5 ms·

What cities are you living in?! £70k GBP is an insane salary, $70k USD equates to £52k, which is also _well_ above the UK average salary. Same applies to EU ci

What cities are you living in?! £70k GBP is an insane salary, $70k USD equates to £52k, which is also _well_ above the UK average salary. Same applies to EU cities too. Also, if you are curious, I believe this is the study people frequently cite: https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 6y ago
IIRC from my cost of living calculations early this year, 52k GBP is barely enough for a couple with a small child to survive in London.
- cassepipe 6y ago
  Yes but that's three persons. Unless it was assumed that the typical profile here is a pater familias with a housewife.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Perhaps not typical, but quite nice if you can pull it off. I actually refused an offer to move to London (despite initial excitement) for a salary slightly larger than mentioned above, because it would've been a significant quality of life downgrade. Even if both partners work, being able to stay above water on a single salary does wonders for the peace of mind.
  - flyinglizard 6y ago
    In the context of planning retirement with perpetual income coming from a lump sum, you have to take family into account (because that’s what most people end up with).
- laputan_machine 6y ago
  Yeah, I can believe that, but that is 1 city, what number constitutes 'many'?
mytailorisrich 6y ago
The claim was that 70k is when additional money does not improve wellbeing, not whether this is more than most people earn. Obviously the number has to be quite higher than the average income. I live in the UK and I can assure you than earning £52k or £70k a year is not an insane salary and is certainly way below the income at which money no longer makes a difference. Or this is £50k-70k after tax and per person in the household. In which case this means earning well in excess of £200k a year for both parents for a family of four, which is probably more realistic but also probably means this only applies to the 1%...
- laputan_machine 6y ago
  I live in the UK, earn less than 52k and can assure you that 70k is quite a remarkable salary to be earning. It puts you in the 94th %ile of earners. If you do not think that is a big deal, I do not know what to say. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f.... Edit: And my comment was actually to the claim that 70k is 'very, very low'. Which it is not. The comments section of HN occasionally reads like it is perused only by billionaires.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    That is not the point, which is, again, about the level of income where additional money no longer makes much difference. I don't dispute that 70k is a very good salary but I can tell you that 70k is far from being the level at which additional money no longer makes a difference. 70k is indeed "low" in that respect, especially with a family. An example: a good private school costs circa 16k a year. It makes a massive difference compared to your local state school. To be able to spend £16k a year cash you need to reach around this £70k income level before tax for both parents... For a single child. So IMHO, in the UK the level at which extra money no longer makes a difference to way of life or well-being is quite higher than £70k. I do agree that claiming that $70k (£52k) is not even a living wage in some western cities seems outlandish...
    - 6y ago
conformist 6y ago
The study is very interesting, thanks for the link. I think, it is hard to draw the conclusion from it that increasing your income above a certain threshold does not increase your happiness in the case considered here. (They say something along these lines in the discussion section, too.) All the study says is that "if you are a person that earns more than a threshold, you are typically not happier than a person who earns approximately the threshold salary" (very stylised). This is not the same as saying "all else equal, if you'd earn more than the threshold salary, you would not be happier". So, in this kind of thought-experiment, where you get additional money that is free from, e.g., the typical downsides associated with it (e.g, more work, longer hours, more responsibility, or other things like that), you would not expect this to be applicable. Hence, if you're a person who is in a position where they can simply generate more income through, e.g., licensing deals, it does not seem unlikely that more income will actually make them happier.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 6y ago

IIRC from my cost of living calculations early this year, 52k GBP is barely enough for a couple with a small child to survive in London.

cassepipe 6y ago
Yes but that's three persons. Unless it was assumed that the typical profile here is a pater familias with a housewife.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Perhaps not typical, but quite nice if you can pull it off. I actually refused an offer to move to London (despite initial excitement) for a salary slightly larger than mentioned above, because it would've been a significant quality of life downgrade. Even if both partners work, being able to stay above water on a single salary does wonders for the peace of mind.
- flyinglizard 6y ago
  In the context of planning retirement with perpetual income coming from a lump sum, you have to take family into account (because that’s what most people end up with).
laputan_machine 6y ago
Yeah, I can believe that, but that is 1 city, what number constitutes 'many'?

mytailorisrich 6y ago

The claim was that 70k is when additional money does not improve wellbeing, not whether this is more than most people earn. Obviously the number has to be quite higher than the average income. I live in the UK and I can assure you than earning £52k or £70k a year is not an insane salary and is certainly way below the income at which money no longer makes a difference. Or this is £50k-70k after tax and per person in the household. In which case this means earning well in excess of £200k a year for both parents for a family of four, which is probably more realistic but also probably means this only applies to the 1%...

laputan_machine 6y ago
I live in the UK, earn less than 52k and can assure you that 70k is quite a remarkable salary to be earning. It puts you in the 94th %ile of earners. If you do not think that is a big deal, I do not know what to say. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-from-1-to-99-for-total-income-before-and-after-tax https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/percentile-points-f.... Edit: And my comment was actually to the claim that 70k is 'very, very low'. Which it is not. The comments section of HN occasionally reads like it is perused only by billionaires.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  That is not the point, which is, again, about the level of income where additional money no longer makes much difference. I don't dispute that 70k is a very good salary but I can tell you that 70k is far from being the level at which additional money no longer makes a difference. 70k is indeed "low" in that respect, especially with a family. An example: a good private school costs circa 16k a year. It makes a massive difference compared to your local state school. To be able to spend £16k a year cash you need to reach around this £70k income level before tax for both parents... For a single child. So IMHO, in the UK the level at which extra money no longer makes a difference to way of life or well-being is quite higher than £70k. I do agree that claiming that $70k (£52k) is not even a living wage in some western cities seems outlandish...
  - 6y ago

conformist 6y ago

The study is very interesting, thanks for the link. I think, it is hard to draw the conclusion from it that increasing your income above a certain threshold does not increase your happiness in the case considered here. (They say something along these lines in the discussion section, too.) All the study says is that "if you are a person that earns more than a threshold, you are typically not happier than a person who earns approximately the threshold salary" (very stylised). This is not the same as saying "all else equal, if you'd earn more than the threshold salary, you would not be happier". So, in this kind of thought-experiment, where you get additional money that is free from, e.g., the typical downsides associated with it (e.g, more work, longer hours, more responsibility, or other things like that), you would not expect this to be applicable. Hence, if you're a person who is in a position where they can simply generate more income through, e.g., licensing deals, it does not seem unlikely that more income will actually make them happier.