4 ms·

"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 an

by 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/...
  - theorique 13y ago
    Good points. Urban dwellers - especially high-income ones who chose to live there (as opposed to people who were simply born into working class NYC or SF and stayed) - often have idealistic, maximizer notions of "taking advantage of everything the city has to offer". Which is impossible and absurd in even a medium sized city, let alone NYC, London, SF.
taeric 13y ago
Hard to see how their conclusion really makes sense. They basically play some semantic game to totally separate the ideas of satisfaction and happiness. Also, this is in regards to income, not wealth. They are distinct things. Curious if there is a study regarding that. For myself, I don't think any additional money would make me happy. However, I am very happy I can provide healthy lives for my family.
tlb 13y ago
The opposite arrow of causation is bigger. Wealthy individuals make a choice over the long term to either draw income from their business to spend on luxury, or leave it in the business to grow. Depressed people choose the former, optimistic & energetic people choose the latter. Thus high 'emotional well-being' causes lower incomes.

by ijk 13y ago

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/...
- theorique 13y ago
  Good points. Urban dwellers - especially high-income ones who chose to live there (as opposed to people who were simply born into working class NYC or SF and stayed) - often have idealistic, maximizer notions of "taking advantage of everything the city has to offer". Which is impossible and absurd in even a medium sized city, let alone NYC, London, SF.

taeric 13y ago

Hard to see how their conclusion really makes sense. They basically play some semantic game to totally separate the ideas of satisfaction and happiness. Also, this is in regards to income, not wealth. They are distinct things. Curious if there is a study regarding that. For myself, I don't think any additional money would make me happy. However, I am very happy I can provide healthy lives for my family.

tlb 13y ago

The opposite arrow of causation is bigger. Wealthy individuals make a choice over the long term to either draw income from their business to spend on luxury, or leave it in the business to grow. Depressed people choose the former, optimistic & energetic people choose the latter. Thus high 'emotional well-being' causes lower incomes.