5 ms·

Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. My guess is the higher-paying jobs are more interesting and fulfilling; conve

Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. My guess is the higher-paying jobs are more interesting and fulfilling; conversely if two people have equally stressful jobs, but one pays a lot and the other little, the high pay would mitigate against the stress ("this has these costs but at least it pays well"). This sounds obvious maybe but it's a bit different from money per se bringing happiness. It would be more about the perception of the work. I also am not sure what to make of life satisfaction as a happiness indicator. It's a single item reflecting one aspect of happiness; there's other components of well-being. The author acknowledges this but it feels like a critical issue.

crooked-v 2y ago
The money by itself means that you have more spoons [1] compared to everyone without money. All the little things that eat up time and attention even for totally non-depressed neurotypical people go away once you have enough money to pay people to do them. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory
- tmountain 2y ago
  Kind of. There’s still the admin overhead of scheduling and coordination to get things done. Rich people typically have a larger surface area to cover (big houses, big yards, lots of cars, etc) and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up.
  - yetihehe 2y ago
    > and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up. They have people for that too. It's called personal assistant or secretary.
    - jajko 2y ago
      Concierge services, and for enough money whole company is set up. Rich folks value their free time the most in the world, so pay others to lose their (less worthy in financial terms) time on pesky daily grinds like maintaining stuff they own, investments, bureaucracy etc. Very few don't do it this way, basically all 'old money' work like that for generations, employing non-trivial amount of folks.
      - yetihehe 2y ago
        > so pay others to lose their (less worthy in financial terms) time on pesky daily grinds like maintaining stuff they own, investments, bureaucracy etc. I agree with you, just one more thought: Imagine that you received ungodly amounts (20x your current salary) of money for something you like to do. And if you did i some more of that in a day, you would get even more money. And then there would be people sending you letter that they want to take care of your mundane things for about 0.8x of your current salary, which means you can do more of the thing you like every day. Wouldn't you take it? I probably would :(.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up. That's not how this works. You don't need much effort to "get the people show up": they'll do it because they need the money, and you have those. Second, if you're rich, you have people managing the hiring and coordination of projects and maintenance, you don't even need to know how many people are in your overall staff.
    - tmountain 2y ago
      I take your point, but it really depends on which threshold of rich we're talking about. Someone with say... 5M net worth is rich by most people's standards, but depending on where they live and their situation, they may or may not have the staff to take care of every administrative aspect of their life. 50M, sure... you've basically won life at that point, and you can outsource everything.
      - coldtea 2y ago
        Even with 5M taking care of house repairs, cars maintainance and the line is not even remotely close to being a problem. In any case, far far far less than worrying about next month's rent, or even a leaking roof and you scrapping for money to fix it.
        tmountain 2y ago
        Monetarily, absolutely not, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying if money equals freedom, at the lower threshold of being rich, there are still many small things that will take up your time; thus, preventing you from maximizing potential happiness from said wealth.
        Draiken 2y ago
        Sure, but it's all about proportions. I now am lucky enough to have enough money for everything I need and that means almost all problems are a payment away from being solved. 99.9% of the problems become really small. The amount of time spent on every little problem before was absurd.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
    Are you suggesting that calling a house cleaning service is somehow more work than cleaning your house?
- derbOac 2y ago
  Definitely. I'm not suggesting money doesn't matter, I was thinking mostly about the question of whether or not happiness levels off after some point. I think my question was kind of whether at some point, it's less about the money and more about what's bringing in the money. Before that point the money itself would definitely matter. Or maybe it's the money itself all the way through. Just a lot of possibilities.
  - vouaobrasil 2y ago
    It's hard to say because there are so many different preferences. For example, for people who just want to be by themselves, live in a secluded area surrounded by wildlife, a lot of money would help them fulfil that dream and be happy there. Money allows you to disconnect from the system. For others who like their job and just want enough to live "within the system", there might be a levelling off factor. Ambition to reach some level of social standing might be a factor too.
- Nasrudith 2y ago
  I feel it is important to note that you only get more spoons if you spend the money on spoons. Financial management habits are in direct opposition to non-investment spending, including on spoons.
netcan 2y ago
Also social implications. Imo, humans are hard wired to care about relative social standing. Income is a measure/indicator of social standing, among other things. Ideologically, we're resistant to the idea that we care about our ranking. We should care about absolutes... so I think this one is hard to study. Generally speaking, human satisfaction tends to be relative. Relative to where we were. Relative to expectations... Relative to parents. Relative to last year. Etc.
patresh 2y ago
Some high paying jobs also come with high pressure and little free time which could harm life satisfaction. It could be that high earners that are likely to participate in such a study are the ones that have more free time to dedicate to spontaneous endeavors, therefore might already have a higher life satisfaction. This bias can also exist for lower-paying jobs, however I would guess proportionally there might be more 80-hour/week type high responsibility jobs in the higher paying brackets.
energy123 2y ago
Another factor: When you're wealthy, everything is low stakes. Elections don't matter, rent increases and food inflation don't matter, global warming doesn't matter, the future of your family doesn't matter (in the sense that it's all sorted thanks to the money). Even wars don't matter, because you have your bunker on private land in New Zealand. The problems that cause stress for even mid-high income people don't exist. Money becomes an escape hatch.
- jajko 2y ago
  On top of that, you can go into financial risks that us mere mortals simply can't afford to do or have to include massive additional stressor in our lives, to improve your situation further.
GJim 2y ago
> My guess is the higher-paying jobs are more interesting and fulfilling; Numerous surveys show the people happiest in their jobs are hairdressers. It's not highly paid, but it's a simple job in the warm and dry, chatting and making people happy.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  I also agree with this. The high-paying job I had was extremely unfulfilling but gave me enough money to quit and try something else...
mapcars 2y ago
There are no stressful jobs, there are only stressful people. Name me one job that is stressful for every single human being who ever lived on this planet. Or name a job that is never stressful for anyone. You can spend whole life trying to find non-stressful job and never get it, because the problem is with you, not with your job.
- rwmj 2y ago
  A distinction without a difference since there are practically no jobs where you never interact with another person. > You can spend whole life trying to find non-stressful job and never get it, because the problem is with you, not with your job. Sociopaths exist and can definitely make your job a misery.
  - mapcars 2y ago
    I'm sure you can find a job with almost no human interactions. People will use it as a reason to get stressed too.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Way over generalized. Of course there are differences in stress levels of both jobs and people. I'm sure there are servicemembers who are super-chill under fire, and there's also anxious dog-walkers, but to say there's no meaningful distinction between jobs is ridiculous.
  - mapcars 2y ago
    > there's no meaningful distinction between jobs is ridiculous. I do not say there is no distinction, I am saying how much someone gets stressed depends on their mental state, physical and emotional parameters that are not being taken care of. Its like if you try to make a city car perform on a level with racing cars it will break quickly - this is the same thing as stress.
derdi 2y ago
> Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. There is a correlation between age and happiness. People of retirement age are generally happier than people in their forties. It's probably safe to conclude that retired people are happier than they themselves were when they were working. Even though they will have less income. So yes, what brings in the money matters: Not having to work makes you happier. Presumably the wealthy group correlates with not having to work. Or maybe only working a CEO-level job that consists of golfing with business partners and leaving the rest to others.
throw0101d 2y ago
> Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. Yes: > One could draw a snap judgment from this analysis and conclude that money, in fact, simply buys happiness. I think that would be the wrong conclusion. Clever sociologists will always find new ways of “calculating” that marriage matters most, or social fitness explains all, or income is paramount. But the subtler truth seems to be that finances, family, and social fitness are three prongs in a happiness trinity. They rise together and fall together. Low-income Americans have seen the largest declines in marriage and experience the most loneliness. High-income Americans marry more and have not only richer investment accounts but also richer social lives. In this light, the philosophical question of what contributes most to happiness is just the beginning. The deeper question is why the trinity of happiness is so stratified by income—and whether well-being in America is in danger of becoming a luxury good. * https://archive.ph/4ofJ6 https://archive.ph/4ofJ6 / https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/happiness-marriage-money-satisfaction/678185/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/happiness-...

crooked-v 2y ago

The money by itself means that you have more spoons [1] compared to everyone without money. All the little things that eat up time and attention even for totally non-depressed neurotypical people go away once you have enough money to pay people to do them. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoon_theory

tmountain 2y ago
Kind of. There’s still the admin overhead of scheduling and coordination to get things done. Rich people typically have a larger surface area to cover (big houses, big yards, lots of cars, etc) and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up.
- yetihehe 2y ago
  > and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up. They have people for that too. It's called personal assistant or secretary.
  - jajko 2y ago
    Concierge services, and for enough money whole company is set up. Rich folks value their free time the most in the world, so pay others to lose their (less worthy in financial terms) time on pesky daily grinds like maintaining stuff they own, investments, bureaucracy etc. Very few don't do it this way, basically all 'old money' work like that for generations, employing non-trivial amount of folks.
    - yetihehe 2y ago
      > so pay others to lose their (less worthy in financial terms) time on pesky daily grinds like maintaining stuff they own, investments, bureaucracy etc. I agree with you, just one more thought: Imagine that you received ungodly amounts (20x your current salary) of money for something you like to do. And if you did i some more of that in a day, you would get even more money. And then there would be people sending you letter that they want to take care of your mundane things for about 0.8x of your current salary, which means you can do more of the thing you like every day. Wouldn't you take it? I probably would :(.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >and all the projects and maintenance that come with them requires a lot of phone calls and getting people to show up. That's not how this works. You don't need much effort to "get the people show up": they'll do it because they need the money, and you have those. Second, if you're rich, you have people managing the hiring and coordination of projects and maintenance, you don't even need to know how many people are in your overall staff.
  - tmountain 2y ago
    I take your point, but it really depends on which threshold of rich we're talking about. Someone with say... 5M net worth is rich by most people's standards, but depending on where they live and their situation, they may or may not have the staff to take care of every administrative aspect of their life. 50M, sure... you've basically won life at that point, and you can outsource everything.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      Even with 5M taking care of house repairs, cars maintainance and the line is not even remotely close to being a problem. In any case, far far far less than worrying about next month's rent, or even a leaking roof and you scrapping for money to fix it.
      - tmountain 2y ago
        Monetarily, absolutely not, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm saying if money equals freedom, at the lower threshold of being rich, there are still many small things that will take up your time; thus, preventing you from maximizing potential happiness from said wealth.
        Draiken 2y ago
        Sure, but it's all about proportions. I now am lucky enough to have enough money for everything I need and that means almost all problems are a payment away from being solved. 99.9% of the problems become really small. The amount of time spent on every little problem before was absurd.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
  Are you suggesting that calling a house cleaning service is somehow more work than cleaning your house?
derbOac 2y ago
Definitely. I'm not suggesting money doesn't matter, I was thinking mostly about the question of whether or not happiness levels off after some point. I think my question was kind of whether at some point, it's less about the money and more about what's bringing in the money. Before that point the money itself would definitely matter. Or maybe it's the money itself all the way through. Just a lot of possibilities.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  It's hard to say because there are so many different preferences. For example, for people who just want to be by themselves, live in a secluded area surrounded by wildlife, a lot of money would help them fulfil that dream and be happy there. Money allows you to disconnect from the system. For others who like their job and just want enough to live "within the system", there might be a levelling off factor. Ambition to reach some level of social standing might be a factor too.
Nasrudith 2y ago
I feel it is important to note that you only get more spoons if you spend the money on spoons. Financial management habits are in direct opposition to non-investment spending, including on spoons.

netcan 2y ago

Also social implications. Imo, humans are hard wired to care about relative social standing. Income is a measure/indicator of social standing, among other things. Ideologically, we're resistant to the idea that we care about our ranking. We should care about absolutes... so I think this one is hard to study. Generally speaking, human satisfaction tends to be relative. Relative to where we were. Relative to expectations... Relative to parents. Relative to last year. Etc.

patresh 2y ago

Some high paying jobs also come with high pressure and little free time which could harm life satisfaction. It could be that high earners that are likely to participate in such a study are the ones that have more free time to dedicate to spontaneous endeavors, therefore might already have a higher life satisfaction. This bias can also exist for lower-paying jobs, however I would guess proportionally there might be more 80-hour/week type high responsibility jobs in the higher paying brackets.

energy123 2y ago

Another factor: When you're wealthy, everything is low stakes. Elections don't matter, rent increases and food inflation don't matter, global warming doesn't matter, the future of your family doesn't matter (in the sense that it's all sorted thanks to the money). Even wars don't matter, because you have your bunker on private land in New Zealand. The problems that cause stress for even mid-high income people don't exist. Money becomes an escape hatch.

jajko 2y ago
On top of that, you can go into financial risks that us mere mortals simply can't afford to do or have to include massive additional stressor in our lives, to improve your situation further.

GJim 2y ago

> My guess is the higher-paying jobs are more interesting and fulfilling; Numerous surveys show the people happiest in their jobs are hairdressers. It's not highly paid, but it's a simple job in the warm and dry, chatting and making people happy.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
I also agree with this. The high-paying job I had was extremely unfulfilling but gave me enough money to quit and try something else...

mapcars 2y ago

There are no stressful jobs, there are only stressful people. Name me one job that is stressful for every single human being who ever lived on this planet. Or name a job that is never stressful for anyone. You can spend whole life trying to find non-stressful job and never get it, because the problem is with you, not with your job.

rwmj 2y ago
A distinction without a difference since there are practically no jobs where you never interact with another person. > You can spend whole life trying to find non-stressful job and never get it, because the problem is with you, not with your job. Sociopaths exist and can definitely make your job a misery.
- mapcars 2y ago
  I'm sure you can find a job with almost no human interactions. People will use it as a reason to get stressed too.
itishappy 2y ago
Way over generalized. Of course there are differences in stress levels of both jobs and people. I'm sure there are servicemembers who are super-chill under fire, and there's also anxious dog-walkers, but to say there's no meaningful distinction between jobs is ridiculous.
- mapcars 2y ago
  > there's no meaningful distinction between jobs is ridiculous. I do not say there is no distinction, I am saying how much someone gets stressed depends on their mental state, physical and emotional parameters that are not being taken care of. Its like if you try to make a city car perform on a level with racing cars it will break quickly - this is the same thing as stress.

derdi 2y ago

> Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. There is a correlation between age and happiness. People of retirement age are generally happier than people in their forties. It's probably safe to conclude that retired people are happier than they themselves were when they were working. Even though they will have less income. So yes, what brings in the money matters: Not having to work makes you happier. Presumably the wealthy group correlates with not having to work. Or maybe only working a CEO-level job that consists of golfing with business partners and leaving the rest to others.

throw0101d 2y ago

> Sometimes I wonder if it's the money per se, or what brings in the money, or both. Yes: > One could draw a snap judgment from this analysis and conclude that money, in fact, simply buys happiness. I think that would be the wrong conclusion. Clever sociologists will always find new ways of “calculating” that marriage matters most, or social fitness explains all, or income is paramount. But the subtler truth seems to be that finances, family, and social fitness are three prongs in a happiness trinity. They rise together and fall together. Low-income Americans have seen the largest declines in marriage and experience the most loneliness. High-income Americans marry more and have not only richer investment accounts but also richer social lives. In this light, the philosophical question of what contributes most to happiness is just the beginning. The deeper question is why the trinity of happiness is so stratified by income—and whether well-being in America is in danger of becoming a luxury good. * https://archive.ph/4ofJ6 https://archive.ph/4ofJ6 / https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/happiness-marriage-money-satisfaction/678185/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/04/happiness-...