8 ms·

Could also be that the environment has changed since the original studies were done in 1999-2002. I know that my subjective well-being was higher with an incom

Could also be that the environment has changed since the original studies were done in 1999-2002. I know that my subjective well-being was higher with an income of $100K in 2008 than it is with a half-mil+ in 2020. Why? Because the social system around me wasn't crumbling. Pre-GFC it was hard to imagine the degree to which your fellow Americans could end up hating and distrusting each other. $100K/year was a very respectable upper-middle-class income that could buy a house and have plenty left over for savings. Now, you can be making a couple million a year and only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash. You're certainly better off with that couple million than without it, though.

war1025 6y ago
I think that's just the rat race. Wherever you go, there you are. The company you keep at 50k / yr is probably different than at 100k / yr and certainly different than at 500k / yr.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  Not neccesarily. Only if you're the sort of person who values money and chooses to asscoiate with people based on how much money they have. Of course people with lots of money do tend to be people who value having lots of money. But not always.
  - war1025 6y ago
    That's sort of the point of it though, right? If you equate your income with your self-worth, then you'll never feel that you have enough. If you can step outside that framework, you'll find that you may still make significant money, but it doesn't really matter so much.
- TuringNYC 6y ago
  It isn’t a rat race, it is inflation. My dad purchased a house in the city for $30,000 in 1981. No amount of stop-the-rat-race mentality gets me a house for $30,000. My elder cousin purchased a house in the city for $300,000 in 2001. No amount of stop-the-rat-race mentality gets me a house for $300,000. Prices have gone up, way more than salaries.
  - jcomis 6y ago
    Exactly. Some prices have just gone up way more disproportionately, like housing, making it difficult to compare to older metrics.
  - stickfigure 6y ago
    You can get nice house for $300,000, just not in a major metro zone. It works if your "stop-the-rate-race" mentality includes moving to a rural area. Especially if you leave CA or NY.
    - danaris 6y ago
      You definitely don't even have to leave NY State, just the city and its environs. Rural Upstate NY has more in common with rural PA than it does with, say, Westchester or the Hamptons. Or even with most of MA.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    Interest rates have crumbled since then and dramatically so. That 30k is around 85k today. Interest rates then vs today would make for the same monthly payment in actual dollars of around $500/month. $500/month in 1981 is like $1400 today. This would mean the house should be worth around $300k today at today’s interest rates. Of course the location may be more or less in demand which greatly influences price. Where I grew up the houses are more expensive than in the 80’s but the location isn’t in demand so the inflation and interest adjusted cost is well below the cost back then.
    - tebbers 6y ago
      I recently saw a graph of the average monthly mortgage payment in the UK (a country where house prices have rocketed in the last 30 years). The average monthly mortgage payment has basically been flat over the last 30 years so I think your point is absolutely correct - affordability on a monthly basis hasn't budged.
      - Bombthecat 6y ago
naveen99 6y ago
How can someone take take your income from you ? Assets aren’t income. All assets have a carrying cost / risk, it’s always been that way.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  Lose your job, lose your income. That happens increasingly frequently as the pace of change heats up in various industries.
  - naveen99 6y ago
    I would think people whose labor is worth $2 million per year also have options, starting with self employment
    - throwaway_goog 6y ago
      Not better ones. Self-employment leaves you more exposed to the randomness of the marketplace, not less.
      - naveen99 6y ago
        The fewer options you have the riskier your current position. True with income as with assets I guess.
bondarchuk 6y ago
GFC?
- cle 6y ago
  Global financial crisis, presumably.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
sokoloff 6y ago
Would your experienced well-being have been higher in 2008 with half-million in income? Would your experienced well-being in 2020 be lower if you were making $100K/yr? I suspect the answer is yes to both, from which I conclude "2020 was worse across the board by important stability measures that you value, but for any given year, $500K in income is better than $100K."
- throwaway_goog 6y ago
  > Would your experienced well-being have been higher in 2008 with half-million in income? Probably not by much. All I really wanted was a basic place to live, enough food on the table, and a reasonable expectation that that'd continue into the future. My job was already doing what I would do for fun beforehand. "Would your experienced well-being in 2020 be lower if you were making $100K/yr?" Yes, because those things - food & housing security - are increasingly precarious on $100K/year now. You can still live on $100K/year in the Bay Area, but you're a couple years of rent increases from being priced out, and forget homeownership.
crumbshot 6y ago
> Now, you can be making a couple million a year and only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash. Are you being serious? If you're lucky enough to somehow be paid a couple of million dollars per year, you could work for a small few years and retire without any financial worries at all. That's an absolutely massive salary, and I don't understand how someone could be getting that amount of income and have any reasonable grounds to be worried about their financial situtation.
- jyu 6y ago
  The point is the fabric of society is unraveling quickly in 2021 than 2008. What does it matter if you win the career lottery if every neighborhood is covered in feces, sidewalks are full of tent cities, and your fellow man is 1 health crisis away from becoming an other.
  - hnarn 6y ago
    It matters because you're rich, which means you don't have to live in those neighborhoods.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    I don't think that was the main thrust of their comment, which comes across as mostly a selfish appraisal of a perceived risk to their riches ("only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash"), rather than concern about others.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    One is forced to wonder if making millions and being surrounded by tent cities is somehow correlated. Almost like wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a relative few or something.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      I heard on fox news that the money trickles down to poor. Its clearly their fault. They forgot to build in wealth catchers into their tents. \s This is obviously sarcastic but sadly not far from what some people actually think. And i guess tent cities is where that thinking gets you to.
throwaway189262 6y ago
Semi unrelated, but is FAANG still a comfortable path to such income? I've been debating between doing FAANG or starting my own business for years and the wavering hasn't done me any good. If it's still possible to make 500k+ working at FAANG now that stocks aren't increasing so rapidly, I need to get on that right away :)
- throwaway_goog 6y ago
  Yes. $500K+ is roughly L6 at Google or the equivalent at another FAANG. It's quite a bit easier and less risky to get to that level than to start a business that nets $500K+ annual profit. (Believe me, I tried.)
  - throwaway189262 6y ago
    Yeah that's what I'm realizing. I'm getting too old to gamble again. I think a remote FAANG job would be my best choice. How high is L6? I've got about a decade of experience, I heard most don't make it beyond L6 but it's all rumors.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      L3 is new grad. L4 is "terminal" in that there's no explicit up-or-out pressure beyond that point. L5 is senior, and I'd say most people don't make it beyond L5 without intent. L6 has a few shifts from prior levels. Notably that a high performing L3 is an L4 and a high performing L4 is an L5 (usually), but simply performing well at L5 isn't enough to get to L6, the scope of work and goals shift between L5/6. You generally won't be considered for L5 without 10+ yoe, as I understand it, although internally you can reach it faster.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
throw0101a 6y ago
This new paper actually makes conclusions that are the opposite of what their own data shows: > Two things to note here. (1) the x-axis is logarithmic. There's a HUGE difference in income between the rightmost points. (2) the y-axis spans a TINY effect size. And TINY / HUGE = EVEN TINIER. 3/7 > A randomly sampled highest-income participant ($480.000) would have lower well-being than a randomly sampled lowest-income participant ($15.000) 25% and 33% of the time for the two outcome measures. Income explains 1.5% and 4% of the variance. 5/7 * https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/1353834264756965377 https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/135383426475696537... * https://lindeloev.net/new-pnas-paper-income-is-a-poor-way-to-improve-well-being/ https://lindeloev.net/new-pnas-paper-income-is-a-poor-way-to...

war1025 6y ago

I think that's just the rat race. Wherever you go, there you are. The company you keep at 50k / yr is probably different than at 100k / yr and certainly different than at 500k / yr.

nicoburns 6y ago
Not neccesarily. Only if you're the sort of person who values money and chooses to asscoiate with people based on how much money they have. Of course people with lots of money do tend to be people who value having lots of money. But not always.
- war1025 6y ago
  That's sort of the point of it though, right? If you equate your income with your self-worth, then you'll never feel that you have enough. If you can step outside that framework, you'll find that you may still make significant money, but it doesn't really matter so much.
TuringNYC 6y ago
It isn’t a rat race, it is inflation. My dad purchased a house in the city for $30,000 in 1981. No amount of stop-the-rat-race mentality gets me a house for $30,000. My elder cousin purchased a house in the city for $300,000 in 2001. No amount of stop-the-rat-race mentality gets me a house for $300,000. Prices have gone up, way more than salaries.
- jcomis 6y ago
  Exactly. Some prices have just gone up way more disproportionately, like housing, making it difficult to compare to older metrics.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  You can get nice house for $300,000, just not in a major metro zone. It works if your "stop-the-rate-race" mentality includes moving to a rural area. Especially if you leave CA or NY.
  - danaris 6y ago
    You definitely don't even have to leave NY State, just the city and its environs. Rural Upstate NY has more in common with rural PA than it does with, say, Westchester or the Hamptons. Or even with most of MA.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Interest rates have crumbled since then and dramatically so. That 30k is around 85k today. Interest rates then vs today would make for the same monthly payment in actual dollars of around $500/month. $500/month in 1981 is like $1400 today. This would mean the house should be worth around $300k today at today’s interest rates. Of course the location may be more or less in demand which greatly influences price. Where I grew up the houses are more expensive than in the 80’s but the location isn’t in demand so the inflation and interest adjusted cost is well below the cost back then.
  - tebbers 6y ago
    I recently saw a graph of the average monthly mortgage payment in the UK (a country where house prices have rocketed in the last 30 years). The average monthly mortgage payment has basically been flat over the last 30 years so I think your point is absolutely correct - affordability on a monthly basis hasn't budged.
    - Bombthecat 6y ago

naveen99 6y ago

How can someone take take your income from you ? Assets aren’t income. All assets have a carrying cost / risk, it’s always been that way.

nostrademons 6y ago
Lose your job, lose your income. That happens increasingly frequently as the pace of change heats up in various industries.
- naveen99 6y ago
  I would think people whose labor is worth $2 million per year also have options, starting with self employment
  - throwaway_goog 6y ago
    Not better ones. Self-employment leaves you more exposed to the randomness of the marketplace, not less.
    - naveen99 6y ago
      The fewer options you have the riskier your current position. True with income as with assets I guess.

bondarchuk 6y ago

GFC?

cle 6y ago
Global financial crisis, presumably.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

sokoloff 6y ago

Would your experienced well-being have been higher in 2008 with half-million in income? Would your experienced well-being in 2020 be lower if you were making $100K/yr? I suspect the answer is yes to both, from which I conclude "2020 was worse across the board by important stability measures that you value, but for any given year, $500K in income is better than $100K."

throwaway_goog 6y ago
> Would your experienced well-being have been higher in 2008 with half-million in income? Probably not by much. All I really wanted was a basic place to live, enough food on the table, and a reasonable expectation that that'd continue into the future. My job was already doing what I would do for fun beforehand. "Would your experienced well-being in 2020 be lower if you were making $100K/yr?" Yes, because those things - food & housing security - are increasingly precarious on $100K/year now. You can still live on $100K/year in the Bay Area, but you're a couple years of rent increases from being priced out, and forget homeownership.

crumbshot 6y ago

> Now, you can be making a couple million a year and only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash. Are you being serious? If you're lucky enough to somehow be paid a couple of million dollars per year, you could work for a small few years and retire without any financial worries at all. That's an absolutely massive salary, and I don't understand how someone could be getting that amount of income and have any reasonable grounds to be worried about their financial situtation.

jyu 6y ago
The point is the fabric of society is unraveling quickly in 2021 than 2008. What does it matter if you win the career lottery if every neighborhood is covered in feces, sidewalks are full of tent cities, and your fellow man is 1 health crisis away from becoming an other.
- hnarn 6y ago
  It matters because you're rich, which means you don't have to live in those neighborhoods.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  I don't think that was the main thrust of their comment, which comes across as mostly a selfish appraisal of a perceived risk to their riches ("only be worrying about who's about to take it from you or whether your assets are going to be worthless in the next financial crash"), rather than concern about others.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  One is forced to wonder if making millions and being surrounded by tent cities is somehow correlated. Almost like wealth is being concentrated in the hands of a relative few or something.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    I heard on fox news that the money trickles down to poor. Its clearly their fault. They forgot to build in wealth catchers into their tents. \s This is obviously sarcastic but sadly not far from what some people actually think. And i guess tent cities is where that thinking gets you to.

throwaway189262 6y ago

Semi unrelated, but is FAANG still a comfortable path to such income? I've been debating between doing FAANG or starting my own business for years and the wavering hasn't done me any good. If it's still possible to make 500k+ working at FAANG now that stocks aren't increasing so rapidly, I need to get on that right away :)

throwaway_goog 6y ago
Yes. $500K+ is roughly L6 at Google or the equivalent at another FAANG. It's quite a bit easier and less risky to get to that level than to start a business that nets $500K+ annual profit. (Believe me, I tried.)
- throwaway189262 6y ago
  Yeah that's what I'm realizing. I'm getting too old to gamble again. I think a remote FAANG job would be my best choice. How high is L6? I've got about a decade of experience, I heard most don't make it beyond L6 but it's all rumors.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    L3 is new grad. L4 is "terminal" in that there's no explicit up-or-out pressure beyond that point. L5 is senior, and I'd say most people don't make it beyond L5 without intent. L6 has a few shifts from prior levels. Notably that a high performing L3 is an L4 and a high performing L4 is an L5 (usually), but simply performing well at L5 isn't enough to get to L6, the scope of work and goals shift between L5/6. You generally won't be considered for L5 without 10+ yoe, as I understand it, although internally you can reach it faster.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

throw0101a 6y ago

This new paper actually makes conclusions that are the opposite of what their own data shows: > Two things to note here. (1) the x-axis is logarithmic. There's a HUGE difference in income between the rightmost points. (2) the y-axis spans a TINY effect size. And TINY / HUGE = EVEN TINIER. 3/7 > A randomly sampled highest-income participant ($480.000) would have lower well-being than a randomly sampled lowest-income participant ($15.000) 25% and 33% of the time for the two outcome measures. Income explains 1.5% and 4% of the variance. 5/7 * https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/1353834264756965377 https://twitter.com/jonaslindeloev/status/135383426475696537... * https://lindeloev.net/new-pnas-paper-income-is-a-poor-way-to-improve-well-being/ https://lindeloev.net/new-pnas-paper-income-is-a-poor-way-to...