6 ms·
I think it's a well-established fact that going from poor to middle class makes a huge difference, from middle to top makes difference too, but not as big. 5 y
by amoitnga 8y ago
I think it's a well-established fact that going from poor to middle class makes a huge difference, from middle to top makes difference too, but not as big.
5 years ago I was a carpenter in New York making some 30k a year, I was miserable. I wanted a different job, but not only because of a better paycheck, but also a kind of work I'd do, the way I'd spend my days.
Now I'm a web developer and having that background really puts things into perspective. That perspective makes me pretty darn happy. My point is this:
It's an equation with multiple variables, where 'money' is only one of 'em. For me it's
M + T + Q = H
M = Money
T = Amount of time you spend to get it
Q = quality of that time. Sure you can make big buck but do something you're absolutely horrified by, something that makes you miserable... Or you make a pretty modest paycheck, but enjoy every minute of it.
Of course, there is more to it, but it conveys the idea:
Money affects how you feel, but there is more to that.
- stephengillie 8y agoThis is a great argument against working unpaid overtime. Unpaid overtime work holds M constant while reducing T - recomputing your M and T cause M to reduce at a rate of 2.5% per hour worked past 40. And your Q might reduce as well.
- stanleydrew 8y agoWhat if the model were changed to M + T*Q = H so that time and quality of the time are tightly coupled. Unpaid overtime that has a high quality might then still pay off (although this is also true in the case where T and Q are additive, just tougher to achieve).
- stephengillie 8y agoSince Q is already a component of T, this would cause both to decline even faster. The more you value your off-time, and the less you have, the less happier you'll be. What you're looking for is W, the happiness you get from your work. To modify the equation again: M + T*Q + W = H
- howlgram 8y agoI'd put it more like M(1/T)+QT
- Rainymood 8y agoI kinda think its funny how the emphasis on money is being made here. While true, money intrinsically fails to have any real value besides what others think it is worth (its a fiat currency). Money represents value, and with value we can buy other stuff that makes us happy. I would argue that money is not part of the equation here at all, but rather the stuff that money can buy. If we take your equation of M+T+Q=H then the M would be weighed differently in Nepal than in San Fransisco with its higher CoL. I, personally, would be able to live very comfortably without any money, given my physical needs are satisfied. What will probably happen in this moneyless society is that another value store would be created to transfer value in and across time, something like money but with shells or oddly shaped stones maybe. The point I was trying to make was that money does not bring happiness, but rather the stuff that money allows us to buy. Then I followed this argument and came to the conclusion that we end up with money anyway. Are there any advanced societies without a value-store like money? I wonder.
- dharma1 8y agoI also wonder if AGI (if we get that far) will use money