4 ms·

Said parent commenter: "Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life e

by jokerx 8y ago

Said parent commenter: "Without any good life strategies the happiness money brings peaks at 70k or such (basically you don't have to worry about regular life expenses)." Please! Try having a few kids and living in a desirable metro area. I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too. So many sayings about financial happiness seem written for single people with no dependents.

rootusrootus 8y ago
Agreed. I don't worry about money per se, but I am always on the lookout for a bit more. Within reason, of course. Kids are expensive, and the more I make now the more relaxed my retirement will be. 70K isn't enough to build much of a nest egg IMO. Also, the money:happiness ratio has been investigated quite a lot, and as I recall it never really peaks, it just becomes less of a factor.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fsloth 8y ago
"I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too." Good for you. But I really wasn't trying to say how much people have the right to earn, just pointing out that likely there is some upper limit where money alone does not bring much additional happiness. Obviously people have different priorities, life situations and preferences. I just wanted to point out that money can't be used as an objective measure of happiness or professional success in the most generic philosophical sense. I can totally see how a metropolitan location would increase life satisfaction by providing a rich selection of entertainment, cultural venues and restaurants (i.e. experiences).
ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago
I think this particular saying should be changed to 70k per individual (including children), a family of 4 would then be at 280k - I would be more inclined to agree with the 'happiness' factor then, some people are miserable and they won't be happy with millions either.
- whatsstolat 8y ago
  You don't need that much money for the kids themselves but I find spending quite a bit on conveniences to compensate for being short on time. Cleaners, gardener, dry cleaners, extended childcare facilities etc.
souprock 8y ago
Clearly "desirable metro area" is the problem. Some would even call it a self-contradiction. The increased salary of an expensive area does not normally compensate for the increased costs. It might if you are content with a studio apartment and you put most of your income into a retirement fund that you will spend only after you leave the area. You're in deep trouble if housing is a significant need for you. It's like this: salary goes up 50%, and expenses go up 200%, so you lose. 70k, with just a single income, is perfectly fine if you live somewhere cheap. You can easily own a home and raise a family with that kind of money. I know people who manage that on far less.

by jokerx 8y ago

rootusrootus 8y ago

Agreed. I don't worry about money per se, but I am always on the lookout for a bit more. Within reason, of course. Kids are expensive, and the more I make now the more relaxed my retirement will be. 70K isn't enough to build much of a nest egg IMO. Also, the money:happiness ratio has been investigated quite a lot, and as I recall it never really peaks, it just becomes less of a factor.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fsloth 8y ago

"I didn't stop worrying about money until my salary was twice that, and my wife works too." Good for you. But I really wasn't trying to say how much people have the right to earn, just pointing out that likely there is some upper limit where money alone does not bring much additional happiness. Obviously people have different priorities, life situations and preferences. I just wanted to point out that money can't be used as an objective measure of happiness or professional success in the most generic philosophical sense. I can totally see how a metropolitan location would increase life satisfaction by providing a rich selection of entertainment, cultural venues and restaurants (i.e. experiences).

ajeet_dhaliwal 8y ago

I think this particular saying should be changed to 70k per individual (including children), a family of 4 would then be at 280k - I would be more inclined to agree with the 'happiness' factor then, some people are miserable and they won't be happy with millions either.

whatsstolat 8y ago
You don't need that much money for the kids themselves but I find spending quite a bit on conveniences to compensate for being short on time. Cleaners, gardener, dry cleaners, extended childcare facilities etc.

souprock 8y ago

Clearly "desirable metro area" is the problem. Some would even call it a self-contradiction. The increased salary of an expensive area does not normally compensate for the increased costs. It might if you are content with a studio apartment and you put most of your income into a retirement fund that you will spend only after you leave the area. You're in deep trouble if housing is a significant need for you. It's like this: salary goes up 50%, and expenses go up 200%, so you lose. 70k, with just a single income, is perfectly fine if you live somewhere cheap. You can easily own a home and raise a family with that kind of money. I know people who manage that on far less.