6 ms·

There's this in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/rich-people-happy-money/577231/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018

There's this in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/rich-people-happy-money/577231/ https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/rich-peop... “All the way up the income-wealth spectrum,” Norton told me, “basically everyone says [they’d need] two or three times as much” to be perfectly happy. It references this study: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53540 https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53540

simonh 6y ago
Thanks, that's the one. I suspected I was under-shooting the multiple.
- brianmcc 6y ago
  I remember reading it initially some time ago - and visiting it anew I'm surprised how high the multiple is. In my head it was "10% - 25% higher". My personal hunch is too many of us "shoot just too high" in terms of what we can afford, be it housing, cars, whatever. Granted there are plenty of disciplined individuals and families out there and it's certainly not impossible to live within one's means. But human nature is what it is - why "settle" for a $400,000 home when the bank will give you a mortgage for $500,000? Why settle for a Ford, VW or Toyota when the car finance payment for a BMW or Merc are just a little bit higher each month? There's definitely a status thing goes on too...
skohan 6y ago
Maybe it’s because I grew up in a frugal household, but I have basically never felt like I needed more money since properly starting my career. I mean it helps that I have tended to live in lower COL cities, but I have always saved a sufficient portion of my income, and I have never had the feeling that I want to buy something or travel somewhere and I can’t because I can’t afford it. I don’t fly first class, and I rarely stay in luxury accommodation, but those things just don’t matter to me, especially compared to the freedom of always having extra money. I feel like this is such a relaxing way to live, and I have never understood the lifestyle treadmill or conspicuous consumption.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Yeah, I pretty much ignore my bank balance and autopay my bills and mortgage and never have to think much about money. By the apparent standards of SV techs I'm well below the poverty line. I find it difficult to empathize with them.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    Never having to think about money is an incredibly privileged position though. That’s true regardless of your standard of living.
    - Aeolun 6y ago
      This comment seems to fairly controversial for some reason. If someone reads this still and disagrees, can you let me know why?
      - AWS_IAM_AMA 6y ago
        Hi! I'll give it a try, though I didn't downvote you. My reading is that your comment is trying to argue with the one above it, even though you're both coming from the same direction. GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to always be wanting more. Your comment, then, is a bit of a non-sequitur - even though it's correct, you don't really have an argument to have with GP. Maybe it's just your phrasing that's throwing people off.
        Aeolun 6y ago
        Thanks, I read it all a few times more and I think I can see what you mean, though it’s quite hard. No matter how, I keep coming away with GP sounding like they’re humblebragging :) I don’t have issues with the literal content, just with the meaning I read into it. Either way, thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a comment on HN flip flop around so much on score.
alistairSH 6y ago
Interesting. I'm solidly upper-middle-class (typical income for this forum, I imagine). I don't think doubling my net worth would make me much happier or financially more secure. It would allow a new Tesla instead of a used BMW. And flying business class for vacation. With the state of health care/insurance in the US, despite being a ridiculous amount of money by most measures, it wouldn't allow me to retire in the 50s or remove the concern that I'm one bad car accident or cancer scare away from financial ruin.
- cableshaft 6y ago
  Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have to be a multimillionaire when you've retired if you want to have any semblance of a comfortable retirement, because any serious injury or health issue (which will happen at some point) will do a damn good job of sucking up most or all of that money away super fast. If you're younger at least you might get lucky with GoFundMe "insurance", but that requires your story being sad or unusual enough to go viral, or you have a large family and friends network (starting a donation campaign on GoFundMe.com, what just about every American has to rely on for serious health expenses nowadays). If you're old you're probably not going to be pulling at enough heart strings to rely on this, though.
  - dagw 6y ago
    I thought everybody over 65 in the US got free national healthcare?
    - schrectacular 6y ago
      They get free national health insurance, but it doesn't cover everything and dealing with the bureaucracy is a non trivial amount of effort. And there are still out of pocket deductibles to pay even with this national coverage. As a result people often purchase supplementary insurance.
    - hc-taway 6y ago
      It's the US, so of course "free healthcare" still leaves you with lots of large bills if you actually use any healthcare. Usually one pays for "gap coverage" insurance, running low-hundreds of dollars per person (consider: married couples) to cover things that aren't covered, or are poorly-covered, by Medicare[0] and those still don't mean you aren't going to have a substantial hospital bill if anything goes wrong (as they usually don't cover 100% of a bill, just like normal US health insurance) [0] Medicare is our insurance program for old people, and I think also kicks in for those who are disabled at younger ages. Medicaid is the name for our HC program for the very poor. People get these mixed up because the names are so similar. Then of course there's our coverage for the active military and their families (Tricare) and VA healthcare coverage for retired military. And programs for other government employees, and their families. By the time you add it all up, a huge percentage of the US population is already covered by government healthcare schemes, actually, which is reflected in our spending enough on publicly-funded healthcare that we should be able to cover everyone with just that money, if our costs were similar to the rest of the OECD. Instead we still have the costs of private insurance and bills to individuals even when covered by healthcare (these can run into the five figures per year, easily, on top of insurance costs) and, for some of the above, huge expenses in addition to the costs of the government portion of the HC program. [EDIT] Medicare gap coverage tends to run low-hundreds of dollars per person per month, in case that wasn't clear.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

simonh 6y ago

Thanks, that's the one. I suspected I was under-shooting the multiple.

brianmcc 6y ago
I remember reading it initially some time ago - and visiting it anew I'm surprised how high the multiple is. In my head it was "10% - 25% higher". My personal hunch is too many of us "shoot just too high" in terms of what we can afford, be it housing, cars, whatever. Granted there are plenty of disciplined individuals and families out there and it's certainly not impossible to live within one's means. But human nature is what it is - why "settle" for a $400,000 home when the bank will give you a mortgage for $500,000? Why settle for a Ford, VW or Toyota when the car finance payment for a BMW or Merc are just a little bit higher each month? There's definitely a status thing goes on too...

skohan 6y ago

Maybe it’s because I grew up in a frugal household, but I have basically never felt like I needed more money since properly starting my career. I mean it helps that I have tended to live in lower COL cities, but I have always saved a sufficient portion of my income, and I have never had the feeling that I want to buy something or travel somewhere and I can’t because I can’t afford it. I don’t fly first class, and I rarely stay in luxury accommodation, but those things just don’t matter to me, especially compared to the freedom of always having extra money. I feel like this is such a relaxing way to live, and I have never understood the lifestyle treadmill or conspicuous consumption.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Yeah, I pretty much ignore my bank balance and autopay my bills and mortgage and never have to think much about money. By the apparent standards of SV techs I'm well below the poverty line. I find it difficult to empathize with them.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  Never having to think about money is an incredibly privileged position though. That’s true regardless of your standard of living.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    This comment seems to fairly controversial for some reason. If someone reads this still and disagrees, can you let me know why?
    - AWS_IAM_AMA 6y ago
      Hi! I'll give it a try, though I didn't downvote you. My reading is that your comment is trying to argue with the one above it, even though you're both coming from the same direction. GP says that "SV techs" are unrelatable because they always want more $, and mentions that they're satisfied with what they make. They don't try to say that they're not in a privileged position, just that they don't see the need to always be wanting more. Your comment, then, is a bit of a non-sequitur - even though it's correct, you don't really have an argument to have with GP. Maybe it's just your phrasing that's throwing people off.
      - Aeolun 6y ago
        Thanks, I read it all a few times more and I think I can see what you mean, though it’s quite hard. No matter how, I keep coming away with GP sounding like they’re humblebragging :) I don’t have issues with the literal content, just with the meaning I read into it. Either way, thanks. This is the first time I’ve seen a comment on HN flip flop around so much on score.

alistairSH 6y ago

Interesting. I'm solidly upper-middle-class (typical income for this forum, I imagine). I don't think doubling my net worth would make me much happier or financially more secure. It would allow a new Tesla instead of a used BMW. And flying business class for vacation. With the state of health care/insurance in the US, despite being a ridiculous amount of money by most measures, it wouldn't allow me to retire in the 50s or remove the concern that I'm one bad car accident or cancer scare away from financial ruin.

cableshaft 6y ago
Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have to be a multimillionaire when you've retired if you want to have any semblance of a comfortable retirement, because any serious injury or health issue (which will happen at some point) will do a damn good job of sucking up most or all of that money away super fast. If you're younger at least you might get lucky with GoFundMe "insurance", but that requires your story being sad or unusual enough to go viral, or you have a large family and friends network (starting a donation campaign on GoFundMe.com, what just about every American has to rely on for serious health expenses nowadays). If you're old you're probably not going to be pulling at enough heart strings to rely on this, though.
- dagw 6y ago
  I thought everybody over 65 in the US got free national healthcare?
  - schrectacular 6y ago
    They get free national health insurance, but it doesn't cover everything and dealing with the bureaucracy is a non trivial amount of effort. And there are still out of pocket deductibles to pay even with this national coverage. As a result people often purchase supplementary insurance.
  - hc-taway 6y ago
    It's the US, so of course "free healthcare" still leaves you with lots of large bills if you actually use any healthcare. Usually one pays for "gap coverage" insurance, running low-hundreds of dollars per person (consider: married couples) to cover things that aren't covered, or are poorly-covered, by Medicare[0] and those still don't mean you aren't going to have a substantial hospital bill if anything goes wrong (as they usually don't cover 100% of a bill, just like normal US health insurance) [0] Medicare is our insurance program for old people, and I think also kicks in for those who are disabled at younger ages. Medicaid is the name for our HC program for the very poor. People get these mixed up because the names are so similar. Then of course there's our coverage for the active military and their families (Tricare) and VA healthcare coverage for retired military. And programs for other government employees, and their families. By the time you add it all up, a huge percentage of the US population is already covered by government healthcare schemes, actually, which is reflected in our spending enough on publicly-funded healthcare that we should be able to cover everyone with just that money, if our costs were similar to the rest of the OECD. Instead we still have the costs of private insurance and bills to individuals even when covered by healthcare (these can run into the five figures per year, easily, on top of insurance costs) and, for some of the above, huge expenses in addition to the costs of the government portion of the HC program. [EDIT] Medicare gap coverage tends to run low-hundreds of dollars per person per month, in case that wasn't clear.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]