4 ms·

Of course it does. It's bizarre that people claim otherwise.

marcosdumay 2y ago
It usually means "money is not the largest bottleneck in my happiness", or alternatively, "it's more effective to optimize something else". This is a common situation for people that have enough of it to make a stable life.
metacritic12 2y ago
The main finding is that happiness correlates with log wealth, and what people were missing from the $75,000 ceiling before was that they weren't taking the log. In fact, it takes only $300 (real 2000 USD) /year to survive, and historically (>300 years ago) most humans were earning this much for millenia. At times, e.g. China was considered rich for earning $1000/year and considered a "rich country". It would be absolutely bizzare if happiness just happened to not respond to wealth at exactly $75,000, which is 200x susistence or 75x historical rich. The way going from $75K->$150K or $150K->$300K brings happiness seems more or less the same as $35K->$75K or $20K->$40K.
- sofixa 2y ago
  For the majority of human history, the majority of the world's population were subsistence farmers at best. They didn't "earn money". They made enough food off their farm to be able to survive, and traded the rest for tools, other food, etc. Or were serfs or slaves where even that was beyond them.
  - metacritic12 2y ago
    Exactly, the $300/year is imputed value for the amount of food they grew and housing services from the houses they build. They rarely received $300 as e.g. gold that they declared.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >In fact, it takes only $300 (real 2000 USD) /year to survive, and historically (>300 years ago) most humans were earning this much for millenia. I get the point you're trying to make, but this isn't accurate. It takes more than $300 or $2000 to survive now. You can't just adjust historical values for inflation and claim they apply today when the historical values were derived from a system that didn't function like today's.
voidfunc 2y ago
I only ever hear the claim that money doesn't buy happiness from people that don't have money. It's copium.
- kulahan 2y ago
  I feel like I've experienced the exact opposite - why would people randomly assume that such a powerful tool won't help them out? It usually comes from rich people who find that having a ton of money doesn't resolve all their problems. The truly vexing thing is - why the heck do people think it means that money cannot provide any pleasure whatsoever, when it very clearly is referring to the idea that money alone does not make you happy?
vundercind 2y ago
Enough money buys immensely more freedom with your time. Translates directly into liberty of a sort more tangible and personally meaningful day-to-day than half the stuff in the bill of rights. That’s how I know all the studies that put the inflection point for the happiness-per-dollar graphs well under the point at which you no longer have to give up time you could be, say, spending with your kids, just to make a buck, they’re full of shit. Zero chance the study isn’t flawed beyond hope of salvation. [edit] put it this way: retiring at 45 versus 65 with enough money for not-working to be very low-risk and stress-free gets you the equivalent of about nine years of extra life in terms of waking hours, right in your prime years, not tacked on at the end, and that’s assuming all sixteen (say) waking hours per day are equal, while really you’ll be getting back some of the best hours and also not being as wiped-out and distracted for the remaining ones, so it’s actually even better than that. Money stops efficiently buying happiness somewhere in the low-six-figures of income? Nope, don’t buy it for a second.
marssaxman 2y ago
There is such a thing as decreasing marginal utility; earlier research claimed that the ability of money to provide happiness drops off after some threshold is reached. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30980059/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30980059/

It usually means "money is not the largest bottleneck in my happiness", or alternatively, "it's more effective to optimize something else". This is a common situation for people that have enough of it to make a stable life.

metacritic12 2y ago

The main finding is that happiness correlates with log wealth, and what people were missing from the $75,000 ceiling before was that they weren't taking the log. In fact, it takes only $300 (real 2000 USD) /year to survive, and historically (>300 years ago) most humans were earning this much for millenia. At times, e.g. China was considered rich for earning $1000/year and considered a "rich country". It would be absolutely bizzare if happiness just happened to not respond to wealth at exactly $75,000, which is 200x susistence or 75x historical rich. The way going from $75K->$150K or $150K->$300K brings happiness seems more or less the same as $35K->$75K or $20K->$40K.

sofixa 2y ago
For the majority of human history, the majority of the world's population were subsistence farmers at best. They didn't "earn money". They made enough food off their farm to be able to survive, and traded the rest for tools, other food, etc. Or were serfs or slaves where even that was beyond them.
- metacritic12 2y ago
  Exactly, the $300/year is imputed value for the amount of food they grew and housing services from the houses they build. They rarely received $300 as e.g. gold that they declared.
Suppafly 2y ago
>In fact, it takes only $300 (real 2000 USD) /year to survive, and historically (>300 years ago) most humans were earning this much for millenia. I get the point you're trying to make, but this isn't accurate. It takes more than $300 or $2000 to survive now. You can't just adjust historical values for inflation and claim they apply today when the historical values were derived from a system that didn't function like today's.

voidfunc 2y ago

I only ever hear the claim that money doesn't buy happiness from people that don't have money. It's copium.

kulahan 2y ago
I feel like I've experienced the exact opposite - why would people randomly assume that such a powerful tool won't help them out? It usually comes from rich people who find that having a ton of money doesn't resolve all their problems. The truly vexing thing is - why the heck do people think it means that money cannot provide any pleasure whatsoever, when it very clearly is referring to the idea that money alone does not make you happy?

vundercind 2y ago

Enough money buys immensely more freedom with your time. Translates directly into liberty of a sort more tangible and personally meaningful day-to-day than half the stuff in the bill of rights. That’s how I know all the studies that put the inflection point for the happiness-per-dollar graphs well under the point at which you no longer have to give up time you could be, say, spending with your kids, just to make a buck, they’re full of shit. Zero chance the study isn’t flawed beyond hope of salvation. [edit] put it this way: retiring at 45 versus 65 with enough money for not-working to be very low-risk and stress-free gets you the equivalent of about nine years of extra life in terms of waking hours, right in your prime years, not tacked on at the end, and that’s assuming all sixteen (say) waking hours per day are equal, while really you’ll be getting back some of the best hours and also not being as wiped-out and distracted for the remaining ones, so it’s actually even better than that. Money stops efficiently buying happiness somewhere in the low-six-figures of income? Nope, don’t buy it for a second.

marssaxman 2y ago

There is such a thing as decreasing marginal utility; earlier research claimed that the ability of money to provide happiness drops off after some threshold is reached. For example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30980059/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30980059/