17 ms·

Valuing time over money is associated with greater happiness

483 points by brahmwg 11y ago

DrNuke 11y ago
We live an average 70-80 years on a lucky rocky, watery ball among bazillions gaseous, frozen or rocky balls into a dark void somewhat existing since a dozen billion years. Money is nothing vs living our time happily or peacefully at least.
- elliotec 11y ago
  True, but I think a major point is that it can be much more difficult for people to live happily and peacefully when they have less money. It's easy for us to say money is nothing vs time, but less easy for the single mom working at wal-mart 60hrs a week to feed the kids.
  - DrNuke 11y ago
    If the mom loves her kids, she will be happy as well.
    - Throwaway23412 11y ago
      I'm struggling to see the connection here. You can love someone and still be unhappy. Abuse victims often love their abusers. Suicide victims often have loved ones.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      It's not happiness. It's being trapped between two emotions - the joy of having and caring for kids, and the despair caused by constant drudgery without perspective. Some people manage to focus so hard on the former that they forget about the latter, at least for a moment. But others can't.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
manachar 11y ago
I wonder if this is behind the greater happiness of people with incomes over 75K per year. They actually have enough money to pay for goods and services that save them time.
- eterm 11y ago
  Indeed it's easier to value time over money if you have a lot of money and your time is highly valued.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - lomnakkus 11y ago
    ... but it should be noted that there's a leveling-off as well. Once you're basically living comfortably and have the requisite free time, more money alone doesn't actually make you any happier. (Too tired to look up the research references, but I'm pretty sure there are some pretty solid findings out there on e.g. lottery winners, wealthy people, etc.)
    - evanpw 11y ago
      You have to distinguish between happiness as emotional well-being (i.e., do you have more happy or sad moments on an average day), vs happiness as life satisfaction (i.e., how happy are you with how your life is going in general). There's some evidence that the former measure plateaus at some income level, but there's also significant evidence that the latter doesn't: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full
      - lomnakkus 11y ago
        That's very intriguing, thanks!
    - zeroonetwothree 11y ago
      This is not really true. It's just an artifact of the way happiness research is done. There's no cap on income, but typically happiness is rated from 1-10. Thus you see a "leveling off". If you use a log scale you actually see a continuous increase.
FreedomToCreate 11y ago
I wonder where this puts founders. We sacrifice a lot of time and money (missed vacations, family time as well as salaries) in the attempt to create something we can call our own. I always debate if it worth it, but there just this excitement associated with the unknown potential of what you are doing that keeps me going...and happy. Sometimes though I do wish I could take that family vacation, or purchase my own apartment.
- zawaideh 11y ago
  Take that vacation. Nothing bad will happen, and you will give your mind a chance to process things. My best ideas came right after vacations.
- camelNotation 11y ago
  Reality: You're going to die. Good Idea: Take a vacation. Enjoy life.
  - bcook 11y ago
    What about the afterlife? Many believe the temporary sacrifices they make while on Earth will benefit them for eternity in the afterlife. Whatever makes you happy. :)
    - camelNotation 11y ago
      I believe in the afterlife and for that reason, I don't take my own advice. I do what is virtuous, not what is always enjoyable. However, for someone like the OP, it sounds like they don't care too much for philosophy or religion since they're pulling their recommendations from scientific studies, so I offered them something that might help with their general psychological health. Hopefully one day they'll seek something deeper and not ask existential questions to computer nerds.
- dudul 11y ago
  A founder who doesn't take vacations or spend time with their family will most likely go crazy and fail.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
finstell 11y ago
Money is nothing if you have it. Money is everything if you don't have it.
- camelNotation 11y ago
  People say that and it seems true to some extent, but financially, people rarely fall into the categories of "limitless wealth" and "not a penny to my name." It's almost like a false dichotomy is being implied by this statement, claiming that if you don't prioritize money, you will be left penniless and ruined. That simply isn't true. There are a wide range of conditions between wealth and poverty and studies like this show that you do not need to be closer to rich than poor to be happy.
  - lmm 11y ago
    I think it's more the opposite: that the richer you are the more you can afford to prioritize time. This study doesn't even try to control for that; they measure materiality and a measure of subjective feelings of wealth, but they never measure e.g. parental income.
  - JimboOmega 11y ago
    I think studies have shown that past a relatively low (by SV standards) level of income ($75kish I think) the relationship between money and happiness breaks down. The argument can definitely be made that the happiness difference between "comfortable and independent" and "Zuckerberg" is not all that great.
    - jkyle 11y ago
      > I think studies have shown that past a relatively low (by SV standards) level of income ($75kish I think) the relationship between money and happiness breaks down. This is true. But while that is low by SV standards, the $75k threshold from the study is targeted to "median america" cost of living. If you adjust for cost of living and for purchasing power over the 6 years since the study was conducted, you end up with quite a bit more for areas like San Francisco. In fact, you'd probably be looking at more like 175-185k. [1] 1. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Happiness-Benchmark.php#ixzz37eM5xPxF http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Happi...
jMyles 11y ago
> Resource Orientation Measure (ROM) Across all studies, we assessed whether individuals prioritized having more time or having more money by presenting them with a bina ry choice. To help participants imagine these trade-offs concretely and to encourag e honest responding (Fisher, 1993), we asked participants to read a short paragraph des cribing two individuals who prioritize money or who prioritize time in their daily lives. The identities of the characters and the pronouns used in the vignettes were matched to the participant’s gender (Tina/Tom and Maggie/Michael); for participants who did not repor t identifying as either male or female, the names and pronouns used in the vignettes were d isplayed as gender neutral (Madison/Taylor). The choices were presented as fol lows: Tina values her time more than her money. She is willing to sacrifice h er money to have more time. For example, Tina would rather w ork fewer hours and make less money, than work more hours and make more mone y. Maggie values her money more than her time. She is willing to sacrifice he r time to have more money. For example, Maggie would rathe r work more hours and make more money, than work fewer hours and have mor e time. We chose a binary response format for pragmatic and theoretical reasons. Practically, there is an increased awareness about the importance of conducting research with large representative samples (Open Science Col laboration, 2015). Thus, it is necessary to design short measures that minimize pa rticipant burden while maximizing reliability (Nagy, 2002). Conceptually, we chose th is response format because we were interested in assessing people’s broad preferences related to prioritizing time over money, as opposed to assessing people’s domain-specific pr eferences. A perhaps laudable measure in order to increase study coherence, but it definitely limits the usefulness of this study in terms of making nuanced life choices.
thejacenxpress 11y ago
Study 1: "Students participated in exchange for the chance to win one of three prizes valued at $700." Study 2a: "Two hundred and sixty UBC students participated in exchange for entry into a lottery or for course credit (78% female)" Study 2b: "In Study 2b, 518 adults were recruited from a science museum in Vancouver, Canada" Study 3a: "In Study 3a, 242 UBC students participated in exchange for course credit or candy (74% female)" Study 3b: " we were able to recruit a very large sample of UBC students, who participated for course credit (N=2303; 76% female). Study 4: " we recruited our sample through the GfK Knowledge Networks Survey Panel. Panel members respond to an average of two online surveys per month and receive small cash rewards and prizes for survey completion" Make of it what you will
- elliotec 11y ago
  What do you make of it?
  - thejacenxpress 11y ago
    small unrepresentative sample size. a problem many studies have issues with.
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      And all are students, who are going to be generally middle class and young.
      - jbackus 11y ago
        This is very common across most psychology studies from what I understand. > In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the premier journal in social psychology – the subdiscipline of psychology that should (arguably) be the most attentive to questions about the subjects’ backgrounds – 67% of the American samples (and 80% of the samples from other countries) were composed solely of undergraduates in psychology courses (Arnett 2008). In other words, a randomly selected American undergraduate is more than 4,000 times more likely to be a research participant than is a randomly selected person from outside of the West. Source: http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf
rdudekul 11y ago
Are people’s general orientations to prioritize time over money are associated with greater happiness? Would you choose a higher paying career that demands longer hours versus making less money and having more free time? From the downloaded text/pdf of the article: "thinking about money leads people to value productivity and independence, thinking about time leads people to prioritize social connections" It looks like high quality social connections lead to happiness: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_life_lessons_from_the_longest_study_on_happiness http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_... Dry read but great paper.
brightball 11y ago
Makes complete sense. Time is the most constrained resource that exists.
orthoganol 11y ago
I've shunned founding startups or working at startups for the last ~3 years, and instead worked 15-20 hr/wk usually remotely. Time is your greatest asset, personally and professionally. It's how you stay abreast of the great opportunities of our time. You need that freedom to explore things that pique your interest or move you. Founding a startup means becoming mostly blind to the other great opportunities, which is why I'm so reluctant to do a startup, unless I think it's "the one." IMO, the opportunity cost of startup jobs is far more sinister than you think. Only do it if you need the money or if you believe you're changing the world in the greatest way you can.
- dudul 11y ago
  What about founding a startup to try to make big money and then have the time to explore things?
  - whiddershins 11y ago
    There's a poor risk/reward ratio there. It takes way too long for the average startup to be successful, and the overwhelming majority of them aren't successful enough to provide the economic freedom you are referring to. If you can love the chase of a startup, and love the thrill and long hours, great! If you are doing it so you can have "more free time later" there are many many better strategies.
    - todorstoyanov 11y ago
      Good point. Can you share some?
      - marvin 11y ago
        Here's one: Get a high-paying software job in a high COL area, work for a decade or so while minimizing your expenses (live cheaply/with friends) and investing as much as possible in a diversified stock market portfolio. Then when you're sick of it, move to a cheaper area, get a part-time job and sell 3-4% of your assets every year to make up for the deficit. If you're lucky, the safe withdrawal rate of 3-4% will even be enough (or close) to have the ability to quit working for a living completely. Or perhaps your part-time job can cover all your expenses and you can just keep letting your portfolio grow at the expected long-term rate of 6-7% per year.
roymurdock 11y ago
I searched for the phrase "diminishing marginal returns" but could not find it in the article which seems like a bit of an omission. This is a fundamental economic concept - the more of something you have, the less value you derive from each incremental unit. So, based on personal preferences, once you reach a certain level of income you will start to substitute away from labor (income) towards leisure/free time (non-market activities such as hobbies, cooking, parenting, gaming, chilling). The study data shows this pretty clearly (if I'm reading it correctly) - in Study 2b (wealthy people polled at a science museum) the median household income was $100-149k and the "% Time Oriented" was 69%. In Study 4 (online panel members who get free internet in exchange for survey participation) the median household income was $75-85k and the "% Time Oriented" was 46%. The implied result that upper middle class folk are able to spend more time on leisure and are therefore happier on average than regular middle class folk doesn't seem too groundbreaking.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  The corresponding colloquialism is "Variety is the spice of life."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- jjp 11y ago
  Remembering my high school economics, from too many years ago, we used the term backward bending supply curve of labour - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_...
- hammock 11y ago
  >"diminishing marginal returns" I came to a different conclusion. The wealth of time (total man-hours or aggregated lifespans) is more evenly distributed across a population than is the wealth of money. Therefore, to the extent that happiness is influenced by comparing how well-off you are vs others, a person picked at random will be pretty damn close to the same standing as whoever is the Time-Richest Person in the World. But they are FAR less likely to be anywhere near the Money-Richest Person in the World.
liberacy 11y ago
A simple association doesn't tell you much. One perfectly plausible explanation is that people who already have plenty of money tend to value time over having a little bit more money. And people who already have plenty of money are happier than people who are a bit short on money.
narrator 11y ago
So higher interest rates mean greater happiness? The interest rate is essentially what you will exchange your time for.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Interest is what you exchange your money's time for, not your time. That difference matters here.
  - narrator 11y ago
    That argument is kind of like how in asset forfeiture cases they don't charge a person with the crime, they charge the person's bag of hundred dollar bills with a crime.
logfromblammo 11y ago
I don't quite understand how "valuing time over money" is meaningful. Time and money have an exchange rate. If you want more time, you can generally forego additional money to get it, and vice versa. Perhaps it should have stated that being happier correlates with valuing an additional minute of leisure time at a higher amount of money. And that is as much as saying that people paid more for their work are happier, which seems almost tautological.
wcummings 11y ago
Because valuing time more than money is a luxury afforded primarily by people with plenty of money.
- notacoward 11y ago
  Very close to my reaction. Having whichever you value is a big factor in happiness. Rich people have money and crave time. The unemployed have time and crave money. No surprise which of those is happier. The more interesting cases are people who don't have a lot of either but give up time for money (most of us) or give up money for time (ski bums, monks, bohemians of many kinds). Which we pursue is a strong statement about which we value, and - again - those who pursue time seem happier overall. Personally, I've been much happier since I dropped to part time, giving up (some) money for (some) time. I'll be even happier when I take that next step toward full retirement.
  - TranquilMarmot 11y ago
    How did you make the decision to go part time instead of full time? Did you have a sizable amount of cash saved up before choosing to do so, or did you do the math, figure "I only need $X to live each month so I'll only work enough hours to make that"? If that's the case, how are you saving money for retirement? Or do you just want to live out your retirement as a ski bum, or a monk?
    - notacoward 11y ago
      Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite the blog post I wrote about this, and hope the rest of HN doesn't mind. http://pl.atyp.us/2013-10-leaning-out.html http://pl.atyp.us/2013-10-leaning-out.html Things have changed only a bit since then. A couple of years' worth of still-increasing income have brought me even closer to permanent financial security. I'm still pretty unimpressed by where this industry is headed technically, socially, and financially. I still want to finish one more Big Thing for pay, maybe one more on my own, and then just dabble in whichever smaller projects catch my fancy. I know, based on the responses to that blog post, that I'm far from alone. I suspect that many people reading this will eventually end up in the same place, whether they believe it now or not.
spectrum1234 11y ago
But I thought time IS money ?????
Outdoorsman 11y ago
Happiness is that for which a trap cannot be laid... Time is more valuable for some--book lovers, hobbyists,daydreamers, etc... Money is more valuable for others...earning it, the implied security of holding it, etc... It seems to me, based on experience, that the route to general happiness is to eliminate as many things as possible that past experience has led you to believe won't make you happy... A life spent in contentment, interspersed with moments of joy (or, happiness) is likely all that humans can resonably hope for...
wyager 11y ago
You can't "value time over money" per se. That's like saying "value dollars over pounds". There's just a (not-necessarily-linear) marginal exchange rate between the two.
- delecti 11y ago
  I think there's an implied "marginal" before both time and money in that statement. You have a steady income of time, you can choose to spend some of that on money, but past a certain point of wealth, the money ceases to be the most valuable use of your incoming time.
cbsmith 11y ago
Classic causation <-> correlation problem. It turns out that if you are happy, you are disproportionately likely to have time as a scarcer resource than money...
SteveWatson 11y ago
Broken link
jqm 11y ago
Within certain boundaries. I haven't seen very many happy unemployed homeless people.
brianpgordon 11y ago
People might work really hard while they're young so that they can retire early and be happy and secure later. Those people would look like they value money more than their time, and probably aren't going to be very happy right now, but in 30 years they're going to be much happier than people still working full-time.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- grillvogel 11y ago
  or dead
- dpark 11y ago
  Depends on what people your talking about. People working wage jobs might retire early if they work really hard and save the extra. Salaried workers really don't make that much more for working themselves to death. Bonuses might be higher, promotions might be a little quicker. Or they might not. Certainly working 80 hours will not result in twice the pay for most salaried employees, not even close. Working more efficiently (and politically) is a better route for most if not all salaried employees.
  - dpark 11y ago
    I hate that I can't fix that typo... I'm blaming autocorrect
- pasquinelli 11y ago
  they'll have reinforced the habit of denying themselves happiness for 30 years.
- taurath 11y ago
  Or you'll find that all the time you put into your work has left you with little hobbies and few relationships outside of your work. You'll also have been honing only the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace, not be happy in your life. What happens is you retire and then you find you're not really good at anything else, and your body is old and creaky and you just don't have the energy to learn things as much anymore. Or, even worse, if you didn't make quite as good investments as you thought you were or there is a huge market downturn and now you have no skills or resources. It happens to a lot of people.
SFjulie1 11y ago
I should be very happy. Oh! I live in misery. I have some bums I know that can testify the same: having time and no money sux. I have written Klines of codes in a lot of language, but writing big brother software that impoverish people even if my boss gives me extra time for my life balance makes me sad. These studies focus on biased population that don't experience poverty, nor seems to care about the others either by ignorance or by convenience (which is worse). I am ruined, anxious, not(happy) (which is different from unhappy) ... but I still have the will to be able to help people suffering more than me... and worst of all I cannot even donate my blood, I come from Europa in Canada. But not being happy does not mean being down. I am superficially unhappy, I will find a way to make things better for both me and people I meet. Happyness is like rain, boring and cold. But it makes you enjoy the sun. I am not happy and I am angry. It makes me feel as alive as when I wed with the one I love. Being told that not being happy is negative, is the same as if I was told to cut my balls because dick is so much more important. Sorry, I like them both.
devit 11y ago
Those that value time over money more are clearly likely to be richer (or even just feel richer), so the conclusion seems pretty obvious, unless they controlled for that.
pfarnsworth 11y ago
The one thing is that you need to have a critical amount of money before you can sacrifice money for time. Without that critical amount of money, biasing towards either more time and spending more money, or money and spending more time either will probably lead to a lot of unhappiness.
edpichler 11y ago
About time and life, I read this year and strongly recommend the book: "The Shortness of Life" of Sêneca.
jonsterling 11y ago
Having enough money that you can value time over it is associated with greater happiness.
jasonkester 11y ago
This approach certainly worked out well for me. From way back in the "paying dues" phase, trading away stock options in favor of extra vacation time, and taking leaves of unpaid absence. On to my contracting days, working short gigs to maximize "bench" time and spending several months a year traveling abroad. Building SaaS products during some of that downtime and growing them in the background so that eventually they would let me step away from the day jobs entirely. It has paid off two-fold, with both a better quality of life during the process, and a nice early "retirement", leaving lots of time to spend with the kids from here on out. 5 stars, would recommend. Don't chase money, chase free time.
d_t_w 11y ago
Ask some poor people if valuing time over money makes them happy, then get back to me.
eibrahim 11y ago
It's easy for us developers to say that because we make good money and I enjoy it. I try to use it for good but I always value time over money. I didn't think that way when I was in college and barely making rent. So yes, when you have money, time is important. When you don't have it, then it becomes your number one focus.
tobbyb 11y ago
I think its a bit sad that its only when we start getting older and have had time for introspection and reflection that we realise that the only thing we have of value is time. We are dying from the time we are born and our bodies are changing everyday. They will not be the same, its when you get sick and realise just how valuable even feeling normal and healthy is that your appreciate the sense of normalcy. If it affects your mobility, sense of well being, physical state, your quality of life and quality of of your time drops never mind your wealth. A lot of people don't have that luxury of recuperating or feeling normal. I think its not money but our health that can make us really unhappy. We have on average a 'journey' of 60 years in this beautiful planet to make the most of the time we have, to make it meaningful and I think what ultimately makes it meaningful is filling it with experiences, learning and people. What you have done with the time and not necessarily money could be a good indicator of overall well being. Though money can more easily enable access to new experiences every experience is different and has merit irrespective of wealth. Learning new things, new sports, new skills are more valuable than anything else as that time has been used and you will not get it back, but you have something to show for it that anyone else can only get not with money, but spending the time to do it. For instance losing weight or learning a new skill. 10 months down the line you have achieved that and are much happier for it and no amount of wealth can buy this for you or anyone else. I am generalizing and they are exceptions but when you think about it our deepest and happiest moments are social, about other people; our family, friends and interactions with other people. This has the potential to make us very happy and fulfilled or very unhappy irrespective of wealth and it's experiences with loved ones; parents, siblings. family, kids, relationships that make up our happiest moments. Everything we associate with happiness in terms of money it seems is often only meaningful or valuable in a social context, and it is always related to it in some way. With the exception of some personal goals that give a sense of achievement in itself, a large proportion of achieving our goals in isolation is meaningless, its only when its widely acknowledged that it becomes meaningful and valuable. This is not to say money is unimportant as it can be a source of stress and limit our ability to have experiences, It's an economic system that drives our progress and is intimately connected with all aspects of our life. But a wealthy individual has experiences as does a not so wealthy individual. I don't think you can objectively say the wealthy person is happier, I think its the person who has had diverse experiences with his or her time and a fulling social context that perhaps is 'happier' as these are unique experiences that give happiness. We have to except the desperately poor from this as access to basics like healthcare, food, sanitation, education can completely change one's perspective of life and make the time we have meaningless which is why social security and basic income is essential to dignify human existence.
sandworm101 11y ago
The OP only addresses money as a resource. That can work when talking about average people, average employees. But if you want to talk about elites, money becomes only a yardstick, a metric rather than a resource. Certain people do not value money directly. They value having more money than other. They value relative wealth. This is why a billionaire will fight for that extra 100k from a contractor or may cut wages on a whim. This drive for relative disparity occurs on the large scale (say a billionaire going after casino workers) the medium scale (athlete A wanting to be paid more than athlete B regardless of number) and too at smallest scales (wanting to be the highest paid in the office). This is human nature. The danger occurs when a powerful person, unable to meaningfully increase their wealth due to the law of diminished returns, decides to attack those with less.
PostThisTooFast 11y ago
Which is why you should regard people who steal your time as thieves. Start with the asshole texting in front of you on the road, sitting on her ass blocking traffic while half the green light goes by.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
linuxhansl 11y ago
Could not agree more. I always value time over money. I've gone even further, I calculate almost everything in time now. If can safe $100 by waiting in line or doing some other time intensive task... How much of my time is that worth? I came to about $100/h. I.e. if I need to spend more than one hour of my spare time to safe $100, I won't do it. (Doesn't mean I make that much or whatever, just that that's how I value my spare time) For the people who work for me if there's a weekend chore (watch a software release, off hours troubleshooting, etc), I always offer one-for-one time off and only then financial compensation.
groutexpectatio 11y ago
in this thread: people who don't understand economics
zvrba 11y ago
Right. I spend less than half of my income on neccessities (food, rent, etc. -- this I split with my partner) and recently I've found myself telling people that time is my most limited resource. So in the past couple of years I've been very conscious about allocating my free time. When I quit may last job I wanted to trade the notice period with unpaid vacation, but it was no-go. :(
Kovah 11y ago
If I could buy additional time, let's say $20 per hour... I would be a damn poor guy..
sjclemmy 11y ago
When I was young and fresh out of college, I earned £8000 per annum and attempted to support a non-working partner and a small child. The idea of time vs money was irrelevant. I did not have enough money to live on. I would work as much as possible to get more money, and it still wasn't enough to live on. Fast forward to now where I have enough money not to bother about budgeting day to day and there is still enough money in my account for savings, holidays etc. whilst supporting a child (the same one!) at University and another trainer obsessed teenager. I think there is a threshold income - up to the point of the threshold more money is required to support the life style one expects. After that threshold is reached, options open up, and WHAT YOU SPEND YOUR TIME ON becomes a big factor. Think minimum basic income. So, time vs money is a rich persons dilemma. Also, the idea that there is a trade off between more money and longer hours is laughable. People on low incomes work long hours and still earn very little. There is no choice. You simply must work long hours to tread water financially. EDIT: I increased my income pretty quickly after that so I haven't suffered as much as the post suggests, but it was HARD work. The great thing about bringing up kids in your 20s is that you have a lot of energy to do all the things.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  I read a report years ago that said in the U.S. the level of "happiness" increases with your income only up until an average of $60K per year, and after that, increased income had no more effect on happiness.
  - rudenoise 11y ago
    You may be thinking of this: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being (Daniel Kahneman1 and Angus Deaton) http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract " Income and education are more closely related to life evaluation, but health, care giving, loneliness, and smoking are relatively stronger predictors of daily emotions. When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being."
osoti 11y ago
Most expensive items in the worls...Its amazing http://goo.gl/fjsRrp http://goo.gl/fjsRrp
dschiptsov 11y ago
I often pass by many places on the roadside where people are making money their whole lives, visiting, perhaps, few times some holy places according to their religion. They are wealthier than me, but I will never exchange lifestyle with them. Money is not happiness. Experiences are. BTW, long lasting happiness is a myth, a wrong concept. Joy, which children are bursting with, is the real one.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
oneJob 11y ago
Let us define the Identity Property of Being as 'being at one with oneself'. Given that: time = money ...and that 'Time is All We Have'. [1] ...we can write: time/time = money/money Which is equivalent to: (time)(money) = (money)(time) Dividing everything by money^2 give us: time/money = time/money Since we know that: time = money ...we can write: time/money = money/money Which is: time/money = 1 So, we have shown that valuing time over money results in the Identity Property of Being. [1] https://youtu.be/IAqgvotGrsg https://youtu.be/IAqgvotGrsg

483 points by brahmwg 11y ago

We live an average 70-80 years on a lucky rocky, watery ball among bazillions gaseous, frozen or rocky balls into a dark void somewhat existing since a dozen billion years. Money is nothing vs living our time happily or peacefully at least.

elliotec 11y ago
True, but I think a major point is that it can be much more difficult for people to live happily and peacefully when they have less money. It's easy for us to say money is nothing vs time, but less easy for the single mom working at wal-mart 60hrs a week to feed the kids.
- DrNuke 11y ago
  If the mom loves her kids, she will be happy as well.
  - Throwaway23412 11y ago
    I'm struggling to see the connection here. You can love someone and still be unhappy. Abuse victims often love their abusers. Suicide victims often have loved ones.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It's not happiness. It's being trapped between two emotions - the joy of having and caring for kids, and the despair caused by constant drudgery without perspective. Some people manage to focus so hard on the former that they forget about the latter, at least for a moment. But others can't.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

manachar 11y ago

I wonder if this is behind the greater happiness of people with incomes over 75K per year. They actually have enough money to pay for goods and services that save them time.

eterm 11y ago
Indeed it's easier to value time over money if you have a lot of money and your time is highly valued.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lomnakkus 11y ago
  ... but it should be noted that there's a leveling-off as well. Once you're basically living comfortably and have the requisite free time, more money alone doesn't actually make you any happier. (Too tired to look up the research references, but I'm pretty sure there are some pretty solid findings out there on e.g. lottery winners, wealthy people, etc.)
  - evanpw 11y ago
    You have to distinguish between happiness as emotional well-being (i.e., do you have more happy or sad moments on an average day), vs happiness as life satisfaction (i.e., how happy are you with how your life is going in general). There's some evidence that the former measure plateaus at some income level, but there's also significant evidence that the latter doesn't: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full
    - lomnakkus 11y ago
      That's very intriguing, thanks!
  - zeroonetwothree 11y ago
    This is not really true. It's just an artifact of the way happiness research is done. There's no cap on income, but typically happiness is rated from 1-10. Thus you see a "leveling off". If you use a log scale you actually see a continuous increase.

FreedomToCreate 11y ago

I wonder where this puts founders. We sacrifice a lot of time and money (missed vacations, family time as well as salaries) in the attempt to create something we can call our own. I always debate if it worth it, but there just this excitement associated with the unknown potential of what you are doing that keeps me going...and happy. Sometimes though I do wish I could take that family vacation, or purchase my own apartment.

zawaideh 11y ago
Take that vacation. Nothing bad will happen, and you will give your mind a chance to process things. My best ideas came right after vacations.
camelNotation 11y ago
Reality: You're going to die. Good Idea: Take a vacation. Enjoy life.
- bcook 11y ago
  What about the afterlife? Many believe the temporary sacrifices they make while on Earth will benefit them for eternity in the afterlife. Whatever makes you happy. :)
  - camelNotation 11y ago
    I believe in the afterlife and for that reason, I don't take my own advice. I do what is virtuous, not what is always enjoyable. However, for someone like the OP, it sounds like they don't care too much for philosophy or religion since they're pulling their recommendations from scientific studies, so I offered them something that might help with their general psychological health. Hopefully one day they'll seek something deeper and not ask existential questions to computer nerds.
dudul 11y ago
A founder who doesn't take vacations or spend time with their family will most likely go crazy and fail.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

finstell 11y ago

Money is nothing if you have it. Money is everything if you don't have it.

camelNotation 11y ago
People say that and it seems true to some extent, but financially, people rarely fall into the categories of "limitless wealth" and "not a penny to my name." It's almost like a false dichotomy is being implied by this statement, claiming that if you don't prioritize money, you will be left penniless and ruined. That simply isn't true. There are a wide range of conditions between wealth and poverty and studies like this show that you do not need to be closer to rich than poor to be happy.
- lmm 11y ago
  I think it's more the opposite: that the richer you are the more you can afford to prioritize time. This study doesn't even try to control for that; they measure materiality and a measure of subjective feelings of wealth, but they never measure e.g. parental income.
- JimboOmega 11y ago
  I think studies have shown that past a relatively low (by SV standards) level of income ($75kish I think) the relationship between money and happiness breaks down. The argument can definitely be made that the happiness difference between "comfortable and independent" and "Zuckerberg" is not all that great.
  - jkyle 11y ago
    > I think studies have shown that past a relatively low (by SV standards) level of income ($75kish I think) the relationship between money and happiness breaks down. This is true. But while that is low by SV standards, the $75k threshold from the study is targeted to "median america" cost of living. If you adjust for cost of living and for purchasing power over the 6 years since the study was conducted, you end up with quite a bit more for areas like San Francisco. In fact, you'd probably be looking at more like 175-185k. [1] 1. http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Happiness-Benchmark.php#ixzz37eM5xPxF http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Happi...

jMyles 11y ago

> Resource Orientation Measure (ROM) Across all studies, we assessed whether individuals prioritized having more time or having more money by presenting them with a bina ry choice. To help participants imagine these trade-offs concretely and to encourag e honest responding (Fisher, 1993), we asked participants to read a short paragraph des cribing two individuals who prioritize money or who prioritize time in their daily lives. The identities of the characters and the pronouns used in the vignettes were matched to the participant’s gender (Tina/Tom and Maggie/Michael); for participants who did not repor t identifying as either male or female, the names and pronouns used in the vignettes were d isplayed as gender neutral (Madison/Taylor). The choices were presented as fol lows: Tina values her time more than her money. She is willing to sacrifice h er money to have more time. For example, Tina would rather w ork fewer hours and make less money, than work more hours and make more mone y. Maggie values her money more than her time. She is willing to sacrifice he r time to have more money. For example, Maggie would rathe r work more hours and make more money, than work fewer hours and have mor e time. We chose a binary response format for pragmatic and theoretical reasons. Practically, there is an increased awareness about the importance of conducting research with large representative samples (Open Science Col laboration, 2015). Thus, it is necessary to design short measures that minimize pa rticipant burden while maximizing reliability (Nagy, 2002). Conceptually, we chose th is response format because we were interested in assessing people’s broad preferences related to prioritizing time over money, as opposed to assessing people’s domain-specific pr eferences. A perhaps laudable measure in order to increase study coherence, but it definitely limits the usefulness of this study in terms of making nuanced life choices.

thejacenxpress 11y ago

Study 1: "Students participated in exchange for the chance to win one of three prizes valued at $700." Study 2a: "Two hundred and sixty UBC students participated in exchange for entry into a lottery or for course credit (78% female)" Study 2b: "In Study 2b, 518 adults were recruited from a science museum in Vancouver, Canada" Study 3a: "In Study 3a, 242 UBC students participated in exchange for course credit or candy (74% female)" Study 3b: " we were able to recruit a very large sample of UBC students, who participated for course credit (N=2303; 76% female). Study 4: " we recruited our sample through the GfK Knowledge Networks Survey Panel. Panel members respond to an average of two online surveys per month and receive small cash rewards and prizes for survey completion" Make of it what you will

elliotec 11y ago
What do you make of it?
- thejacenxpress 11y ago
  small unrepresentative sample size. a problem many studies have issues with.
  - mattmanser 11y ago
    And all are students, who are going to be generally middle class and young.
    - jbackus 11y ago
      This is very common across most psychology studies from what I understand. > In the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, the premier journal in social psychology – the subdiscipline of psychology that should (arguably) be the most attentive to questions about the subjects’ backgrounds – 67% of the American samples (and 80% of the samples from other countries) were composed solely of undergraduates in psychology courses (Arnett 2008). In other words, a randomly selected American undergraduate is more than 4,000 times more likely to be a research participant than is a randomly selected person from outside of the West. Source: http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf http://hci.ucsd.edu/102b/readings/WeirdestPeople.pdf

rdudekul 11y ago

Are people’s general orientations to prioritize time over money are associated with greater happiness? Would you choose a higher paying career that demands longer hours versus making less money and having more free time? From the downloaded text/pdf of the article: "thinking about money leads people to value productivity and independence, thinking about time leads people to prioritize social connections" It looks like high quality social connections lead to happiness: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_life_lessons_from_the_longest_study_on_happiness http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_waldinger_what_makes_a_good_... Dry read but great paper.

brightball 11y ago

Makes complete sense. Time is the most constrained resource that exists.

orthoganol 11y ago

I've shunned founding startups or working at startups for the last ~3 years, and instead worked 15-20 hr/wk usually remotely. Time is your greatest asset, personally and professionally. It's how you stay abreast of the great opportunities of our time. You need that freedom to explore things that pique your interest or move you. Founding a startup means becoming mostly blind to the other great opportunities, which is why I'm so reluctant to do a startup, unless I think it's "the one." IMO, the opportunity cost of startup jobs is far more sinister than you think. Only do it if you need the money or if you believe you're changing the world in the greatest way you can.

dudul 11y ago
What about founding a startup to try to make big money and then have the time to explore things?
- whiddershins 11y ago
  There's a poor risk/reward ratio there. It takes way too long for the average startup to be successful, and the overwhelming majority of them aren't successful enough to provide the economic freedom you are referring to. If you can love the chase of a startup, and love the thrill and long hours, great! If you are doing it so you can have "more free time later" there are many many better strategies.
  - todorstoyanov 11y ago
    Good point. Can you share some?
    - marvin 11y ago
      Here's one: Get a high-paying software job in a high COL area, work for a decade or so while minimizing your expenses (live cheaply/with friends) and investing as much as possible in a diversified stock market portfolio. Then when you're sick of it, move to a cheaper area, get a part-time job and sell 3-4% of your assets every year to make up for the deficit. If you're lucky, the safe withdrawal rate of 3-4% will even be enough (or close) to have the ability to quit working for a living completely. Or perhaps your part-time job can cover all your expenses and you can just keep letting your portfolio grow at the expected long-term rate of 6-7% per year.

roymurdock 11y ago

I searched for the phrase "diminishing marginal returns" but could not find it in the article which seems like a bit of an omission. This is a fundamental economic concept - the more of something you have, the less value you derive from each incremental unit. So, based on personal preferences, once you reach a certain level of income you will start to substitute away from labor (income) towards leisure/free time (non-market activities such as hobbies, cooking, parenting, gaming, chilling). The study data shows this pretty clearly (if I'm reading it correctly) - in Study 2b (wealthy people polled at a science museum) the median household income was $100-149k and the "% Time Oriented" was 69%. In Study 4 (online panel members who get free internet in exchange for survey participation) the median household income was $75-85k and the "% Time Oriented" was 46%. The implied result that upper middle class folk are able to spend more time on leisure and are therefore happier on average than regular middle class folk doesn't seem too groundbreaking.

theseatoms 11y ago
The corresponding colloquialism is "Variety is the spice of life."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
jjp 11y ago
Remembering my high school economics, from too many years ago, we used the term backward bending supply curve of labour - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_...
hammock 11y ago
>"diminishing marginal returns" I came to a different conclusion. The wealth of time (total man-hours or aggregated lifespans) is more evenly distributed across a population than is the wealth of money. Therefore, to the extent that happiness is influenced by comparing how well-off you are vs others, a person picked at random will be pretty damn close to the same standing as whoever is the Time-Richest Person in the World. But they are FAR less likely to be anywhere near the Money-Richest Person in the World.

liberacy 11y ago

A simple association doesn't tell you much. One perfectly plausible explanation is that people who already have plenty of money tend to value time over having a little bit more money. And people who already have plenty of money are happier than people who are a bit short on money.

narrator 11y ago

So higher interest rates mean greater happiness? The interest rate is essentially what you will exchange your time for.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
Interest is what you exchange your money's time for, not your time. That difference matters here.
- narrator 11y ago
  That argument is kind of like how in asset forfeiture cases they don't charge a person with the crime, they charge the person's bag of hundred dollar bills with a crime.

logfromblammo 11y ago

I don't quite understand how "valuing time over money" is meaningful. Time and money have an exchange rate. If you want more time, you can generally forego additional money to get it, and vice versa. Perhaps it should have stated that being happier correlates with valuing an additional minute of leisure time at a higher amount of money. And that is as much as saying that people paid more for their work are happier, which seems almost tautological.

wcummings 11y ago

Because valuing time more than money is a luxury afforded primarily by people with plenty of money.

notacoward 11y ago
Very close to my reaction. Having whichever you value is a big factor in happiness. Rich people have money and crave time. The unemployed have time and crave money. No surprise which of those is happier. The more interesting cases are people who don't have a lot of either but give up time for money (most of us) or give up money for time (ski bums, monks, bohemians of many kinds). Which we pursue is a strong statement about which we value, and - again - those who pursue time seem happier overall. Personally, I've been much happier since I dropped to part time, giving up (some) money for (some) time. I'll be even happier when I take that next step toward full retirement.
- TranquilMarmot 11y ago
  How did you make the decision to go part time instead of full time? Did you have a sizable amount of cash saved up before choosing to do so, or did you do the math, figure "I only need $X to live each month so I'll only work enough hours to make that"? If that's the case, how are you saving money for retirement? Or do you just want to live out your retirement as a ski bum, or a monk?
  - notacoward 11y ago
    Instead of repeating myself, I'll just cite the blog post I wrote about this, and hope the rest of HN doesn't mind. http://pl.atyp.us/2013-10-leaning-out.html http://pl.atyp.us/2013-10-leaning-out.html Things have changed only a bit since then. A couple of years' worth of still-increasing income have brought me even closer to permanent financial security. I'm still pretty unimpressed by where this industry is headed technically, socially, and financially. I still want to finish one more Big Thing for pay, maybe one more on my own, and then just dabble in whichever smaller projects catch my fancy. I know, based on the responses to that blog post, that I'm far from alone. I suspect that many people reading this will eventually end up in the same place, whether they believe it now or not.

spectrum1234 11y ago

But I thought time IS money ?????

Outdoorsman 11y ago

Happiness is that for which a trap cannot be laid... Time is more valuable for some--book lovers, hobbyists,daydreamers, etc... Money is more valuable for others...earning it, the implied security of holding it, etc... It seems to me, based on experience, that the route to general happiness is to eliminate as many things as possible that past experience has led you to believe won't make you happy... A life spent in contentment, interspersed with moments of joy (or, happiness) is likely all that humans can resonably hope for...

wyager 11y ago

You can't "value time over money" per se. That's like saying "value dollars over pounds". There's just a (not-necessarily-linear) marginal exchange rate between the two.

delecti 11y ago
I think there's an implied "marginal" before both time and money in that statement. You have a steady income of time, you can choose to spend some of that on money, but past a certain point of wealth, the money ceases to be the most valuable use of your incoming time.

cbsmith 11y ago

Classic causation <-> correlation problem. It turns out that if you are happy, you are disproportionately likely to have time as a scarcer resource than money...

SteveWatson 11y ago

Broken link

jqm 11y ago

Within certain boundaries. I haven't seen very many happy unemployed homeless people.

brianpgordon 11y ago

People might work really hard while they're young so that they can retire early and be happy and secure later. Those people would look like they value money more than their time, and probably aren't going to be very happy right now, but in 30 years they're going to be much happier than people still working full-time.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
grillvogel 11y ago
or dead
dpark 11y ago
Depends on what people your talking about. People working wage jobs might retire early if they work really hard and save the extra. Salaried workers really don't make that much more for working themselves to death. Bonuses might be higher, promotions might be a little quicker. Or they might not. Certainly working 80 hours will not result in twice the pay for most salaried employees, not even close. Working more efficiently (and politically) is a better route for most if not all salaried employees.
- dpark 11y ago
  I hate that I can't fix that typo... I'm blaming autocorrect
pasquinelli 11y ago
they'll have reinforced the habit of denying themselves happiness for 30 years.
taurath 11y ago
Or you'll find that all the time you put into your work has left you with little hobbies and few relationships outside of your work. You'll also have been honing only the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace, not be happy in your life. What happens is you retire and then you find you're not really good at anything else, and your body is old and creaky and you just don't have the energy to learn things as much anymore. Or, even worse, if you didn't make quite as good investments as you thought you were or there is a huge market downturn and now you have no skills or resources. It happens to a lot of people.

SFjulie1 11y ago

I should be very happy. Oh! I live in misery. I have some bums I know that can testify the same: having time and no money sux. I have written Klines of codes in a lot of language, but writing big brother software that impoverish people even if my boss gives me extra time for my life balance makes me sad. These studies focus on biased population that don't experience poverty, nor seems to care about the others either by ignorance or by convenience (which is worse). I am ruined, anxious, not(happy) (which is different from unhappy) ... but I still have the will to be able to help people suffering more than me... and worst of all I cannot even donate my blood, I come from Europa in Canada. But not being happy does not mean being down. I am superficially unhappy, I will find a way to make things better for both me and people I meet. Happyness is like rain, boring and cold. But it makes you enjoy the sun. I am not happy and I am angry. It makes me feel as alive as when I wed with the one I love. Being told that not being happy is negative, is the same as if I was told to cut my balls because dick is so much more important. Sorry, I like them both.

devit 11y ago

Those that value time over money more are clearly likely to be richer (or even just feel richer), so the conclusion seems pretty obvious, unless they controlled for that.

pfarnsworth 11y ago

The one thing is that you need to have a critical amount of money before you can sacrifice money for time. Without that critical amount of money, biasing towards either more time and spending more money, or money and spending more time either will probably lead to a lot of unhappiness.

edpichler 11y ago

About time and life, I read this year and strongly recommend the book: "The Shortness of Life" of Sêneca.

jonsterling 11y ago

Having enough money that you can value time over it is associated with greater happiness.

jasonkester 11y ago

This approach certainly worked out well for me. From way back in the "paying dues" phase, trading away stock options in favor of extra vacation time, and taking leaves of unpaid absence. On to my contracting days, working short gigs to maximize "bench" time and spending several months a year traveling abroad. Building SaaS products during some of that downtime and growing them in the background so that eventually they would let me step away from the day jobs entirely. It has paid off two-fold, with both a better quality of life during the process, and a nice early "retirement", leaving lots of time to spend with the kids from here on out. 5 stars, would recommend. Don't chase money, chase free time.

d_t_w 11y ago

Ask some poor people if valuing time over money makes them happy, then get back to me.

eibrahim 11y ago

It's easy for us developers to say that because we make good money and I enjoy it. I try to use it for good but I always value time over money. I didn't think that way when I was in college and barely making rent. So yes, when you have money, time is important. When you don't have it, then it becomes your number one focus.

tobbyb 11y ago

I think its a bit sad that its only when we start getting older and have had time for introspection and reflection that we realise that the only thing we have of value is time. We are dying from the time we are born and our bodies are changing everyday. They will not be the same, its when you get sick and realise just how valuable even feeling normal and healthy is that your appreciate the sense of normalcy. If it affects your mobility, sense of well being, physical state, your quality of life and quality of of your time drops never mind your wealth. A lot of people don't have that luxury of recuperating or feeling normal. I think its not money but our health that can make us really unhappy. We have on average a 'journey' of 60 years in this beautiful planet to make the most of the time we have, to make it meaningful and I think what ultimately makes it meaningful is filling it with experiences, learning and people. What you have done with the time and not necessarily money could be a good indicator of overall well being. Though money can more easily enable access to new experiences every experience is different and has merit irrespective of wealth. Learning new things, new sports, new skills are more valuable than anything else as that time has been used and you will not get it back, but you have something to show for it that anyone else can only get not with money, but spending the time to do it. For instance losing weight or learning a new skill. 10 months down the line you have achieved that and are much happier for it and no amount of wealth can buy this for you or anyone else. I am generalizing and they are exceptions but when you think about it our deepest and happiest moments are social, about other people; our family, friends and interactions with other people. This has the potential to make us very happy and fulfilled or very unhappy irrespective of wealth and it's experiences with loved ones; parents, siblings. family, kids, relationships that make up our happiest moments. Everything we associate with happiness in terms of money it seems is often only meaningful or valuable in a social context, and it is always related to it in some way. With the exception of some personal goals that give a sense of achievement in itself, a large proportion of achieving our goals in isolation is meaningless, its only when its widely acknowledged that it becomes meaningful and valuable. This is not to say money is unimportant as it can be a source of stress and limit our ability to have experiences, It's an economic system that drives our progress and is intimately connected with all aspects of our life. But a wealthy individual has experiences as does a not so wealthy individual. I don't think you can objectively say the wealthy person is happier, I think its the person who has had diverse experiences with his or her time and a fulling social context that perhaps is 'happier' as these are unique experiences that give happiness. We have to except the desperately poor from this as access to basics like healthcare, food, sanitation, education can completely change one's perspective of life and make the time we have meaningless which is why social security and basic income is essential to dignify human existence.

sandworm101 11y ago

The OP only addresses money as a resource. That can work when talking about average people, average employees. But if you want to talk about elites, money becomes only a yardstick, a metric rather than a resource. Certain people do not value money directly. They value having more money than other. They value relative wealth. This is why a billionaire will fight for that extra 100k from a contractor or may cut wages on a whim. This drive for relative disparity occurs on the large scale (say a billionaire going after casino workers) the medium scale (athlete A wanting to be paid more than athlete B regardless of number) and too at smallest scales (wanting to be the highest paid in the office). This is human nature. The danger occurs when a powerful person, unable to meaningfully increase their wealth due to the law of diminished returns, decides to attack those with less.

PostThisTooFast 11y ago

Which is why you should regard people who steal your time as thieves. Start with the asshole texting in front of you on the road, sitting on her ass blocking traffic while half the green light goes by.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

linuxhansl 11y ago

Could not agree more. I always value time over money. I've gone even further, I calculate almost everything in time now. If can safe $100 by waiting in line or doing some other time intensive task... How much of my time is that worth? I came to about $100/h. I.e. if I need to spend more than one hour of my spare time to safe $100, I won't do it. (Doesn't mean I make that much or whatever, just that that's how I value my spare time) For the people who work for me if there's a weekend chore (watch a software release, off hours troubleshooting, etc), I always offer one-for-one time off and only then financial compensation.

groutexpectatio 11y ago

in this thread: people who don't understand economics

zvrba 11y ago

Right. I spend less than half of my income on neccessities (food, rent, etc. -- this I split with my partner) and recently I've found myself telling people that time is my most limited resource. So in the past couple of years I've been very conscious about allocating my free time. When I quit may last job I wanted to trade the notice period with unpaid vacation, but it was no-go. :(

Kovah 11y ago

If I could buy additional time, let's say $20 per hour... I would be a damn poor guy..

sjclemmy 11y ago

When I was young and fresh out of college, I earned £8000 per annum and attempted to support a non-working partner and a small child. The idea of time vs money was irrelevant. I did not have enough money to live on. I would work as much as possible to get more money, and it still wasn't enough to live on. Fast forward to now where I have enough money not to bother about budgeting day to day and there is still enough money in my account for savings, holidays etc. whilst supporting a child (the same one!) at University and another trainer obsessed teenager. I think there is a threshold income - up to the point of the threshold more money is required to support the life style one expects. After that threshold is reached, options open up, and WHAT YOU SPEND YOUR TIME ON becomes a big factor. Think minimum basic income. So, time vs money is a rich persons dilemma. Also, the idea that there is a trade off between more money and longer hours is laughable. People on low incomes work long hours and still earn very little. There is no choice. You simply must work long hours to tread water financially. EDIT: I increased my income pretty quickly after that so I haven't suffered as much as the post suggests, but it was HARD work. The great thing about bringing up kids in your 20s is that you have a lot of energy to do all the things.

hellofunk 11y ago
I read a report years ago that said in the U.S. the level of "happiness" increases with your income only up until an average of $60K per year, and after that, increased income had no more effect on happiness.
- rudenoise 11y ago
  You may be thinking of this: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being (Daniel Kahneman1 and Angus Deaton) http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.abstract " Income and education are more closely related to life evaluation, but health, care giving, loneliness, and smoking are relatively stronger predictors of daily emotions. When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being."

osoti 11y ago

Most expensive items in the worls...Its amazing http://goo.gl/fjsRrp http://goo.gl/fjsRrp

dschiptsov 11y ago

I often pass by many places on the roadside where people are making money their whole lives, visiting, perhaps, few times some holy places according to their religion. They are wealthier than me, but I will never exchange lifestyle with them. Money is not happiness. Experiences are. BTW, long lasting happiness is a myth, a wrong concept. Joy, which children are bursting with, is the real one.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

oneJob 11y ago

Let us define the Identity Property of Being as 'being at one with oneself'. Given that: time = money ...and that 'Time is All We Have'. [1] ...we can write: time/time = money/money Which is equivalent to: (time)(money) = (money)(time) Dividing everything by money^2 give us: time/money = time/money Since we know that: time = money ...we can write: time/money = money/money Which is: time/money = 1 So, we have shown that valuing time over money results in the Identity Property of Being. [1] https://youtu.be/IAqgvotGrsg https://youtu.be/IAqgvotGrsg