3 ms·

Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compa

by grellas 16y ago

Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also correct, this would mean that most of the people who have ever lived throughout all of humanity's existence have been unhappy with their lives. That would seem to me a dubious proposition. I think that neither money nor happiness is the key but rather contentment. Life dishes up the good and bad to us all, and we often can't do anything about that, but learning to be content with what we have is an achievable and worthwhile goal for all - and also a better measure than money can ever be of whether we have lived our lives well.

merrick33 16y ago
I don't believe you watched the TED talk by Daniel Kahneman embedded in the blog post. Daniel Kahneman mentions the 60k stat after his discussion and says "for Americans". That should lead you to the conclusion that the number would likely be different if you did the gallup survey in a different country.
timwiseman 16y ago
Sir, as always you make excellent points. Though in this case, I think you may be neglecting one thing. As the article mentions towards the end, humans are creatures of comparison. Someone earning around 60K in America can see that they are better off materially than most of the people in their city and if they pay any attention at all to the world they will know they are vastly better off than the majority of the world. At that point they are hardly wealthy, but better off than most.
- ericd 16y ago
  Yep, I was going to post exactly this. You can be making 200k/year, but if you're a trader and your peers are pulling 400-600k, you're very likely to be unhappy with your predicament. Humans are competitive. If you have the best mud hut of everyone you know and know of, it seems likely that you'll be just as happy as that top trader, with regards to wealth.
kqr2 16y ago
I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket. Standard of living may be lower elsewhere, however, an individual's relative wealth (especially with respect to peers) is probably what's really relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela...
- greendestiny 16y ago
  In fact it might represent both an absolute and a relative component, all it really says is that in the USA today that combined figure seems to be $60k.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    I suspect that our system is (unintentionally) rigged so that only the top 20% are set-up for happiness. I suspect that most social systems are set up in such a way, such that the majority have to strive for something.
- grellas 16y ago
  Yes, point well taken - I think I was unfair to Mr. Kahneman in how I characterized his statement (my comment really addresses the absolute "Happiness is earning $60,000/year" statement as expressed in the title - which, in my view, is a dubious absolute metric for happiness). Thanks also to timwiseman and merrick33 for pointing this out.
- mistermann 16y ago
  "I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket." And another caveat (financially), to those who live in regions where the housing bubble has not yet popped, is: did you buy a house before the bubble started? In most of Canada (and Australia and a few other places) where the bubble is still thriving, the #1 most important financial issue for 95+% of people is, did you own a house before ~2001. If not, you can be in the top 10% of earners, and you can only "afford" to buy a house equivalent to those in the top 30-40% who got in pre-2001. In major cities in Canada, $500k will get you an "ok" cookie cutter in the suburbs, if you're lucky. In the US, where the bubble has burst, $500k will, in most places, get you what seems like a mansion.
kjhgfhjk 16y ago
I suspect it varies even within America. There might be places in the midwest where houses cost $60K, bit on this coast it means more than 50% of your take-home is going on rent for a studio apartment.
randallsquared 16y ago
most of the people who have ever lived throughout all of humanity's existence have been unhappy with their lives. That would seem to me a dubious proposition. Actually, I would agree with the assertion that most humans who've ever lived have been less than happy through most of their lives. The 60K number is mentioned in the context of being in the top 20 percent, status-wise, so this implies that most Americans are unhappy even though they're richer than Croesus, quite literally. This squares with my experience.

by grellas 16y ago

merrick33 16y ago

I don't believe you watched the TED talk by Daniel Kahneman embedded in the blog post. Daniel Kahneman mentions the 60k stat after his discussion and says "for Americans". That should lead you to the conclusion that the number would likely be different if you did the gallup survey in a different country.

timwiseman 16y ago

Sir, as always you make excellent points. Though in this case, I think you may be neglecting one thing. As the article mentions towards the end, humans are creatures of comparison. Someone earning around 60K in America can see that they are better off materially than most of the people in their city and if they pay any attention at all to the world they will know they are vastly better off than the majority of the world. At that point they are hardly wealthy, but better off than most.

ericd 16y ago
Yep, I was going to post exactly this. You can be making 200k/year, but if you're a trader and your peers are pulling 400-600k, you're very likely to be unhappy with your predicament. Humans are competitive. If you have the best mud hut of everyone you know and know of, it seems likely that you'll be just as happy as that top trader, with regards to wealth.

kqr2 16y ago

I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket. Standard of living may be lower elsewhere, however, an individual's relative wealth (especially with respect to peers) is probably what's really relevant: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Relative-wealth-makes-you-happier.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3315638/Rela...

greendestiny 16y ago
In fact it might represent both an absolute and a relative component, all it really says is that in the USA today that combined figure seems to be $60k.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I suspect that our system is (unintentionally) rigged so that only the top 20% are set-up for happiness. I suspect that most social systems are set up in such a way, such that the majority have to strive for something.
grellas 16y ago
Yes, point well taken - I think I was unfair to Mr. Kahneman in how I characterized his statement (my comment really addresses the absolute "Happiness is earning $60,000/year" statement as expressed in the title - which, in my view, is a dubious absolute metric for happiness). Thanks also to timwiseman and merrick33 for pointing this out.
mistermann 16y ago
"I think the key to the $60K happiness threshold is that it represents being in the top 20% income bracket." And another caveat (financially), to those who live in regions where the housing bubble has not yet popped, is: did you buy a house before the bubble started? In most of Canada (and Australia and a few other places) where the bubble is still thriving, the #1 most important financial issue for 95+% of people is, did you own a house before ~2001. If not, you can be in the top 10% of earners, and you can only "afford" to buy a house equivalent to those in the top 30-40% who got in pre-2001. In major cities in Canada, $500k will get you an "ok" cookie cutter in the suburbs, if you're lucky. In the US, where the bubble has burst, $500k will, in most places, get you what seems like a mansion.

kjhgfhjk 16y ago

I suspect it varies even within America. There might be places in the midwest where houses cost $60K, bit on this coast it means more than 50% of your take-home is going on rent for a studio apartment.

randallsquared 16y ago

most of the people who have ever lived throughout all of humanity's existence have been unhappy with their lives. That would seem to me a dubious proposition. Actually, I would agree with the assertion that most humans who've ever lived have been less than happy through most of their lives. The 60K number is mentioned in the context of being in the top 20 percent, status-wise, so this implies that most Americans are unhappy even though they're richer than Croesus, quite literally. This squares with my experience.