Proverbs 16:8
He who oppresses the poor to make more for himself or who gives to the rich, will only come to poverty. Proverbs 22:16
Do not toil to acquire wealth; be discerning enough to desist. Proverbs 23:4
Basically, the concept of sacrificial giving is that it does hurt to give it. Jesus made it clear that giving from your surplus is fairly meaningless. Trusting in God and being obedient are what He expects. When you feel led to give, give. The more you sow, the more you reap. But Jesus is very plain in telling us to give in secret so as to please God. Men you give in public to be seen and approved by men is wrong.
Tithing is something that is largely forgotten in the post-Christian world we now find ourselves in. Peace.
> Tithing is something that is largely forgotten in the post-Christian world we now find ourselves in. Peace.
That's simply not true. The 2016 World Giving Index[1] shows that their three measures of charity have all increased over time, including financial donations (page 16). Many of the top ten countries for percentage who donate money have had decreased religiosity (page 21).
1: https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publi...
That's simply not true. The 2016 World Giving Index[1] shows that their three measures of charity have all increased over time, including financial donations (page 16). Many of the top ten countries for percentage who donate money have had decreased religiosity (page 21).
1: https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-publi...
Maybe this comment is controversial, maybe it is not. Feel free to discuss it, since I am putting this out there as an idea with the intention to get more ego-centric people also to consider a more giving mentality. Despite my nickname I consider myself to be in this camp and do my best to get myself to an instinctive state of altruism, but it is tough. Training my rationality is easier than training my instinct.
Anyways, if you don't want to give 10% of your income to charity, consider giving a mixture of 10% of your income or time to really help your family. As a baseline that is (you can always help more).
Some are in families that don't need help. However, I know people that are part of a family where they are clearly the most educated person and also in a minority within their family of being able to properly read and write. Governmental institutions can be a real hazard, even if they are accomodating. When you don't have decent reading and writing skills everything of that sort is tough.
Then, there are people who clearly have poor people within their families. I mean all kinds of poor people: poor in mind, poor in spirit or poor in finances (or all three). In some cases money will solve the problem. In most cases I don't think it will. But giving them some smart attention may at least alleviate some of their suffering. I say smart attention because people who have all three could hurt you if you do not watch out.
I try to do this and find it hard. But I also think it's a better use of my time because it shows the real difficulty of solving problems for people in need. Just giving money away abstracts you away from that process. And as a bonus, they are my family :)
I'm noticing that slowly but surely it is also easier to help people that I don't know. Since it becomes easier to empathize to their situations, because I've seen them more close up.
Anyways, if you don't want to give 10% of your income to charity, consider giving a mixture of 10% of your income or time to really help your family. As a baseline that is (you can always help more).
Some are in families that don't need help. However, I know people that are part of a family where they are clearly the most educated person and also in a minority within their family of being able to properly read and write. Governmental institutions can be a real hazard, even if they are accomodating. When you don't have decent reading and writing skills everything of that sort is tough.
Then, there are people who clearly have poor people within their families. I mean all kinds of poor people: poor in mind, poor in spirit or poor in finances (or all three). In some cases money will solve the problem. In most cases I don't think it will. But giving them some smart attention may at least alleviate some of their suffering. I say smart attention because people who have all three could hurt you if you do not watch out.
I try to do this and find it hard. But I also think it's a better use of my time because it shows the real difficulty of solving problems for people in need. Just giving money away abstracts you away from that process. And as a bonus, they are my family :)
I'm noticing that slowly but surely it is also easier to help people that I don't know. Since it becomes easier to empathize to their situations, because I've seen them more close up.
In general I would agree. I'm not catholic, but in that tradition they have the principle of subsidiarity:
> Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Taking care of your family is definitely a priority. I would also encourage supporting local charities and getting involved with the work too (ie volunteer days).
You're right that its not just about the money, it just happens to be a resource that a lot of us have available, and merely giving can be a good place to start.
> Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Taking care of your family is definitely a priority. I would also encourage supporting local charities and getting involved with the work too (ie volunteer days).
You're right that its not just about the money, it just happens to be a resource that a lot of us have available, and merely giving can be a good place to start.
I'm curious on how you view tithing in the context of taxation.
Governments have taken upon themselves to help those in need, and taken from the population to do so. Could one not argue that a certain proportion of your income has already gone to charity? (presuming you're paying income taxes)
Governments have taken upon themselves to help those in need, and taken from the population to do so. Could one not argue that a certain proportion of your income has already gone to charity? (presuming you're paying income taxes)
Part of giving to charity in addition to taxes is that I don't think the government (USA) is really handling my money properly when it comes to social programs. Private giving in the USA allows us to choose how our money is spent more specifically and usually lets you make a bigger impact in an area you care about. You should look up private giving in the USA, it's an astounding figure that is given every year voluntarily, there are tax deductions if you itemize, but at the end of the day I would save more money taking the standard deduction and not giving, so it's still a sacrifice monetarily for a lot of people here.
Technically the tithe is to be given to the church. Charity giving is above and beyond that. And you are supposed to tithe out of your gross income -- your "first-fruits." It's an expensive habit! One of the many reasons I'm glad to no longer be religious.
Also I think that the evidence doesn't really support the idea that having too much money is bad for your happiness.
Also I think that the evidence doesn't really support the idea that having too much money is bad for your happiness.
Is this net income (after taxes, and possibly after 401k [or equivalent] savings)?
I would say that having no debt, or at least having manageable debt, along with knowing you are saving enough for retirement, and making enough that you don't have to second-guess if you can afford every purchase you make, is the real cutoff.
For example, if you don't have mortgage debt then you are probably renting. So I consider mortgage "manageable" debt, along with any short-term debt that you can pay off within a year.
The other thing to consider, is life is full of stress-inducing "things" (situations, people, material objects, etc). Often times throwing money at the stress makes the stress lower or go away. So if you make enough where you can throw money at most of your stress and not break the bank, then that would greatly impact your happiness.
I would say that having no debt, or at least having manageable debt, along with knowing you are saving enough for retirement, and making enough that you don't have to second-guess if you can afford every purchase you make, is the real cutoff.
For example, if you don't have mortgage debt then you are probably renting. So I consider mortgage "manageable" debt, along with any short-term debt that you can pay off within a year.
The other thing to consider, is life is full of stress-inducing "things" (situations, people, material objects, etc). Often times throwing money at the stress makes the stress lower or go away. So if you make enough where you can throw money at most of your stress and not break the bank, then that would greatly impact your happiness.
I would not be surprised if you were exactly right with this: I would say that having no debt, or at least having manageable debt, along with knowing you are saving enough for retirement, and making enough that you don't have to second-guess if you can afford every purchase you make, is the real cutoff.
Many people I have talked with about happiness are really talking about non-anxiety. Basically defining being 'happy' as having zero anxiety and being 'un-happy' as worrying about (anxious) one or more things.
In that model not having debt relieves future obligation anxiety, owning a house addresses 'where will I live' anxiety, savings address 'what if something comes up' anxiety etc.
If that model held true for the survey participants then once you had enough income to offset your anxieties you would not get any more 'happy'.
Many people I have talked with about happiness are really talking about non-anxiety. Basically defining being 'happy' as having zero anxiety and being 'un-happy' as worrying about (anxious) one or more things.
In that model not having debt relieves future obligation anxiety, owning a house addresses 'where will I live' anxiety, savings address 'what if something comes up' anxiety etc.
If that model held true for the survey participants then once you had enough income to offset your anxieties you would not get any more 'happy'.
What a sad indictment of modern American life that our baseline for happiness is "not destitute". Really, I think that's telling, and as a millennial with lots of student loan debt and friends in a similar boat, it's not surprising one bit.
Epicurus, the Greek philosopher who lived ~3000 years ago, figured out that key to happiness was having somewhere to live, friends around you, someone to have sex with, and lots of food. He summed it up in a line: "Not what we have but what we enjoy, constitutes our abundance." The notion that baseline happiness is equivalent to 'not destitute' really isn't modern, or American.
Why should it be any higher?
Raise the baseline too high and you may never reach it, and never be happy, despite having a good life. Is that what you want?
Raise the baseline too high and you may never reach it, and never be happy, despite having a good life. Is that what you want?
> Why should it be any higher?
Because it can be. Because we’re the richest country in the world and yet for some reason we force people into bankruptcy because they didn’t have health insurance on the day they had a medical emergency.
I want:
1. People not to have to worry about seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it.
2. People not to have to worry about having shelter.
3. People not to have to worry about where their next meal will come from.
4. People to be able to provide a solid, basic, decent life for themselves and their families.
5. People to be able receive an education without it being onerously expensive.
Among other things.
I don’t think these are intractable problems for a civilization that sent people to the moon, perform open heart surgery, and deliver energy consistently and safely to millions of people.
Because it can be. Because we’re the richest country in the world and yet for some reason we force people into bankruptcy because they didn’t have health insurance on the day they had a medical emergency.
I want:
1. People not to have to worry about seeing a doctor because they can’t afford it.
2. People not to have to worry about having shelter.
3. People not to have to worry about where their next meal will come from.
4. People to be able to provide a solid, basic, decent life for themselves and their families.
5. People to be able receive an education without it being onerously expensive.
Among other things.
I don’t think these are intractable problems for a civilization that sent people to the moon, perform open heart surgery, and deliver energy consistently and safely to millions of people.
You actually seem to be pretty much in agreement with the person you originally replied to. I only read you as calling out a few more specific examples of what causes anxiety but it’s completely possible they are encapsulated in quote “etc.”.
My point is that if those needs are met, then happiness becomes a question of what personally makes you happy and not just what you need to not be homeless.
Consider that maybe happiness isn't about "personal happiness". If all that one needs to be happy is to not have stress, why question that and desire more? By questioning it, you're undermining the happiness. The goal shouldn't be to raise the happiness bar, it should be to lower it so that more people can experience happiness. Why should only those with significant means beyond the bare necessities have access to happiness?
If you're always questioning if you're happy enough, you'll never truly reach happiness.
So one obtains shelter, and healthcare, and an education, and all those things you listed. And they're still not happy? If cake is the baseline, is more icing going to make that much better?
If you're always questioning if you're happy enough, you'll never truly reach happiness.
So one obtains shelter, and healthcare, and an education, and all those things you listed. And they're still not happy? If cake is the baseline, is more icing going to make that much better?
And that was exactly my point as well. Once you are no longer anxious about those things, then, to use your own words, happiness becomes a question of what personally makes you happy.
I have observed that people who reach that state aren't looking for "more money" so much as they are looking for something that is more fulfilling for them personally. And the article observes that as well.
I have observed that people who reach that state aren't looking for "more money" so much as they are looking for something that is more fulfilling for them personally. And the article observes that as well.
> Because we’re the richest country in the world
Are you? When I just Googled "richest country in the world", not a single result placed the US in #1.
Are you? When I just Googled "richest country in the world", not a single result placed the US in #1.
Yeah, I don' think that statement holds up to scrutiny at all.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the median salary in the US was higher than the median salary in Luxembourg/Ireland/Singapore/Brunei/oil-rich-middle-east. Along with a lower tax burden resulting in higher net pay.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the median salary in the US was higher than the median salary in Luxembourg/Ireland/Singapore/Brunei/oil-rich-middle-east. Along with a lower tax burden resulting in higher net pay.
I assumed they meant largest economy?
I don't think it's just that that's our baseline, I think it's a ceiling. I think they're saying "if you're not destitute, more stuff won't make you happier". Overall, in the long term.
It’s why the Danish are always ranked the happiest. They know the government won’t let them become destitute.
I feel like there’s some Maslow’s heirarchy things going on here. Once you get over the non destitute thing you can spend your energy on being fulfilled.
>Many people I have talked with about happiness are really talking about non-anxiety.
This sums up pretty much.
It is not the Money ($) i need. But what I think is rather basic things to live.
A place called Home. It doesn't have to be free, it could be even be rented that I dont own it. But it should be affordable, without being anxious about Landlord kicking you out, or hike the rent to a ridiculous level so you cant continue to live. It shouldn't take your entire working life, 25 - 30 years of continuously working and giving 40% of your salary, what if you are sick in between this 30 years? What if you were fired? This whole living burden is what causes people anxious, and hence do not risk into taking another higher paid job and move up the ladder. The stagnation of wages.
I dont need a house, just a small flat, 150 Square Feet will do, with an open kitchen and a small toilet and shower. The whole flat is probably the size of many Americans's houses bath room. Hopefully along with Water pipes that doesn't include heavy metal like lead poisoning, hot water system that could shower longer then 3 min in Winter. Is that too much to ask for? I am not calling for free housing, but one that is affordable.
Food is Cheap, I used to live in UK with less then 1.5 pound budget per day. Good Quality clothes are actually not expensive in terms of production cost, most are rent, labour and marketing. And Medical is affordable if you have insurance.
So Food, Medical and Clothes are actually easily affordable in most developed countries. ( Name be one place that it isn't ) As long as you have a job. Any job in fact, even labour intensive job or lower end jobs could easily afford all of these.
So out of all the basic needs in Maslow thoery, shelter is the most expensive, most unaffordable, and also most anti competitive. But all government are very happy with that, as it is basically modern slavery.
This sums up pretty much.
It is not the Money ($) i need. But what I think is rather basic things to live.
A place called Home. It doesn't have to be free, it could be even be rented that I dont own it. But it should be affordable, without being anxious about Landlord kicking you out, or hike the rent to a ridiculous level so you cant continue to live. It shouldn't take your entire working life, 25 - 30 years of continuously working and giving 40% of your salary, what if you are sick in between this 30 years? What if you were fired? This whole living burden is what causes people anxious, and hence do not risk into taking another higher paid job and move up the ladder. The stagnation of wages.
I dont need a house, just a small flat, 150 Square Feet will do, with an open kitchen and a small toilet and shower. The whole flat is probably the size of many Americans's houses bath room. Hopefully along with Water pipes that doesn't include heavy metal like lead poisoning, hot water system that could shower longer then 3 min in Winter. Is that too much to ask for? I am not calling for free housing, but one that is affordable.
Food is Cheap, I used to live in UK with less then 1.5 pound budget per day. Good Quality clothes are actually not expensive in terms of production cost, most are rent, labour and marketing. And Medical is affordable if you have insurance.
So Food, Medical and Clothes are actually easily affordable in most developed countries. ( Name be one place that it isn't ) As long as you have a job. Any job in fact, even labour intensive job or lower end jobs could easily afford all of these.
So out of all the basic needs in Maslow thoery, shelter is the most expensive, most unaffordable, and also most anti competitive. But all government are very happy with that, as it is basically modern slavery.
I suspect there is another level above that at financial independence, where you have enough wealth that you don't have to work. Where you can lose the fear of losing your job, or go off and work on what you want even if it doesn't make much or any money.
That's a level you can contribute to by being frugal. It's tough to get to but easier than you'd think. The barriers to moving to this level tend to be as much social and psychological as financial e.g. families, mortgages, need for security.
The next level above financial independence is financial freedom (you can just get whatever you want, from shoes to houses) - off the top of my head I would guess this is probably around the 0.01%, which would be about 32k people in the USA. As an example of freedom, these people can buy nationality and avoid immigration limitations (going rate is ~$1-5m).
The article is way off just comparing salaries. There are 3 social classes in terms of having a meaningful lifestyle distinction - those who have to work for someone else, those who don't, and those who have full freedom to decide where they go and what they do each day. All they did was compare a bunch of people in the same social class (somewhat shockingly the Romans considered this equivalent to a slave class).
The next level above financial independence is financial freedom (you can just get whatever you want, from shoes to houses) - off the top of my head I would guess this is probably around the 0.01%, which would be about 32k people in the USA. As an example of freedom, these people can buy nationality and avoid immigration limitations (going rate is ~$1-5m).
The article is way off just comparing salaries. There are 3 social classes in terms of having a meaningful lifestyle distinction - those who have to work for someone else, those who don't, and those who have full freedom to decide where they go and what they do each day. All they did was compare a bunch of people in the same social class (somewhat shockingly the Romans considered this equivalent to a slave class).
>That's a level you can contribute to by being frugal.
J suspect that ceteris paribus, being frugal reduces happiness - by definition, it's not getting things you want to get.
J suspect that ceteris paribus, being frugal reduces happiness - by definition, it's not getting things you want to get.
Who is happier, the person who always wants, and always buys what they want? Or the one who learns to not want so much, and is therefore always satisfied?
"the chase is better than the catch"
Once you can afford something that was way out of reach before, you buy it and after the first few moments you realize it is not as great as you expected. Do this a few times, and you'll learn what is important. The more wealthy people I know do have a slightly above average car and house, but IME the biggest difference is that they have far more extreme - both in amount and in price - experiences, i.e. weekend trips, fine wining and dining etc.
Once you can afford something that was way out of reach before, you buy it and after the first few moments you realize it is not as great as you expected. Do this a few times, and you'll learn what is important. The more wealthy people I know do have a slightly above average car and house, but IME the biggest difference is that they have far more extreme - both in amount and in price - experiences, i.e. weekend trips, fine wining and dining etc.
Maybe financial independence isn't for you. It doesn't suit most people in fact - most choose the greater financial security and predictability of a decent job. This is very helpful if you are an entrepreneur as you can hire people much smarter and more able than yourself.
Higher earners tend to just upgrade and spend more (apartment, clothes, restaurants, hotels etc), and aren't really living that differently - that lifestyle can certainly soak up maximum income achievable in a salaried job.
I think this is what the article inadvertently pointed to, that the higher salaries could lead to a sense of frustration that nothing really changed.
Higher earners tend to just upgrade and spend more (apartment, clothes, restaurants, hotels etc), and aren't really living that differently - that lifestyle can certainly soak up maximum income achievable in a salaried job.
I think this is what the article inadvertently pointed to, that the higher salaries could lead to a sense of frustration that nothing really changed.
[deleted]
There might be a fine line there; humans need a sense of purpose, and for many people, purpose is tied up in our job.
If you no longer have to work, and you choose not to work because your current job isn't ideal, it can be hard to get the motivation to search for a new job. At the same time, without work, it can be hard to find purpose.
So you might be stuck in a situation where you aren't working and struggling to find meaning.
If you no longer have to work, and you choose not to work because your current job isn't ideal, it can be hard to get the motivation to search for a new job. At the same time, without work, it can be hard to find purpose.
So you might be stuck in a situation where you aren't working and struggling to find meaning.
But just because you don't have to work doesn't mean you can't work.
If you have financial independence, you have the choice to work or not, and if you do work, to do whatever work you find most meaningful.
Without financial independence, you have no choice but to work, and for the vast majority of people without financial independence there isn't much choice of what kind of work to do either.
If you have financial independence, you have the choice to work or not, and if you do work, to do whatever work you find most meaningful.
Without financial independence, you have no choice but to work, and for the vast majority of people without financial independence there isn't much choice of what kind of work to do either.
That seems like a cultural thing, though - many Western cultures wrap up personal identity in job description, but there's nothing biological to stop people from just laying out a purpose for themselves and pursuing it.
There are plenty of financial reasons, but isn't that what we're talking about? If you have enough money that you don't have to work for the rest of your life, you probably have enough money that you can spend your time on whatever act of creation you find fulfilling.
There are plenty of financial reasons, but isn't that what we're talking about? If you have enough money that you don't have to work for the rest of your life, you probably have enough money that you can spend your time on whatever act of creation you find fulfilling.
> many Western cultures wrap up personal identity in job description, but there's nothing biological to stop people from just laying out a purpose for themselves and pursuing it.
That's just as common in many other non-Western cultures, such as Japan, South Korea, China. All three are materialistic and work-centric. Japan has extreme work identity, South Korea is barely a notch lower than Japan on that. Both put the US - and the entire West - to shame on work-centric life (for better or worse depending on your views on such things). China today is one of the greatest materialistic work cultures that has ever existed. You see it in all of China's markets and businesses today, and the move from rural to urban to seek greater materialism and elevated work identity. It's an intense fever there, eg:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/china-plans-bu...
That's just as common in many other non-Western cultures, such as Japan, South Korea, China. All three are materialistic and work-centric. Japan has extreme work identity, South Korea is barely a notch lower than Japan on that. Both put the US - and the entire West - to shame on work-centric life (for better or worse depending on your views on such things). China today is one of the greatest materialistic work cultures that has ever existed. You see it in all of China's markets and businesses today, and the move from rural to urban to seek greater materialism and elevated work identity. It's an intense fever there, eg:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/04/china-plans-bu...
>That seems like a cultural thing, though - there's nothing biological to stop people from laying out a purpose for themselves and pursuing it.
Purpose without existential risk of failure is not usually perceived as genuine.
If you have enough money and only put a fraction of it to use, you might create things, but you're never really risking anything. I'd wager more people join the military for purpose than the local paintball team, not despite but because the former really puts your life at risk.
Purpose without existential risk of failure is not usually perceived as genuine.
If you have enough money and only put a fraction of it to use, you might create things, but you're never really risking anything. I'd wager more people join the military for purpose than the local paintball team, not despite but because the former really puts your life at risk.
> Purpose without existential risk of failure is not usually perceived as genuine.
Says who? That may be associated with lutheran ethics of hard work, but doesn't look like an universal nor an essential requirement. Was Mother Theresa devoid of purpose because there's no way she could fail at taking care of people?
Says who? That may be associated with lutheran ethics of hard work, but doesn't look like an universal nor an essential requirement. Was Mother Theresa devoid of purpose because there's no way she could fail at taking care of people?
for many people, purpose is tied up in our job
That's certainly the line that society wants people to believe. A lot of people want a job that gives them a sense of purpose, but I'd be surprised if as much as 2% of the workforce think their job gives them a sense of purpose right now. I think we're just lucky that the majority of people don't question whether or not their job is ultimately necessary, and choose not to bother when they realise it's a waste of time.
That's certainly the line that society wants people to believe. A lot of people want a job that gives them a sense of purpose, but I'd be surprised if as much as 2% of the workforce think their job gives them a sense of purpose right now. I think we're just lucky that the majority of people don't question whether or not their job is ultimately necessary, and choose not to bother when they realise it's a waste of time.
Indeed, after a point, working is not motivated by wealth - I know several cases of people that are wealthy and don't NEED to work, but they're in high-power positions and they don't want to leave that.
One of them was the president of an insurance company and he was ousted in a Machiavellian political maneuver, because he fully expected to hold that position until his health failed him or he died at the post.
You can see it in the current crop of 80-year old politicians in my country. One of them wants to go up for re-election and he would be in power until he was 90 years old...
One of them was the president of an insurance company and he was ousted in a Machiavellian political maneuver, because he fully expected to hold that position until his health failed him or he died at the post.
You can see it in the current crop of 80-year old politicians in my country. One of them wants to go up for re-election and he would be in power until he was 90 years old...
Personally I have so many projects I want to work on (where the motivation is making a Good Thing rather than getting rich) that I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be the case for me. But I can see it being the case for others.
You can have as much purpose as a cat or you can build bridges, write poetry, study philosophy, invent new things, and help the poor. Your choice might not fit in with how you saw yourself but that's a higher level problem.
> At the same time, without work, it can be hard to find purpose.
Volunteering and creative experimentation fills that gap just fine.
Volunteering and creative experimentation fills that gap just fine.
For you. Parent clearly disagrees.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Is this net income (after taxes, and possibly after 401k [or equivalent] savings)?
No, it's before tax income.
Income Variables. Participants were asked to report monthly household income rather than yearly income to facilitate responding. Respondents were asked the question, “What is your total monthly household income in [local currency], before taxes? Please include income from wages and salaries, remittances from family members living elsewhere, farming, and all other sources.” Households were defined as a person’s home that had its own cooking facilities, which could have been anything ranging from a one-room flat to a single house.
From the study's supplementary information: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
No, it's before tax income.
Income Variables. Participants were asked to report monthly household income rather than yearly income to facilitate responding. Respondents were asked the question, “What is your total monthly household income in [local currency], before taxes? Please include income from wages and salaries, remittances from family members living elsewhere, farming, and all other sources.” Households were defined as a person’s home that had its own cooking facilities, which could have been anything ranging from a one-room flat to a single house.
From the study's supplementary information: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
It's also worth noting that it's normalized to household size -- income divided by sqrt(household size). So for a married couple with two children -- a number close to my own heart -- the 105k satiation point would be real dollars of 210k/year.
Dollars are also represented as International Dollars, which are adjusted for the local purchasing power, expressed in units equivalent to one USD in the US.
Dollars are also represented as International Dollars, which are adjusted for the local purchasing power, expressed in units equivalent to one USD in the US.
That makes sense. It's a lot and doesn't go very far in the Bay area but it makes things better than just 105k-120k for a family of 4 which can work but can be stressful.
My last child got a good job today, and as well as a certain pride I feel a sense of relief similar to when we paid off our mortgage.
Congratulations! That is one of life's greatest milestones -- and yet we don't have a common term for it.
I'm my parents' last child and am soon to graduate Grad school and enter 'the working world'. I can definitely feel their relief in knowing decades of parental sacrifices and obligations have paid off and finally come to an end.
Savour that pride and relief -- you've earned it.
I'm my parents' last child and am soon to graduate Grad school and enter 'the working world'. I can definitely feel their relief in knowing decades of parental sacrifices and obligations have paid off and finally come to an end.
Savour that pride and relief -- you've earned it.
I can't agree more. My ultimate financial goal is to have enough money to pay other people to do all the things I hate for me.
What do you hate and why can't you automate it?
Seriously?
Cooking, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, driving to places, filling out tax returns, shopping for clothes or household goods....
Fully automated solutions for any of the above either do not exist or are prohibitively expensive.
Cooking, cleaning the house, mowing the lawn, driving to places, filling out tax returns, shopping for clothes or household goods....
Fully automated solutions for any of the above either do not exist or are prohibitively expensive.
Why have kitchen/house/lawn/car at all when you don't actually enjoy using them?
The alternatives are not prohibitively expensive, on the contrary. You have restaurants, apartments, parks and public transport as alternatives.
It seems to me that quite some people here want to get rich to afford hiring people to manage things that they don't actually want to own. That's why I think more money doesn't make you more happy, as happiness comes from the sense of accomplishment, not from being able to command an army of workers to work on things you don't care about.
The alternatives are not prohibitively expensive, on the contrary. You have restaurants, apartments, parks and public transport as alternatives.
It seems to me that quite some people here want to get rich to afford hiring people to manage things that they don't actually want to own. That's why I think more money doesn't make you more happy, as happiness comes from the sense of accomplishment, not from being able to command an army of workers to work on things you don't care about.
> It seems to me that quite some people here want to get rich to afford hiring people to manage things that they don't actually want to own.
That's often due to them actually wanting those things but not for themselves but for showing them off as status markers.
That's often due to them actually wanting those things but not for themselves but for showing them off as status markers.
How many of those do you hate simply because you're time poor? If other necessities were met so you didn't have to work would you still hate them?
I'd still hate the tax returns, but others like cooking and mowing I enjoy when I'm free of time constraints.
I'd still hate the tax returns, but others like cooking and mowing I enjoy when I'm free of time constraints.
Not OP but I have a lot of time and cooking is probably the thing I hate the most in my life after cleaning. I don't enjoy it at all.
Folding laundry.
Robots are miserably bad at this, so far.
Robots are miserably bad at this, so far.
There are clothes that don't need folding and lifestyles that don't need clothes that need folding.
well, I take "folding" to mean "putting away". Eg, putting your socks in a drawer (usually balled up together, but I guess you could just toss individuals in there).. hanging up tshirts and sweatshirts, putting away your jeans and workout clothes..
Some kind of organization is ideal, because I often live out of the clean laundry hamper and it's a chore to hunt for stuff every time you need clothes.
Some kind of organization is ideal, because I often live out of the clean laundry hamper and it's a chore to hunt for stuff every time you need clothes.
When I'm not living with others, this problem goes away. I start out with things in the wardrobe and drawers but as I get distracted by the things I actually want to do I gravitate towards a sort of inbox(clean)/outbox(dirty) 'floordrobe' system. It's surprisingly efficient.
I do the same but having to hunt for clothes in the inbox sucks, and having to iron extremely wrinkled button up shirts sucks as well
[deleted]
I wear a suit of armour. Disrupt the folding industry.
So, join a nudist colony to avoid doing laundry?
Robots? Assuming you already have 7+ days worth of clothes simply hire a maid to come by once a week.
With a human you never have to worry about software upgrades, charging batteries, or wake up in a cold sweat in fear of your hired help violating Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics.
With a human you never have to worry about software upgrades, charging batteries, or wake up in a cold sweat in fear of your hired help violating Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics.
The question was “why can’t you automate it?”.
Automate doesn’t have to mean a machine is handling it. It means you don’t have to handle it. Human automation is a valid tool, in particular for things like housework.
Automate usually does mean to use machinery.
I open a car factory. It is fully automated.
See?
Besides, the original question is totally boring if you allow human automation. Of course I can hire someone to do labour. No one needs that explained to them.
I open a car factory. It is fully automated.
See?
Besides, the original question is totally boring if you allow human automation. Of course I can hire someone to do labour. No one needs that explained to them.
Absolutely. Money saves time and stress. You can pay people to do other things for you. You can afford to take a vacation. You can also probably afford a temporary job loss (unless you are mortgaged to the hilt). You can afford to start a startup in some cases. Still I am pretty sure you can find people who make $250k that are miserable, possibly because of the working conditions.
On the other hand, you might have a stressful job to actually generate that $200k, and you might have to live somewhere like SF with very high cost of living, and your commute might be stressful, etc.
I think the correct definition is: "When you have enough to survive and you make as much money as people you compare yourself with". That's why back in the days of socialism in Eastern Europe most of the people were quite content with being relatively poor, as long as they had the sense of social security and everyone else around them was as poor as them. On the other hand, nowadays many freelancers from poorer countries (me included), who are making a lot of money compared to their compatriots, are still not really happy as they don't make as much as their colleagues on the West. As long as you know you could be doing better you'll not be happy about the present situation... and soc. media is not helping with this...
Please do not put your propaganda in people's mouths.
I lived back in communist Eastern Europe and I can assure you nobody was content in any way. It was a nightmare.
I lived back in communist Eastern Europe and I can assure you nobody was content in any way. It was a nightmare.
So did I, but Eastern Europe is a wide term. Living conditions in Yugoslavia were actually quite nice until the 80s. But I'm not saying it was a good system (it wasn't, I'm not fond of communism at all), just that majority of people were content with it for a long time. It's a statistical fact, and not just in Yugoslavia, but you can hear from many people even in Russia or Romania that they used to feel happier and safer than they do now, while their conditions in absolute terms were really bad even from my Yugoslavian perspective. People value safety the most, and than next it seems that they value their social position in the group. If they get the both, they can feel accomplished and that's the primary factor for us to feel good about our lives.
"Nobody"? Pot, meet kettle.
Is it possible to reach a point where you won't experience comparison inflation?
After the house it's a bigger house, after the fancy car it's a super fancy car, and then a pilot's license, then co-owning a private plane, then your own one, etc.
When you get enough for the house you move into a new neighborhood where there's always someone richer than you, and when you get enough for that you won't buy his, but a similar one in a fancier neighborhood because you don't want to live with the plebs in the small houses.
This problem can't be solved before we stop measuring ourselves by money. Unfortunately that solution is always paired with being to accomodating on salary negotiations. If I stop caring about money, no one will willingly pay me more, even if I might "deserve it".
I definitely haven't solved it, but my goal is being content with what I have, while not being a doormat, financially. I'm better at the latter than the former.
After the house it's a bigger house, after the fancy car it's a super fancy car, and then a pilot's license, then co-owning a private plane, then your own one, etc.
When you get enough for the house you move into a new neighborhood where there's always someone richer than you, and when you get enough for that you won't buy his, but a similar one in a fancier neighborhood because you don't want to live with the plebs in the small houses.
This problem can't be solved before we stop measuring ourselves by money. Unfortunately that solution is always paired with being to accomodating on salary negotiations. If I stop caring about money, no one will willingly pay me more, even if I might "deserve it".
I definitely haven't solved it, but my goal is being content with what I have, while not being a doormat, financially. I'm better at the latter than the former.
If you get univeral health care then your light-years ahead of Americans. Even if Americans are getting paid twice as much as you, they have the risk of going bankrupt during old age because of extremely high medical expenses
You have to realize how fortunate you are. Everyone in your country is taken care of. Screw the high salaries of Amercians, they're not worth it
You have to realize how fortunate you are. Everyone in your country is taken care of. Screw the high salaries of Amercians, they're not worth it
There are a lot of posts, articles, and general interest over the last 15 years (compared to before) on “being and maximizing happiness”.
At face value, this seems very natural. However I think a lot could be gained by tackling the necessity of even asking that question.
Nietzsche has this really interesting point that every philosopher since Plato was most interested in “the truth” without seriously considering if “the truth” was a bad thing, worth all the effort, or perhaps not as valuable as other concepts.
In the same way, a lot of religions invert the happiness question, to great effect. In Christianity, suffering is turned into a much more worthwhile and meaningful pursuit; other religions distance themselves from happiness and instead take more stoic and detachment-based paths. All of them don’t tend to address “maximizing happiness” though because I think, being the product of thousands of years of experience, any religion that tried to do that failed in the face of life and history and would not succeed in gathering adherents.
At face value, this seems very natural. However I think a lot could be gained by tackling the necessity of even asking that question.
Nietzsche has this really interesting point that every philosopher since Plato was most interested in “the truth” without seriously considering if “the truth” was a bad thing, worth all the effort, or perhaps not as valuable as other concepts.
In the same way, a lot of religions invert the happiness question, to great effect. In Christianity, suffering is turned into a much more worthwhile and meaningful pursuit; other religions distance themselves from happiness and instead take more stoic and detachment-based paths. All of them don’t tend to address “maximizing happiness” though because I think, being the product of thousands of years of experience, any religion that tried to do that failed in the face of life and history and would not succeed in gathering adherents.
Just arm chair speculation, but it seems like any religion that promised happiness or how to be happy wouldn't be wildly successful. Not many people turn to religion when they're happy, and promising happiness to a bunch of sad people isn't going to turn out very well. Telling people that their lives sucks for a reason, we just don't know it yet, and that at least when they die they'll be happier than they could ever imagine is a pretty easy promise to keep to the living. It also gives people hope which in turn can produce happiness or at least a sense of purpose.
Christianity, suffering is turned into a much more worthwhile and meaningful pursuit
Can you elaborate on that? not a christian, just curious.
Can you elaborate on that? not a christian, just curious.
Not a Christian, but I spend a lot of time at church (long story). Anyway, self-sacrifice is one of the central tenets of Christianity, the idea being that Jesus Christ took on human form to suffer and die on the cross to save humanity from its grievous sins. As a result, self-sacrifice and martyrdom come up all the time in the Bible [1].
I'm not particularly good at actual theology, and I'm sure different sects of Christianity have different interpretations, but as I understand it, because of Christ's sacrifice, personal suffering is seen as something noble, or even venerable. I think it's easy to take this too far (e.g. people not accepting help because it's "noble" to suffer, or that they "deserve it"), but I digress.
[1] https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Self-Sacrifice
I'm not particularly good at actual theology, and I'm sure different sects of Christianity have different interpretations, but as I understand it, because of Christ's sacrifice, personal suffering is seen as something noble, or even venerable. I think it's easy to take this too far (e.g. people not accepting help because it's "noble" to suffer, or that they "deserve it"), but I digress.
[1] https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Self-Sacrifice
From my personal experience, you are going to have misery no matter what in life. But it's amazing how often times some misery is bimodal, either you choose your misery, or it's forced on you.
As an example, you work and get paid (a form of misery because you don't have control over your own time), or you don't work and have all the time you want in the day (the misery is you are hungry cold and wet).
I found that self sacrifice in relationships almost always pays off, and is very biblically based concept. For example, being patient with a spouse you are angry with actually hurts emotionally (chosen misery), but you resolve things this way. The opposite would be to blame or fight back, and extend or lose control of the misery (ie, forced on you).
I've learned to chose my misery. Save now (misery chosen), spend now (misery forced later), etc... Maybe suffering would work equally well with misery.
As an example, you work and get paid (a form of misery because you don't have control over your own time), or you don't work and have all the time you want in the day (the misery is you are hungry cold and wet).
I found that self sacrifice in relationships almost always pays off, and is very biblically based concept. For example, being patient with a spouse you are angry with actually hurts emotionally (chosen misery), but you resolve things this way. The opposite would be to blame or fight back, and extend or lose control of the misery (ie, forced on you).
I've learned to chose my misery. Save now (misery chosen), spend now (misery forced later), etc... Maybe suffering would work equally well with misery.
Years ago a real estate agent driving me around to look at property relayed a somewhat pessimistic aphorism he'd picked up from his father: Life's a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less it tastes like shit.
I feel like that would be better paired with the "dough" double meaning instead of bread. "Life's a shit pizza, the more dough you have the less it tastes like shit."
Bread is a synonym for dough in that meaning
dough is colloquialism for money, which makes the quote funnier due to the double entendre.
"Bread" is also a colloquialism for money. It's the same joke.
I have never heard any rapper refer to money as bread!
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Bread
> Slang meaning "money" dates from 1940s, but compare breadwinner, and bread as "one's livelihood" dates to 1719. Bread and circuses (1914) is from Latin, in reference to food and entertainment provided by the government to keep the populace content. "Duas tantum res anxius optat, Panem et circenses" [Juvenal, Sat. x.80].
> Slang meaning "money" dates from 1940s, but compare breadwinner, and bread as "one's livelihood" dates to 1719. Bread and circuses (1914) is from Latin, in reference to food and entertainment provided by the government to keep the populace content. "Duas tantum res anxius optat, Panem et circenses" [Juvenal, Sat. x.80].
Here is one where they use bread, dough and cheese to mean money: https://genius.com/105625
"Bread and Honey" is rhyming slang for Money.
so is bread.
I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there is no saturation point, it's just that the relationship is logarithmic, and truncated logarithmic datasets look asymptotic.
You‘re probably referring to this research:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-...
...which by the way I find extremely plausible, just judging by the fact that most of our senses (hearing volume & frequency, light intensity, etc.) are perceived in a logarithmic way.
That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-...
...which by the way I find extremely plausible, just judging by the fact that most of our senses (hearing volume & frequency, light intensity, etc.) are perceived in a logarithmic way.
That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.
Or as Kanye West put it, "having money's not everything, not having it is".
> That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.
I generally have found this to be a tautology. Being less unhappy means being more happy. In fact, I've found that being content with things has improved my happiness significantly.
It's not just about maximizing every positive experience, but minifying the negatives as well.
I generally have found this to be a tautology. Being less unhappy means being more happy. In fact, I've found that being content with things has improved my happiness significantly.
It's not just about maximizing every positive experience, but minifying the negatives as well.
https://danluu.com/dunning-kruger/
This is another great link on debunking popsci like 75K is where people are happy sort of headlines that points to your point.
This is another great link on debunking popsci like 75K is where people are happy sort of headlines that points to your point.
That's the article where I first encountered that idea indeed.
> I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there is no saturation point, it's just that the relationship is logarithmic, and truncated logarithmic datasets look asymptotic.
If it's truly a logarithmic relationship (rather than asymptotic), this would imply that billionaires are an order of magnitude happier than everyone else.
If it's truly a logarithmic relationship (rather than asymptotic), this would imply that billionaires are an order of magnitude happier than everyone else.
The base of the logarithm does matter, but assuming base 10, a billionaire with an income of say $100M dollars would be 4 times happier than someone with $10k per year income which is pretty close to the floor in the US.
log(100,000,000) is 8
log(10,000) is 4
That doesn't seem to be 4 times as happy.
log(10,000) is 4
That doesn't seem to be 4 times as happy.
I always feel compelled to introduce people to the sage words of that great philosopher, Arnold Schwarzenegger, on this topic: "Money doesn't make you happy. I now have $50 million but I was just as happy when I had $48 million."
Let's ask all the employment wage slaves how happy they are and then conclude that they do not become happier above 105k based on self report.
What a joke.
A person making 500k or more or someone with high net worth is going to have a more full life (not needing to work, help community, help family)
What a joke.
A person making 500k or more or someone with high net worth is going to have a more full life (not needing to work, help community, help family)
You say this, but you offer no evidence to contradict the study, which is based on ... evidence that you're wrong.
But think about it: A single person making $105k is just touching the top 10% of income earners in the US: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Having spent some time in about that bracket in an average cost-of-living area (earned slightly more, but I'd spent the previous few years being a broke grad student), I can attest that it felt amazingly rich - there were few things I would have done with more money. My life satisfaction came from my job, my relationships, and my hobbies.
There's a lot of evidence supporting the general conclusion that happiness is either logarithmic in income, or asymptotic after a point. Just blowing it off as "a joke" doesn't hold water. There's also considerable evidence that things like friendships, family, good relationships with neighbors, etc., are much more important contributors to happiness than income.
But think about it: A single person making $105k is just touching the top 10% of income earners in the US: https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/
Having spent some time in about that bracket in an average cost-of-living area (earned slightly more, but I'd spent the previous few years being a broke grad student), I can attest that it felt amazingly rich - there were few things I would have done with more money. My life satisfaction came from my job, my relationships, and my hobbies.
There's a lot of evidence supporting the general conclusion that happiness is either logarithmic in income, or asymptotic after a point. Just blowing it off as "a joke" doesn't hold water. There's also considerable evidence that things like friendships, family, good relationships with neighbors, etc., are much more important contributors to happiness than income.
You felt rich at 105k?
We're talking about human happiness, the capacity for love, freedom, and self actualization. Happiness.
We're not talking about buying overpriced liabilities such as fancy cars, furniture and clothes.
I make over 150k and it's awful working 160 hours a month.
Think about why this study is messed up:
Wage earners spend the Best part of day typically indoors, taking orders from another person.
Wage earners send their children to be taken care of by strangers.
Wage earners send their kids to the zombie factory (public schools)
The fact is that someone with a few million can:
- take care of their own children/babies - educate their own children - take care of their aging parents - take care of sick relatives - can explore the world
Don't tell me that having 2M in the bank will not make you, your family, and neighborhood FAR "happier" than someone making 300k in wage slavery.
I can tell you for a FACT that making that much money (millions) will objectively lead to higher quality of life for people and their families.
I'm personally working hard now to accumulate several investment properties and live free for life so that I can retire before 40 so that:
- I can raise my kids - help parents, family, friends - explore world and learn - focus all my free time on healthy living - get best medical treatments
You damn right it will make me happier to be able to do yoga 3 times a day, raising my kids and also building cool shit without Having to answer to a boss.
You know it's true that lots of money makes you immeasurably more fulfilled. Don't listen to socialist lies that you only need some bullshit 105k (<75k after tax)
We're talking about human happiness, the capacity for love, freedom, and self actualization. Happiness.
We're not talking about buying overpriced liabilities such as fancy cars, furniture and clothes.
I make over 150k and it's awful working 160 hours a month.
Think about why this study is messed up:
Wage earners spend the Best part of day typically indoors, taking orders from another person.
Wage earners send their children to be taken care of by strangers.
Wage earners send their kids to the zombie factory (public schools)
The fact is that someone with a few million can:
- take care of their own children/babies - educate their own children - take care of their aging parents - take care of sick relatives - can explore the world
Don't tell me that having 2M in the bank will not make you, your family, and neighborhood FAR "happier" than someone making 300k in wage slavery.
I can tell you for a FACT that making that much money (millions) will objectively lead to higher quality of life for people and their families.
I'm personally working hard now to accumulate several investment properties and live free for life so that I can retire before 40 so that:
- I can raise my kids - help parents, family, friends - explore world and learn - focus all my free time on healthy living - get best medical treatments
You damn right it will make me happier to be able to do yoga 3 times a day, raising my kids and also building cool shit without Having to answer to a boss.
You know it's true that lots of money makes you immeasurably more fulfilled. Don't listen to socialist lies that you only need some bullshit 105k (<75k after tax)
I agree this study is BS. They have no one in their data who has $5 million+ in the bank and has F* you money... because those people are supposedly outliers.
I would be an order of magnitude happier if I could work on my own projects instead of working for someone else. There's a reason people do side-hustles and punish themselves trying to get something going outside of their normal $100k salary... it's for the hope of having true financial freedom. The study is correct that $100k vs $150k doesn't make much difference at all... but if I had $1 million in a bank it would be a huge difference.
I would be an order of magnitude happier if I could work on my own projects instead of working for someone else. There's a reason people do side-hustles and punish themselves trying to get something going outside of their normal $100k salary... it's for the hope of having true financial freedom. The study is correct that $100k vs $150k doesn't make much difference at all... but if I had $1 million in a bank it would be a huge difference.
socialist lies
Socialists were the first and the main critics of Wage Slavery. More recently, you have the Situationist movement, which coined the slogan "Ne Travaillez Jamais!" (Never Work!) and has a body of work criticizing this model (both in capitalist and in marxist-leninist countries).
Anyone saying you "only need 105k" is not a socialist.
Socialists were the first and the main critics of Wage Slavery. More recently, you have the Situationist movement, which coined the slogan "Ne Travaillez Jamais!" (Never Work!) and has a body of work criticizing this model (both in capitalist and in marxist-leninist countries).
Anyone saying you "only need 105k" is not a socialist.
I did - seriously. Think about it: Single, living in Pittsburgh (reasonable CoL area). I had a cute apartment that I enjoyed coming home to, went running in gorgeous parks or cycling in lovely outlying hills almost every day, worked my butt off at a job that was challenging as hell that I enjoyed, and was putting away enough in savings that it was clear I was on a good trajectory for long-term FI. It was great.
Oh, and the better kicker: I was even happier in grad school when I was earning $24k/year. One of the happiest times of my life. That doesn't apply to everyone's grad school experience, but for me, it was awesome. Lived in a shitty apartment above central square in one of the more expensive regions of the country (hi, Cambridge, still love you but glad I don't have to deal with your housing market). My roommates and officemates at work have become life-long friends.
I will indeed tell you that having 2M in the bank has been a much smaller factor in my happiness than almost anything else, particularly the effect of the people in my life. My day-to-day happiness is much more affected by whether I got a good night's sleep, whether my children are healthy, whether my wife and I are communicating well, whether I'm healthy and able to do the things I like or whether I've once again managed to injure myself pretending I'm 24 instead of 42. :-)
(I'm not unsympathetic to the desire for FI, btw -- quite the opposite. But I've noticed that I want it primarily in a theoretical way, for the comfort in knowing I could quit, not because I actually want to quit. Yes, I'm lucky that I have .. multiple .. jobs that I absolutely love, but I've also chosen to accept a 66% paycut to work in a job I love instead of blasting to FI in industry, and I'm good with that. Sometimes it annoys me and I go do some consulting or bitcoin mining to help make up the difference. :-)
Oh, and the better kicker: I was even happier in grad school when I was earning $24k/year. One of the happiest times of my life. That doesn't apply to everyone's grad school experience, but for me, it was awesome. Lived in a shitty apartment above central square in one of the more expensive regions of the country (hi, Cambridge, still love you but glad I don't have to deal with your housing market). My roommates and officemates at work have become life-long friends.
I will indeed tell you that having 2M in the bank has been a much smaller factor in my happiness than almost anything else, particularly the effect of the people in my life. My day-to-day happiness is much more affected by whether I got a good night's sleep, whether my children are healthy, whether my wife and I are communicating well, whether I'm healthy and able to do the things I like or whether I've once again managed to injure myself pretending I'm 24 instead of 42. :-)
(I'm not unsympathetic to the desire for FI, btw -- quite the opposite. But I've noticed that I want it primarily in a theoretical way, for the comfort in knowing I could quit, not because I actually want to quit. Yes, I'm lucky that I have .. multiple .. jobs that I absolutely love, but I've also chosen to accept a 66% paycut to work in a job I love instead of blasting to FI in industry, and I'm good with that. Sometimes it annoys me and I go do some consulting or bitcoin mining to help make up the difference. :-)
I'm totally with you here. But we need to realize very feel people perceive/realize the world under these terms. Most people feel like they are destined for a job their entire lives and that extreme wealth are for the few lucky/extraordinary other ones. Even in an YC forum.
The perception does not matter in as much as it is actually aligned with reality. Which I suspect it actually is if you're not one of the initially rich.
Few can produce ground-breaking ideas or are lucky enough to actually earn a million dollars quickly (as opposed to stealing it).
Few can produce ground-breaking ideas or are lucky enough to actually earn a million dollars quickly (as opposed to stealing it).
Also, very few even try. Which I highly suspect has an awful impact on these facts.
depends on how that person got to making 500k or more ... they could be working like crazy, and taken out tons of loans to give their family a fancy life, thus being miserable and stressed out (golden handcuffs) ;)
monkeyfoop(1)
I feel the missing piece is income security.
If your earning $200k and sweating bullets to keep a high pressure job your not going to be as happy as the $120k job for life middle management. Also as the higher your income goes the few jobs at they bracket exist.
Whereas if the $200k job is for a person largely guaranteed a job at that pay somewhere I feel that would provide more opportunity to do things you like and increase happiness.
I've come across of a few of these studies. Has anyone separated out 'income security'?
If your earning $200k and sweating bullets to keep a high pressure job your not going to be as happy as the $120k job for life middle management. Also as the higher your income goes the few jobs at they bracket exist.
Whereas if the $200k job is for a person largely guaranteed a job at that pay somewhere I feel that would provide more opportunity to do things you like and increase happiness.
I've come across of a few of these studies. Has anyone separated out 'income security'?
To be honest, I'm kind of tired seeing this 'research finding' pop up over and over again. It feels the whole world is familiar with it.
What I'm lacking is a thorough study of determinants and causal effects. Not just intuition that we're satiated, but something deeper.
For example, where is the study that compares a $200k wage earner vs a $200k capital earner, to provide indications that money merely be an approximation for 'freedom' or 'lower stress'.
Where's the study that looks at whether diminishing returns to happiness from money are due to social isolation the richer you get? i.e. making $100k a year makes you look great in an $80k crowd, and still allows you to mingle with a $40k crowd. But making $5m a year detaches you completely from being able to have meaningful relationships with 95% of people without eventually being viewed as different, unable to understand their daily plight and always doubting whether people envy you or dislike you.
I don't know if any of those things are true, but they are interesting to investigate. Not another superficial article talking about 'researchers have found the most basic correlation and share superficial 100 year old intuitive ideas about why that might be which they never investigated'.
What I'm lacking is a thorough study of determinants and causal effects. Not just intuition that we're satiated, but something deeper.
For example, where is the study that compares a $200k wage earner vs a $200k capital earner, to provide indications that money merely be an approximation for 'freedom' or 'lower stress'.
Where's the study that looks at whether diminishing returns to happiness from money are due to social isolation the richer you get? i.e. making $100k a year makes you look great in an $80k crowd, and still allows you to mingle with a $40k crowd. But making $5m a year detaches you completely from being able to have meaningful relationships with 95% of people without eventually being viewed as different, unable to understand their daily plight and always doubting whether people envy you or dislike you.
I don't know if any of those things are true, but they are interesting to investigate. Not another superficial article talking about 'researchers have found the most basic correlation and share superficial 100 year old intuitive ideas about why that might be which they never investigated'.
I feel like this is basic economics... money, like most things, has diminishing marginal utility.
From a common sense standpoint, it's not so much that having money makes you happy, but having to worry about money definitely can make you unhappy.
Probably bad analogy: Eating a meal that I'd rate 9/10 doesn't make me much happier than a meal that's 8/10, but having to worry about whether I'm going to be able to eat today at all would definitely make me sad.
From a common sense standpoint, it's not so much that having money makes you happy, but having to worry about money definitely can make you unhappy.
Probably bad analogy: Eating a meal that I'd rate 9/10 doesn't make me much happier than a meal that's 8/10, but having to worry about whether I'm going to be able to eat today at all would definitely make me sad.
Unless income is randomly assigned, how do we draw any causal conclusions?
For example, what if being predisposed to certain kinds of anxiety tend to cause one to both make more money in order to have more security, and never be satisfied with that security?
For example, what if being predisposed to certain kinds of anxiety tend to cause one to both make more money in order to have more security, and never be satisfied with that security?
Because that variable is likely insanely small. High paying jobs generally have a lot of anxiety associated with them, whether it’s difficult interviews, a great deal of education or whatever.
I've never understood the absolute premise of: money can't buy happiness.
It very obviously can. I'm happy when I'm not living in a ditch. When I'm warm in Winter. When I have food and I'm not afraid of starving to death. When I can afford to pay my rent or mortgage. And those are the primitives. I'm extremely happy when I can spend a month at the beach (say I live in the mountains or midwest), or hop on a plane and enjoy the glorious creations of cultures from Paris to Rome to Tokyo to Buenos Aires.
Up to a point? I call bullshit on that too. That's a lack of creativity. Assuming we're not talking "point" = the scale of the universe or something beyond reasonable human potential. I'd be very happy spending my life trying to figure out how to benefit humanity with the $127 billion Bezos is sitting on. It'd be an immense joy, it'd be challenging, it'd be rewarding, it would fundamentally further my happiness.
There are various types of personal happiness, some are more core than others. Articles that discuss the up to a point benefits of money always collapse due to that.
It very obviously can. I'm happy when I'm not living in a ditch. When I'm warm in Winter. When I have food and I'm not afraid of starving to death. When I can afford to pay my rent or mortgage. And those are the primitives. I'm extremely happy when I can spend a month at the beach (say I live in the mountains or midwest), or hop on a plane and enjoy the glorious creations of cultures from Paris to Rome to Tokyo to Buenos Aires.
Up to a point? I call bullshit on that too. That's a lack of creativity. Assuming we're not talking "point" = the scale of the universe or something beyond reasonable human potential. I'd be very happy spending my life trying to figure out how to benefit humanity with the $127 billion Bezos is sitting on. It'd be an immense joy, it'd be challenging, it'd be rewarding, it would fundamentally further my happiness.
There are various types of personal happiness, some are more core than others. Articles that discuss the up to a point benefits of money always collapse due to that.
To quote my grandpa (who started off with nothing and retired as a millionaire): money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure makes it easier.
I like Weird Al Yankovic's version: Money can't buy happiness, so I guess I'll have to rent it.
If you don't mind me/us asking ... what did your grandpa do to acquire his wealth? Was he an entrepreneur?
Owned his own small plumbing business. Built a reputation of doing excellent, reliable, honest work and was certified to do unusual things, like medical gas in hospitals.
The trades are undervalued I think as a career choice these days.
A friend operates a boat cleaning business. One harbor and all sizes. Last year he grossed $800k while netting $500k after paying out a floating crew of 5-10 guys, supplies etc.
Vastly under the radar yet a perfect fit for his boating interests.
Vastly under the radar yet a perfect fit for his boating interests.
> the psychologists who conducted the study find that the one making $200,000 is probably no happier than the one making $120,000. This is because both the $120,000 and $200,000 women have incomes above $105,000, which according to their research is the point at which greater household income in the US is not associated with greater happiness. The technical term for this cutoff is the income “satiation point.”
Sounds like satiation point is where the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy have been satisfied.
This article [0] makes the point that mastery, belonging, and autonomy contribute to happiness, as well as the worldview of abundance vs one of scarcity.
[0] Why so many smart people aren't happy https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/why-so-...
Sounds like satiation point is where the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy have been satisfied.
This article [0] makes the point that mastery, belonging, and autonomy contribute to happiness, as well as the worldview of abundance vs one of scarcity.
[0] Why so many smart people aren't happy https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/04/why-so-...
This research, like so many others,ignored the possibly that people want to retire before they die, so need to amass savings.
Exactly, incomplete results being similar to Odds Ratios in medicine not based on endpoint mortality, morbidity and ratings.
Not to mention subject to massive binning effect. You might have binned single people with married couples with kids, both of which have different requirements.
Not to mention subject to massive binning effect. You might have binned single people with married couples with kids, both of which have different requirements.
Does anyone think this may be related to the fact that you don't have a hard goal to seek for the money you are working?
For example; I want a new PC, so I work for 6 months working and thinking on that new pc. Then finally, when I have enough money to buy it and do it, I love it. The effort that cost me gives it an extra value to me. Exactly like when you worked as a kid for the game you really wanted to have. Didn't matter if the game ended being horrible, for you that game was special, and also you could continue playing it after some years with nostalgia feelings.
If I have enough money, this effort is allmost zero. At the moment i get a new need i could satisfy it.
Of course, this is just another hypothesis, and could explain why some people says aren't happier with more money, probably they want something harder to get and still achievable with money/work.
For example; I want a new PC, so I work for 6 months working and thinking on that new pc. Then finally, when I have enough money to buy it and do it, I love it. The effort that cost me gives it an extra value to me. Exactly like when you worked as a kid for the game you really wanted to have. Didn't matter if the game ended being horrible, for you that game was special, and also you could continue playing it after some years with nostalgia feelings.
If I have enough money, this effort is allmost zero. At the moment i get a new need i could satisfy it.
Of course, this is just another hypothesis, and could explain why some people says aren't happier with more money, probably they want something harder to get and still achievable with money/work.
The real test for me is: Do I have sufficient assets to quit my job and still maintain my current standard of living and spending habits? It has nothing to do with wage income.
I think people vastly underestimate the happiness potential that convenience offers. Time is our scarcest asset, and wasting it is extremely distressing. Stress is a big factor in perceived happiness. So yeah, spending money to save time can have a large impact on how happy you are.
People need enough to not feel, or be, materially insecure. It's somewhat subjective (I might have high demands with regards to caviar and champagne) but usually not (groceries, roof, education, doctor).
What's interesting is that there's no mainstream concept for not-materially-insecure. Perhaps, if there were, it would turn into a demand by the population. And we can't have that.
What's interesting is that there's no mainstream concept for not-materially-insecure. Perhaps, if there were, it would turn into a demand by the population. And we can't have that.
I thought that's what the middle class was supposed to be (not-materially-insecure, that is).
If you look at the happiness income in East Asia, you'll note it's higher than in the US. This indicates that the value is not absolute (things you need to be happy) but it's relative to the area.
The best indicator of happiness related to income I have seen concluded that the income is relative to the income of your peers: if they make more money, you will be less happy, if they make less, you will be more happy. This goes well with the idea that people feel more fortunate when they are around people who are less fortunate.
In short, if you want to feel happy about your life, hang out around people who earn less.
The best indicator of happiness related to income I have seen concluded that the income is relative to the income of your peers: if they make more money, you will be less happy, if they make less, you will be more happy. This goes well with the idea that people feel more fortunate when they are around people who are less fortunate.
In short, if you want to feel happy about your life, hang out around people who earn less.
Do people really care that much about the people they're around?
I've always wanted nicer things-not because I have to compete with my neighbor, though...
I've always wanted nicer things-not because I have to compete with my neighbor, though...
Having wealthy friends creates wealth for you. Wealthy professional friends means free medical/legal/financial advice, fancy homes to visit, fancy tools and toys to borrow, all things you can't get from poor friends.
On the other hand it would be rather sad to start selecting your friends based on their wealth.
Except everyone does it all the time. Friendships are assortative with few exceptions. (Just like most couples.)
> In short, if you want to feel happy about your life, hang out around people who earn less.
This doesn't match my experience at all. I feel best when I'm around those who are equal to me (in both income and wealth, because income alone is kind of less interesting).
It's an empathy/social norms thing. I work about half the year, sometimes less, and spend the rest of the year on a mix of personal projects and travel.
Explaining that to someone who works a checkout 50 hours a week, who learns their rota a week out, and might have a few weeks off in a year, is frustrating. (I was there, once).
It doesn't make me feel lucky - it makes me feel that most people are in a terrible place - it makes me unwilling to engage socially for fear of appearing an out of touch prat (the reality is that I'm almost too in-touch...!)
This doesn't match my experience at all. I feel best when I'm around those who are equal to me (in both income and wealth, because income alone is kind of less interesting).
It's an empathy/social norms thing. I work about half the year, sometimes less, and spend the rest of the year on a mix of personal projects and travel.
Explaining that to someone who works a checkout 50 hours a week, who learns their rota a week out, and might have a few weeks off in a year, is frustrating. (I was there, once).
It doesn't make me feel lucky - it makes me feel that most people are in a terrible place - it makes me unwilling to engage socially for fear of appearing an out of touch prat (the reality is that I'm almost too in-touch...!)
I think money is just a something like food: you need it to some amount to have a good life and having a bit more than you need increases your happiness slightly. Having much more, doesn't change much.
There are two very important things to make you happy:
1. Reason and Prospect
2. Freedom (to execute)
Money can increase your level of Freedom (e.g. so you don't have to spend your time working for someone else). A Reason doesn't have to be the reason of your life. It just has to be something you want to accomplish (be rich; be a good parent; be admired; etc.) in combination with an idea to get there (prospect).
There are two very important things to make you happy:
1. Reason and Prospect
2. Freedom (to execute)
Money can increase your level of Freedom (e.g. so you don't have to spend your time working for someone else). A Reason doesn't have to be the reason of your life. It just has to be something you want to accomplish (be rich; be a good parent; be admired; etc.) in combination with an idea to get there (prospect).
- geography probably plays into that.
- family size.
- at around $2-5 Million in assets you could live off the interest and do what you want for work or not.
- family size.
- at around $2-5 Million in assets you could live off the interest and do what you want for work or not.
The numbers are normalized for geography and family size.
If money does not buy you happiness, then you don't know where to shop!
- a wise man.
- a wise man.
The real answer, a little more than the people around you. Here's a simple example, the upper middle class in Manhattan will need enough to keep their lifestyle plus however much more so they are not at the bottom of the social class. Let's guess $350,000 a year. Now go to Nigeria where the per capita GNP is $1,200 a year and you give a person $5000 a year then that person would jump up with joy.
There's not one number. The number is relative to where you live.
Here's a quote I like:
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute — and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." A. Einstein
It doesn't fit 100% but you get the idea.
There's not one number. The number is relative to where you live.
Here's a quote I like:
"When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute — and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity." A. Einstein
It doesn't fit 100% but you get the idea.
"There are only two things wrong with money: too much or too little."
- Charles Bukowski, The Captain is Out to Lunch and the Sailors Have Taken Over the Ship
I am making 105K and i am not sure about happiness. I am happy some part of the day, then i am sleeping then i am working and then i am not happy for some reason for few mins and then i am happy again for some other reason. Sometimes mins are hours and some times day are days.
Is there anyone who is happy 24/7/365?
Why is there such measurement of happiness? When it cannot really be measured.
Some times when there is one kid playing with me i am happy and when some times there are 10 kids around me screaming i am not happy.
I think these days we really need a down vote and dislike buttons as i don't understand why money and time is being wasted into such misleading research efforts.
You can be happy with $0 and happy with $1,000,000. and also you can be not happy with $0 and not happy with $1,000,000.
It is the amount of time you are happy, and i don't think anyone on this planet can be happy 24/7/365.
The number of happy moments may be something that is measurable but that also cannot be tied to any other factor.
I think if the AI is built on top of such false big data then its just going to result into artificial stupidity.
We don't need more of those.
Is there anyone who is happy 24/7/365?
Why is there such measurement of happiness? When it cannot really be measured.
Some times when there is one kid playing with me i am happy and when some times there are 10 kids around me screaming i am not happy.
I think these days we really need a down vote and dislike buttons as i don't understand why money and time is being wasted into such misleading research efforts.
You can be happy with $0 and happy with $1,000,000. and also you can be not happy with $0 and not happy with $1,000,000.
It is the amount of time you are happy, and i don't think anyone on this planet can be happy 24/7/365.
The number of happy moments may be something that is measurable but that also cannot be tied to any other factor.
I think if the AI is built on top of such false big data then its just going to result into artificial stupidity.
We don't need more of those.
1,000,000 dollars, source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs
My number was 2.25m out of college, it's more like 6-8 now. Fortunately, I'll likely never get there so my continually failing startup streak will continue in perpetuity!
Personally, there was a point where I had / was making enough that I felt the need to conceal that fact from people, particularly when I first met them. This meant that I had to go as far as to conceal much of what makes me who I am from people, as some of my hobbies are rather expensive. That was the point where making more meant that I became progressively less happy.
why do you need to conceal your wealth, esp. if it was causing you unhappiness?
First and most importantly, because I want to be sure people aren't dating/befriending me because of what I have. This is unfortunately something I've already experienced a couple times.
Second, because my experiences with many other people in my wealth/income bracket have driven me to try to avoid being anything like them or having other people view me the way I view some of them.
Second, because my experiences with many other people in my wealth/income bracket have driven me to try to avoid being anything like them or having other people view me the way I view some of them.
Alright, but let's revisit the polled people when they're 80 and see who's happy... those who were able to save for retirement, or those who weren't.
"Are you happy?" is such a first-world-problems question. I'd settle for being able to answer "yes" to "are your basic needs met?" for myself and my family in perpetuity...
"Are you happy?" is such a first-world-problems question. I'd settle for being able to answer "yes" to "are your basic needs met?" for myself and my family in perpetuity...
If I were single, it'd be no more than whatever lump sum would semi-guarantee I could have $5000 turning up every month for the rest of my life (so about $1.5m, I'd say). Since I'm married with kids, however, it might as well be an infinite amount :-D
Joking aside, I guess as a person with such amazing credentials, making $20k+ per month for you should be a cakewalk. By American standard it should be a decent mount of money to raise family with kids. But if you want to travel the world, eradicate poverty, leaving trust fund for kids then yes the number can be stretched infinitely. As a married person with kids I would be very happy making the amount of money you have mentioned passively.
Why isn't it $4m for the family? Why do your family spending so much?
> Respondents across the world were asked to rate their lives on a scale of 0-10, where 0 is the “worst possible life” and 10 is the “best possible life.”
I don't think the study properly correlates to 'happiness'. As the article describes, it's more like 'satisfaction'. These are not the same [0]
[0]: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-distinction-between-happin...
I don't think the study properly correlates to 'happiness'. As the article describes, it's more like 'satisfaction'. These are not the same [0]
[0]: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-distinction-between-happin...
[deleted]
Yes, without limit, barring some sort of severe mental disorder.
1) Most people don’t know how to buy more happiness past some point.
2) There’s also a point at which you’re ridiculously ecstatic 24/7, so you’re really more interested in self-actualization than “happiness”.
I should clarify that I don’t yet know a good way to get instant long-term happiness, there is some work and time involved.
1) Most people don’t know how to buy more happiness past some point.
2) There’s also a point at which you’re ridiculously ecstatic 24/7, so you’re really more interested in self-actualization than “happiness”.
I should clarify that I don’t yet know a good way to get instant long-term happiness, there is some work and time involved.
The region chart is almost meaningless: "Middle East/North Africa" lumps together Sudan, Dubai, Syria and Israel as if these countries have much in common in terms of economic development.
tl;dr - A new study finds that $105,000 is the income level at which people no longer feel happier earning more money. This updates the previous number, $75,000, from a 2010 study.
Personally, I’m deeply skeptical of any psychology or sociology research that relies on magic numbers like “105,000”. As far as I can tell, the study doesn’t even account for cost of living.
Personally, I’m deeply skeptical of any psychology or sociology research that relies on magic numbers like “105,000”. As far as I can tell, the study doesn’t even account for cost of living.
Living in Ho Chi Minh City for the last 1.5 years (from San Francisco) and seeing how dirt poor people are, yet smiling and living their lives, the answer is 'not much'.
Isn't it a strong norm in a lot of East Asian countries to always present a happy/polite front, regardless of how you feel inside?
Used to be 75K, now it's 105K. When will we finally admit that there is no satiation point, and rich people generally live better lives?
probably never. in a way, this broadly applicable quote applies: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
80% of people in the US make less than $75k. the idea that people experience diminishing returns on income is a strong argument in favor of redistribution, and is a couple notches more sophisticated than just saying outright that rich people don't deserve what they have. how many people are likely to seriously interrogate the claim that they deserve more than they are paid and/or would use it more efficiently?
80% of people in the US make less than $75k. the idea that people experience diminishing returns on income is a strong argument in favor of redistribution, and is a couple notches more sophisticated than just saying outright that rich people don't deserve what they have. how many people are likely to seriously interrogate the claim that they deserve more than they are paid and/or would use it more efficiently?
In my experience you only need enough money not to have to think about money. If you have simple tastes, that isn't necessarily a lot.
How does ones partner affect this? Does both need to earn the maximum, or earn the double combined?
you 'need' money for your wants. so basically you don't need money, unless you want things. there's plenty of people who are happy as can be, who have never even heard of money :s
[deleted]
[deleted]
Happiness is what you give.
[deleted]
Just a little bit more.
Isn't the real number just more than the people next to you? Wealth is completely relative.
You could feel rich in a poor area with your brand new Camry and feel poor in the Hamptons with your brand new Mercedes.
You could feel rich in a poor area with your brand new Camry and feel poor in the Hamptons with your brand new Mercedes.
this study appears built off the assume that everyone has the same "satiation point". that doesn't seem like a good assumption to me.
> where 0 is the “worst possible life” and 10 is the “best possible life.” (This author would give himself an eight.)
I guess the author is really satisfied with his life. I'd give myself no more than 5.
I guess the author is really satisfied with his life. I'd give myself no more than 5.
This cutoff where more money doesn't bring any more happiness ... maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Personally, I would like to do the experiment and then find out.
I think it’s more realistic saying under a certain amount, your financial situation negatively affects ones’ happiness
Enough.
Trick question. People who waste their money never have enough money to be happy.
You still need to work 40 hours a week or whatever, and only get X weeks of vacation. Having a 180K salary instead of 150K doesn't change any of these obligations, or change your life in any significant way, you just put away more money into the bank.
Of course, stepping from 40K to 100K in salary is practically life altering. Unless you absolutely suck at budgets you can easily get out of debt and start having real vacations. You can afford hobbies, etc.
That's one thing I've always wondered. Unless you can reach super high incomes, the "buy/rent a jet" incomes, your life isn't that different from "all the rest." You still commute to work daily, have a house, etc. I mean sure, the house and car may have higher price points, but the lifestyle is still the same. Maybe I'm wrong and all those luxury brand commercials are right, spending 30 minutes (or however long) per day in a 80K car is so much more rewarding than spending those 30 minutes in a 40K car.