5 ms·

The income scale is logarithmic, so the apparently linear lines that you see are actually curved. The returns in happiness per $ earned fall off significantly t

by leoedin 13y ago

The income scale is logarithmic, so the apparently linear lines that you see are actually curved. The returns in happiness per $ earned fall off significantly towards the top of the scale (which incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000). I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point.

ForHackernews 13y ago
> incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000 Maybe they don't have data for people making more than that? There are relatively few people with incomes that high, and their time is probably valuable enough that they're disinclined to waste it filling out happiness inventories.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- maratd 13y ago
  > There are relatively few people with incomes that high The chart is of household income, not individual income. There are plenty of households who break that mark.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    If we ignore many countries where $128K+ is quite rare, at least. In the US, about 14% of the households earn that much or more. However, the breakdown is more interesting here: Only ~1% of households in the US earn between $125-130K, compared to ~5% earning between $35-40K. The groups do become quite a bit less representative as you climb the income scale.
    - ars_technician 13y ago
      How do they become less representative? The sample groups are exactly representative when they are based on income. e.g. Polling millionaires about their feelings seems pretty representative of millionaires' feelings, even if there aren't that many.
rm999 13y ago
>I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point. The article shows a logarithmic trend (i.e. doubling your income increases your happiness by a fixed amount), which is a straight line on the log plot. This insinuates (if the trend continues, which is assumed from the results) that there is no point at which increased income won't make someone happier. The traditionally-held view is that there is an income (I've heard something like 70k in the USA) where the plot should become a horizontal line, i.e. increasing your income increases your happiness by zero. These are very different conclusions. The plot isn't really falling "significantly towards the top of the scale". Log is the correct way of looking at income, because people consider changes to their income proportionately to their current income (for example, a 5% raise to someone making 1M dollars a year is about as significant to his life as a 5% raise for someone making 100k, even though the actual additive amounts are very different).
- ritchiea 13y ago
  The data I've seen shows the income where happiness flattens is around 100k rather than 70k so cutting off at 128k doesn't seem high enough to disprove the established research.
  - pyduan 13y ago
    Remember that both Easterlin's studies and the one in this article have been done in many countries and not just the US though. The $128k cap may seem limiting for the US but it is not for Nigeria or the other lower-income countries, yet they still show the same patterns.
    - pedrosorio 13y ago
      "The $128k cap may seem limiting for the US but it is not for Nigeria or the other lower-income countries, yet they still show the same patterns." And that's why the cap for Nigeria is at $8k... In fact, as someone else has commented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7047548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7047548 "According to the paper (page 13), they only look at incomes between the 10th and 90th percentiles. That's why they cut off at $128,000 for US residents" In my opinion, ignoring data from the top 10% earners is the perfect way to get plots that seem to disprove a paradox that states "Become rich enough, and a bigger paycheque no longer leads to more happiness".
jheriko 13y ago
> I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point. It doesn't - the title of the article and the interpretation provided with in is almost as misleading. They start off quickly by telling you about the 'Easterlin paradox' - that is what they have specifically found evidence against. i.e. 'more money makes you happier' is backed by evidence. The fact that more money makes you happier does not mean that any amount of money can make you as happy as you want though... This is not surprising - its probably common sense.
- jjindev 13y ago
  "that more money makes you happier does not mean that any amount of money can make you as happy as you want" And "more money" is not always the easiest or most available "life hack."
eloff 13y ago
The graph shows a decreasing level of extra happiness per additional dollar earned, and caps out at $100k. The data here does not support the article at all, it supports the mainstream view. What a rubbish article.
deskglass 13y ago
According to the paper (page 13), they only look at incomes between the 10th and 90th percentiles. That's why they cut off at $128,000 for US residents. With that said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a graph that continues past the 90th percentile. The paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu...
- deskglass 13y ago
  That link has started charging since I posted it. You can get the paper for free (legitimately) here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/subjective%20well%20being%20income/subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by leoedin 13y ago

ForHackernews 13y ago

> incidentally is capped at a fairly low $128,000 Maybe they don't have data for people making more than that? There are relatively few people with incomes that high, and their time is probably valuable enough that they're disinclined to waste it filling out happiness inventories.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
maratd 13y ago
> There are relatively few people with incomes that high The chart is of household income, not individual income. There are plenty of households who break that mark.
- randomdata 13y ago
  If we ignore many countries where $128K+ is quite rare, at least. In the US, about 14% of the households earn that much or more. However, the breakdown is more interesting here: Only ~1% of households in the US earn between $125-130K, compared to ~5% earning between $35-40K. The groups do become quite a bit less representative as you climb the income scale.
  - ars_technician 13y ago
    How do they become less representative? The sample groups are exactly representative when they are based on income. e.g. Polling millionaires about their feelings seems pretty representative of millionaires' feelings, even if there aren't that many.

rm999 13y ago

>I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point. The article shows a logarithmic trend (i.e. doubling your income increases your happiness by a fixed amount), which is a straight line on the log plot. This insinuates (if the trend continues, which is assumed from the results) that there is no point at which increased income won't make someone happier. The traditionally-held view is that there is an income (I've heard something like 70k in the USA) where the plot should become a horizontal line, i.e. increasing your income increases your happiness by zero. These are very different conclusions. The plot isn't really falling "significantly towards the top of the scale". Log is the correct way of looking at income, because people consider changes to their income proportionately to their current income (for example, a 5% raise to someone making 1M dollars a year is about as significant to his life as a 5% raise for someone making 100k, even though the actual additive amounts are very different).

ritchiea 13y ago
The data I've seen shows the income where happiness flattens is around 100k rather than 70k so cutting off at 128k doesn't seem high enough to disprove the established research.
- pyduan 13y ago
  Remember that both Easterlin's studies and the one in this article have been done in many countries and not just the US though. The $128k cap may seem limiting for the US but it is not for Nigeria or the other lower-income countries, yet they still show the same patterns.
  - pedrosorio 13y ago
    "The $128k cap may seem limiting for the US but it is not for Nigeria or the other lower-income countries, yet they still show the same patterns." And that's why the cap for Nigeria is at $8k... In fact, as someone else has commented: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7047548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7047548 "According to the paper (page 13), they only look at incomes between the 10th and 90th percentiles. That's why they cut off at $128,000 for US residents" In my opinion, ignoring data from the top 10% earners is the perfect way to get plots that seem to disprove a paradox that states "Become rich enough, and a bigger paycheque no longer leads to more happiness".

jheriko 13y ago

> I don't really see how this new data contradicts the generally accepted view (mentioned in the article) that money increases happiness up to a point. It doesn't - the title of the article and the interpretation provided with in is almost as misleading. They start off quickly by telling you about the 'Easterlin paradox' - that is what they have specifically found evidence against. i.e. 'more money makes you happier' is backed by evidence. The fact that more money makes you happier does not mean that any amount of money can make you as happy as you want though... This is not surprising - its probably common sense.

jjindev 13y ago
"that more money makes you happier does not mean that any amount of money can make you as happy as you want" And "more money" is not always the easiest or most available "life hack."

eloff 13y ago

The graph shows a decreasing level of extra happiness per additional dollar earned, and caps out at $100k. The data here does not support the article at all, it supports the mainstream view. What a rubbish article.

deskglass 13y ago

According to the paper (page 13), they only look at incomes between the 10th and 90th percentiles. That's why they cut off at $128,000 for US residents. With that said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a graph that continues past the 90th percentile. The paper: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_mediu...

deskglass 13y ago
That link has started charging since I posted it. You can get the paper for free (legitimately) here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/04/subjective%20well%20being%20income/subjective%20well%20being%20income.pdf http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]