6 ms·

People occasionally scoff at "money doesn't buy happiness", but it's an incredibly true statement. There are homeless people who are objectively happier (and o

People occasionally scoff at "money doesn't buy happiness", but it's an incredibly true statement. There are homeless people who are objectively happier (and often, healthier) than some of the richest people in the world.

taeric 13y ago
I feel this needs a ridiculously large citation needed. It is trotted out a ton, but I can't help but hear the lyrics from Everclear's "I will buy you a new life" I hate those people who love to tell you Money is the root of all that kills They have never been poor They have never had the joy of a welfare christmas
- crgt 13y ago
  After reading that article, you still want a citation showing that someone could be homeless and happier than those kids? ReallY? Maybe re-read the article?
  - fatjokes 13y ago
    I think it boils down to simple statistics. Those kids and those happy hobos may be in the minority.
  - taeric 13y ago
    The citation is against money not being able to buy happiness. Indeed, most of the research shows it does a pretty good job of working at that task. Now, the same research does show diminishing returns. And, there is the whole statistical abnormality of this story. For every person that fits in this story, I suspect there are countless that could use an extra 10 dollars. Am I saying that I envy these poor children? Of course not. I just view this as a story that you can not really use in any informative way. Name one decision that you will change based on this information?
    - crgt 13y ago
      After reading, I'd strongly consider not leaving an inheritance for my children. It seems to have wreaked generations of havoc on this family.
      - tlb 13y ago
        Your might find it worth reading back-to-back biographies of the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. The Vanderbilts' wealth created generations of horror. The Rockefellers did much better: generally functional families and several descendants making solid contributions to the world. It's clear enough from the books where the difference comes from. If you raise your kids right, inheritance is not a bad thing. http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Children-Fall-House-Vanderbilt/dp/0688103863/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376844743&sr=1-5&keywords=vanderbilt http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Children-Fall-House-Vanderbil... http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1470882183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376844917&sr=1-1&keywords=rockefeller http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1470...
- cgag 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
- NhanH 13y ago
  Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on happiness", along with his works. Basically, since you don't have a comparison point between the stuff that you have, and they stuff that you don't have - it won't affect you. In fact, there are a quick Ted talk about that, you can search for his name.
  - taeric 13y ago
    If you are truly homeless -- note, not currently living without a home, but truly homeless -- it is hard to really conceive of them not having a comparison point. Food, shelter, friends, transportation. All of these things are readily visible to them daily, yet denied them. Also, don't get me wrong, this article does indicate some rather unfortunate situations. I personally do not envy them their lot. However, statistically non-existant situations are hard for me to really consider.
- ijk 13y ago
  "When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of∼$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being." Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton "High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being" PNAS 2010 107: 16489-16493. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489
  - theorique 13y ago
    Presumably this number is an average across many different geographical areas. So I am curious about how this number was influenced by purchasing power and other factors. That is, $75K gets you and your family a lot more space in a exurb or rural area compared to an expensive city like NY or SF. Does this matter? Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space. (Obviously, you could ask a similar question about other factors that change dramatically with geography - e.g. public/private school quality, cost of food, cost of leisure activities, access to culture, public services, etc)
    - wallflower 13y ago
      > Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space. There has been some research done around how some people who live in cities (especially those who can be paid a relatively high livable wage) are those who want the local optimum of their available choices (maximizers). [1,2] This tends to make them possibly less happy than those who have less choices. For instance, if you live in London or NYC, there are hundreds of options for nightlife and entertainment - and you might want to be somewhere else even if you are at club X (fear of missing out). But the reality is: "Happiness is complicated. Wherever you live." [3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More... [2] http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/02/14/the-real-value-of-diversity/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/02/14/the-real-value-of-d... [3] http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/10/urban-rural-happiness-debate/290/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/10/...
- austinz 13y ago
  I don't know if this was the parent author's intent, but one could very plausibly be homeless by choice, being materially poor and living a life with intentionally few obligations, as opposed to being someone forced onto the streets because of mental illness or financial trouble.
noonespecial 13y ago
On the other hand, this story is in Rolling Stone and ostensibly "newsworthy" because money almost always provides insulation against this kind of deprivation. Go to any large city in the US and you'll find this same story played out countless times with children living in equally terrible, deprived and dangerous situations. It won't be news because their parents are poor.

taeric 13y ago

I feel this needs a ridiculously large citation needed. It is trotted out a ton, but I can't help but hear the lyrics from Everclear's "I will buy you a new life" I hate those people who love to tell you Money is the root of all that kills They have never been poor They have never had the joy of a welfare christmas

crgt 13y ago
After reading that article, you still want a citation showing that someone could be homeless and happier than those kids? ReallY? Maybe re-read the article?
- fatjokes 13y ago
  I think it boils down to simple statistics. Those kids and those happy hobos may be in the minority.
- taeric 13y ago
  The citation is against money not being able to buy happiness. Indeed, most of the research shows it does a pretty good job of working at that task. Now, the same research does show diminishing returns. And, there is the whole statistical abnormality of this story. For every person that fits in this story, I suspect there are countless that could use an extra 10 dollars. Am I saying that I envy these poor children? Of course not. I just view this as a story that you can not really use in any informative way. Name one decision that you will change based on this information?
  - crgt 13y ago
    After reading, I'd strongly consider not leaving an inheritance for my children. It seems to have wreaked generations of havoc on this family.
    - tlb 13y ago
      Your might find it worth reading back-to-back biographies of the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. The Vanderbilts' wealth created generations of horror. The Rockefellers did much better: generally functional families and several descendants making solid contributions to the world. It's clear enough from the books where the difference comes from. If you raise your kids right, inheritance is not a bad thing. http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Children-Fall-House-Vanderbilt/dp/0688103863/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376844743&sr=1-5&keywords=vanderbilt http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Children-Fall-House-Vanderbil... http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1470882183/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376844917&sr=1-1&keywords=rockefeller http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1470...
cgag 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
NhanH 13y ago
Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on happiness", along with his works. Basically, since you don't have a comparison point between the stuff that you have, and they stuff that you don't have - it won't affect you. In fact, there are a quick Ted talk about that, you can search for his name.
- taeric 13y ago
  If you are truly homeless -- note, not currently living without a home, but truly homeless -- it is hard to really conceive of them not having a comparison point. Food, shelter, friends, transportation. All of these things are readily visible to them daily, yet denied them. Also, don't get me wrong, this article does indicate some rather unfortunate situations. I personally do not envy them their lot. However, statistically non-existant situations are hard for me to really consider.
ijk 13y ago
"When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of∼$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being." Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton "High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being" PNAS 2010 107: 16489-16493. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489 http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489
- theorique 13y ago
  Presumably this number is an average across many different geographical areas. So I am curious about how this number was influenced by purchasing power and other factors. That is, $75K gets you and your family a lot more space in a exurb or rural area compared to an expensive city like NY or SF. Does this matter? Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space. (Obviously, you could ask a similar question about other factors that change dramatically with geography - e.g. public/private school quality, cost of food, cost of leisure activities, access to culture, public services, etc)
  - wallflower 13y ago
    > Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space. There has been some research done around how some people who live in cities (especially those who can be paid a relatively high livable wage) are those who want the local optimum of their available choices (maximizers). [1,2] This tends to make them possibly less happy than those who have less choices. For instance, if you live in London or NYC, there are hundreds of options for nightlife and entertainment - and you might want to be somewhere else even if you are at club X (fear of missing out). But the reality is: "Happiness is complicated. Wherever you live." [3] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More_Is_Less http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More... [2] http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/02/14/the-real-value-of-diversity/ http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/02/14/the-real-value-of-d... [3] http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/10/urban-rural-happiness-debate/290/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/10/...
austinz 13y ago
I don't know if this was the parent author's intent, but one could very plausibly be homeless by choice, being materially poor and living a life with intentionally few obligations, as opposed to being someone forced onto the streets because of mental illness or financial trouble.

noonespecial 13y ago

On the other hand, this story is in Rolling Stone and ostensibly "newsworthy" because money almost always provides insulation against this kind of deprivation. Go to any large city in the US and you'll find this same story played out countless times with children living in equally terrible, deprived and dangerous situations. It won't be news because their parents are poor.