Researchers found that beyond a household income of $75,000 a year, money apparently “does nothing for happiness, enjoyment, sadness or stress.”I think it was only last week that I was arguing in the comments that income was only tested as relevant up to $60K/y.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Look: The happiness number moved again
Robin Hanson quoting some study or other:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
It's just that each of those "dollars" keeps getting smaller. The amount of "wealth" stays the same. But you know that.
Kent...
My assertion is that money does indeed buy happiness, and in real life, there's no actual upper limit. $100K is strictly better on happiness terms than $75K, which is strictly better than $60K. This is a 100% different issue than the inflation issue.
FWIW, I think that the inflation numbers are USUALLY overstated, sometimes drastically so...and so that $75K is worth (maybe) what $69K was a bit back...but more than the $60K.
If I ever get any money I'll let you know what I find out about your assertion.
If you look at the details, what they're finding is diminishing returns, exactly as you'd expect.
It's not hitting an actual ceiling, it's hitting the 95% confidence interval cutoff.
But ultimately happiness comes from what you believe about yourself, your surroundings, your future, and the people you care about. To believe the not-bad things requires some minimum amount of wealth, but the best things are prohibitively expensive to buy.
I could buy Canada, for example. That would definitely make me a lot happier. But in the set 'cheaper than Canada' there's not a whole lot that's useful. Also someone has to agree to sell Canada. Also, many things of roughly 'buy Canada' usefulness don't cost cash.
With more money comes more responsibility, and it mostly cancels out the added material well being.
There is a "conservation of social momentum" here: a faster spin in the money area means a slower spin in the "kick back and enjoy being alive" area.
(This assumes enough spin to provide basic food, clothing, and shelter.)
I've often heard acquaintances who've climbed the money tree remark that they are no happier now than when they were living on a shoestring in the poor part of town, even pining for the loss of the "edge".
Immigrants I talk to say that America is okay, just different, and they miss something from back home, a sense of community and collegiality.
Aretae, you discount community and collegiality too much in favor of money, which lends itself more favorably to measurement. There is a defensiveness here, kind of a "I'm rich and I'm happy, dammit."
"I've often heard acquaintances who've climbed the money tree remark that they are no happier now than when they were living on a shoestring in the poor part of town..."
And I've heard business owners telling employees how horrible and stressful it is to own a business rather than just being a 9 to 5 employee. And, having been on the other side I know it is a lie intended to communicate "Poor me! You don't understand how hard I've got it! I make this money to compensate me for my misery." Now I just roll my eyes at them.
RSF,
Piggybacking/Expanding on Kent's line...
For a given person...MOST of wealth differences in a short number of years are about working harder/more.
Assertion...trading leisure for $ is not a path to greater happiness in many cases. In other news: Investment banking with 120 hour workweeks is not for everyone, even given the insane salaries.
Rising wealth is an entirely different class of thing.
Singaporeans who are now 60 were 20 when their country was poor. Now their country is rich. Fewer hours of work, and ~20x wealth increases is ALL upside.
But are Singaporeans happier?
RSF,
I haven't checked the singaporeans time series data. However, the statistical data we've found says that there is a constant upward sloping line: more income = more happiness.
Also don't forget to double-triple check that they're measuring what they think they're measuring with 'happiness.'
Post a Comment