Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Say Happiness Costs $75K

SpuriousLogic writes "Does happiness rise with income? In one of the more scientific attempts to answer that question, researchers from Princeton have put a price on happiness. It's about $75,000 in income a year. They found that not having enough money definitely causes emotional pain and unhappiness. But, after reaching an income of about $75,000 per year, money can't buy happiness. More money can, however, help people view their lives as successful or better. The study found that people's evaluations of their lives improved steadily with annual income. But the quality of their everyday experiences — their feelings — did not improve above an income of $75,000 a year. As income decreased from $75,000, people reported decreasing happiness and increasing sadness, as well as stress. The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one."

37 of 772 comments (clear)

  1. This is painfully obvious. by elucido · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Money cannot buy happiness, it can buy security.
    2. When your loved ones are secure you are less stressed.
    3. When you are less stressed you can focus more on being happy.

    How much money you need is actually determined by how many people you have to care for. If you don't have any children, or a spouse, $75,000 is about right. If you have children, a wife, and a big family, $75,000 is a drop in the bucket and you'd probably need twice that much to provide for children and take care of parents or grand parents into old age.

    I don't know about you but thats my formula. The amount is determined by the amount of people I have to provide security for and the overall security expense, along with whatever the expense is for my personal wellbeing. It's ultimately about people, unless you're a greedy anti-social.

    1. Re:This is painfully obvious. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, you must know mostly well-off people! Most families I know are not making $75k, and no single people I know are making that much, and nobody feels anything close to poor. A household income of $75k is, according to some census stats, 73rd percentile: i.e. 27% of people make more, and 73% make less. If being in the richest 27% of Americans makes you feel poor, you must have a pretty inflated notion of "middle class"...

      I personally make around $35k as a young single person with no debt, and feel rich, fwiw. I can't even spend it all--- after $1k/month on rent for a nice apt near the beach, and another $1k on food/car/entertainment, my expenses are pretty much covered.

    2. Re:This is painfully obvious. by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would add the number of people you accept to care for can go up with increased income. When I passed an amount I felt secure with I accepted increased responsibility for helping parents and siblings. That extra load seems to be a wash emotionally: there is some extra worry balanced by increased happiness at being able to help.

      Count among your blessings the fact that you had a choice in the matter. Taking on a big responsibility is easier when done voluntarily, as I'm sure you've seen. So much serious stuff gives us little say. My in-laws recently had to evacuate a seriously -- and possibly terminally -- ill expatriate grandfather, an operation that has saddled grandpa's children with considerable debt. It really wasn't a viable option for them to leave their dad to die in his newly adopted tropical home. And the non-insured medical expenses are not going to make things better, either. Right now I'm hoping that my wife and I don't get touched to help out. Seeing that in print looks heartless, but the man moved voluntarily, aware of his worsening health.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    3. Re:This is painfully obvious. by HaZardman27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you disabled? Is there anything legitimately keeping you from getting a job? If not, what makes you think you have the right to live off of everyone's taxes?

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    4. Re:This is painfully obvious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would add the number of people you accept to care for can go up with increased income. When I passed an amount I felt secure with I accepted increased responsibility for helping parents and siblings. That extra load seems to be a wash emotionally: there is some extra worry balanced by increased happiness at being able to help.

      FWIW, if you are helping parents, siblings, children, relatives, friends, or just anyone in general I have a three tips for you.

      1) Every loan you make has a good possibility of becoming a "gift" if they can't or won't pay you back. Don't loan more than you would be able to give someone -- especially without collateral or a legally binding agreement. If someone's inability to payback a loan would cause you financial hardship or would terminate your relationship with them, you are better off not giving them the money.

      2) Don't help out to easily or too often. People need to develop self-reliance and if you help out anytime there is a minor issue you will actually be hurting the person in the long run by taking away their responsibility for themselves.

      3) Don't let someone just stay on your "couch" for a week unless you are willing to basically take care of someone for an unspecified amount of time while they stay in your house without contributing and consume your food and other resources. Almost all "surprise guest" situations end up as "unhappily mooching roommate" until they are kicked out.

    5. Re:This is painfully obvious. by elucido · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you disabled? Is there anything legitimately keeping you from getting a job? If not, what makes you think you have the right to live off of everyone's taxes?

      It's simple. Say he does get a job selling drugs or as a prostitute, your tax dollars would then pay the vice cop who would arrest him, the judge who would handle the trial, his lawyer, the prosecutor, and then you the juror would have to waste your time hearing the case and making a decision.

      It seems cheaper to just pay for SSI, the alternatives if we want there to be an alternative is to have full employment and how would you want to guarantee that everyone who wants a job can have one? It's not as simple of a problem of "But my tax dollars pay for these people to live for free!", in reality your tax dollars go to waste on a lot more unimportant stuff than this, and the tax dollars you spend on this lowers the crime rate and actually saves you money long term, unless you want the alternative where we legalize all the stuff that is currently illegal for cosmetic concerns, like drugs, prostitution, gambling and stuff of this sort.

    6. Re:This is painfully obvious. by dwillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Me and my family (Wife and three kids) live quite comfortably on an AGI of about 48k. We have no debt but our mortgage; and both our vehicles are paid for. We paid cash for both of them, my truck was brand new off the lot.
      Do we have a million toys? The latest gadgets and gizmo's? No, but we are comfortable, my wife teases me about having as many computers as we do, our kids watch far more TV than we do, and PBSkids looks just fine on a non HD screen. On the other hand we are able to help others in need and have a good sized emergency fund, and a stable of investments.

      How did we do it? Well first off, when we bought our house we didn't look to get the biggest McMansion in town stretching out our income to the absolute maximum we could afford, we found something that fit our needs and had room to grow our family within our plans. Oh, and my wife (an Attorney by education and pre-marriage employment) is by her choice a stay at home mom. We do all this on one income.
      About 10 years ago someone told me I'd need a minimum of 50k a year to comfortably raise a family. I'm still not quite to that point but doing fine. Would I like more? Sure, but we are comfortable, satisfied and happy.

      Your comprehension of what is needed is way off.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:This is painfully obvious. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about we stop talking about things as "rights" which require "taking" from someone else something of value to give to someone else?

      Health Care is NOT a right. Rights don't depend on other people, they are self evident (exist on their own).

      IF you want to call it something, lets call it what it is, a privilege that is afforded us because we are wealthy, educated and technically advanced enough.

      BTW, all three of those things are subject to change, and are changing even as we speak, because we have continued to make privileges into rights, and killing our ability to compete against countries that have no such illusions.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  2. cheap shot by emkyooess · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tomorrow's headline: "Democrats call for a new $75,000 living wage. Supported by research."

    1. Re:cheap shot by Plastic+Pencil · · Score: 5, Funny

      Republicans respond and after a year and a half worth of debate and Glenn Beck's tears, Obama and Democrats settle for $7,500, despite miraculously retaining a majority in the House and Senate.

    2. Re:cheap shot by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, according to this research, taking money away from those making quite a bit more than $75k per year and giving it to those making quite a bit less would raise total happiness. Let's reverse the policies of upwards wealth transfer put into place by the wealthy. Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society. Let's stop letting the rich set policy that benefits them at our expense. We need to re-transfer the wealth they have spent the last fifty years "transferring" to themselves. Remember, taking back what was stolen from you is not stealing.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:cheap shot by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember, taking back what was stolen from you is not stealing.

      With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.

      Of course, we could take seize all their assets and redistribute them to whoever they stole it from. Just curious though, who would get Michael Dell's assets? Seems to me that the money Dell has made came from people who willingly purchased products and services that Dell provides. Stealing is taking stuff away from people against their will. Who did Dell steal from? Other than the obvious thieves, Enron execs, Bernie Madhoff, etc, who have the founders of the companies that make stuff we all use, like iPods, software, dishwashers stolen from? How do we get the money back to the victims if we don't know who they are?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:cheap shot by rhekman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that while the President has a majority in Congress on paper, reality is much different. It would be a lot more obvious that he hasn't got a majority were we under a Parliamentary system. ...
      The only thing that could realistically screw it up for them is if the Tea party steals too many votes or the American people collectively grow a spine.

      Wow. I'm actually a bit dismayed this post got modded insightful. All you're doing is calling a large portion of the population spineless and brainless for having a different opinion than yourself.

      I think it's a perfectly valid point of view to believe a government should protect an environment where it's most productive members are enabled to enrich themselves and society as a whole. I also think it's perfectly valid to believe a government's largest expenditures should not be income transfer programs. I also think it's quite realistic to expect to strike a balance where society's poorest members can be helped in times of need without bankrupting the entire nation.

      It amazes me how so-called "open minded" people can be so intolerant of differing opinions.

      --
      I like teamwork. It's easier to assign blame that way.
    5. Re:cheap shot by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I also think it's perfectly valid to believe a government's largest expenditures should not be income transfer programs.

      In a very real sense, all government expenditures are income transfer payments.

  3. Where do you live? by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The amount of money that you require to be "happy" depends on where you live and what the lifestyles of the people around you are.
     
    Where you live sets the baseline cost of living, and visible lifestyles determine your expectations.

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  4. Double what you are earning by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I have observed is that a happy income is double your present income. I have seen this with people earning less than 20k and more than a million.
    75K would be about double the national average.
    Also this 75k number would completely depend on where you are. 75K is poverty in NYC while in most Podunks 75K would make you near royalty.

    1. Re:Double what you are earning by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Man, if $75k is poverty in NYC then 2/3 of NYC lives in poverty! Is it really the case that only the top third of New Yorkers can be said to be non-poor?

      (The median income for the city is $48k, fwiw. Even for Manhattan, the median is $65k.)

    2. Re:Double what you are earning by darien.train · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Man, if $75k is poverty in NYC then 2/3 of NYC lives in poverty! Is it really the case that only the top third of New Yorkers can be said to be non-poor?

      If you were given a tour of some of the $1000-$1500 a month apartments in the Lower East Side and didn't know their cost, you'd certainly describe them as "impoverished" living conditions. The next level of rent in NYC ($1500-$2200) doesn't generally get you space past 800 square feet in the city (New Yorkers call Manhattan "The City," not the boroughs, FYI). There is also a fee system in NYC for renting any apartment via a realtor - which is one of the only ways of getting a good place. The fee is usually a full-months rent that you pay to the realtor and never get back. So...if you're going to rent an $1000-a-month apartment here that you found via a realtor you pay the first months rent ($1000) last months rent ($1000) the fee ($1000) and a security deposit ($1000) making you're bill before moving expenses $4000. With all combined moving expenses you can easily pay $8000 to move a half-mile to a place that's the same price as the one you're living in now. All of this doesn't even factor in all the shenanigans you'll encounter while trying to beat 20 other people on signing the lease.

      My wife and I live in NYC and we've estimated that for a husband and wife to live comfortably here (including going out to dinner once a week, belonging to a gym, being able to leave the city every other weekend, etc) you have to make around a combined income of $300k.

      People in NYC tend to be so used to sacrificing basics to live here that they've forgotten what poverty means to the rest of the country (this includes people who make 75K here.) NYC's super-wealthy on the other-hand are these maladjusted weirdos who have nothing to do besides be paranoid about who's trying to take their money and contribute little or nothing to society. Most students here could also easily be deemed as impoverished. I've known some who go on sugar packet raids at bodegas and Starbucks as a way to save money.

      I just heard a quote the other day (can't remember where) about NYC. "It's heaven and hell." That about sums it up.

      --
      I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
  5. Re:Too much money also means no trust. by jgr123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever even earned that amount or are you just pulling things out of your ass?

  6. Re:Dimensional analysis, please by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

    You should really make more money.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Lack of debt makes for happiness by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know how you put a $ figure on it. For me, it was lack of plastic debt. I have one CC and it it paid off weekly, yeah, weekly. My main debt is my house, followed by a car; whose sale price was less than 30% my gross. I do my best to keep monthlies to a minimum, meaning paid for cell plan, my internet, and my TV.

    I set aside multiple savings accounts with automatic $50 deductions or more, after a while you lose track of them until tax time but the its nice to know you have money out there. So besides paying down debt create an automatic deposit into a savings account, preferably not at the same back your checking is at. Then just file it away in the back of your mind. Never touch it unless you lost all other means of having money for shelter and food.

    You can be debt free on 20K if you live right. That is where most people get tripped up. They refuse to live within their means and the blame others (if not society). I can't count the number of people I work with who have notes or leases on cars that cost half it not more than half their gross pay. Throw in $100 a month for Smart phone plans; as in many who have one are not; and its easy to see why people aren't happy, they are too busy going broke to impress people, people who generally don't care. I certainly don't care what car you park in the lot, let alone I doubt anyone seeing your shiny 5 series/E-class/A6 really gives a flip when they likely will pass another dozen of the same that day.

    Don't live to impress others with material wealth.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  8. Wealthy Social Pathologists by jazman_777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one. Our wealthy ruling elite can insulate from all the social pathologies they promote. They think the middle and lower classes can weather the storms as easily as they can, so those social pathologies must not be bad. But if you live in the wreckage, you shake your fist at our ruling elite, and call down a curse on them.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  9. Amazing!!! by retardpicnic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Princeton has now been able to PROVE that getting a serious illness, or divorced is harder on poor people. WOW! Amazing! GO IVY LEAGUE

    --
    sig loading.......
  10. More Likely... by MarcQuadra · · Score: 4, Funny

    More likely that all sorts of white upper-middle class trustifarian college students start demanding $75,000 for everyone, to the chant of "Happiness is a human right!"

    Then come the 'experts' at House and Senate hearings:

    "Over 240 million Americans go to bed every night without Happiness. Americans are unhappy right here on our own shores! We must end Sadness! When I was in college, I was unhappy. After my accident, I got a $75,000 settlement from the university, and from then on I was happy. I come here to tell you that if every American had the same $75K opportunity I did, we could end Sadness forever."

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  11. Re:even rich people hate life by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which is mostly their fault. I dislike taxes as much as anyone else, and I'm not usre our current system is exactly fair ... but the HOA fees "of living on the upper east side or UWS," the nanny, and the elite day care (and the elite private elementary schools that are $15k/yr or whatever, etc) are their choice.

    Also, the five $60k+ cars eat into their income, too.

    I'm glad we have a free country where people can make their own decisions, but being rich does not mean you necessarily make good money decisions. Seems like a lot of rich people have ended up poor because they didn't know how to manage their own riches and they spent it all, gambled it, invested it stupidly, or whatever.

  12. Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction by MikeFM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Have you ever tried to get an advanced stylesheet to work in IE? Some sort of advanced training, and a kindly god, is needed.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  13. Re:Too much money also means no trust. by pclminion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This got rated up to 4? People, please apply for jobs at the CIA, you pass the paranoia qualification.

    Here's a helpful tip when talking to friends who maybe don't have the same number of digits in their bank account balances: shut the fuck up and do not discuss your income. Holy shit, how hard is it. I've talked with friends about their favorite sexual positions with their wives, but talking about income? Absolutely fucking off limits.

    By the way, life gets better once you finally graduate high school. Just thought I'd throw out some advice which is relevant to you.

  14. My experience with the $75,000 mark by dave562 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I recently left a job where I was making under $75,000 and took a job where I am now making over $75,000. In the first case I was slightly below, and in the latter I am slightly above. In my previous job I had a lot of slack. I took the train to work. I worked pretty much whatever hours I felt like. I did not have very many responsibilities. In my current job I have less slack, I am working longer hours and I have significantly more responsibility.

    In the previous job, my debt was not shrinking as quickly as I wanted it to. None the less I wasn't scratching out a subsistance living while trying to pare it down. I was going out to eat with my girlfriend a lot and making random purchases when I wanted things (PS3, HDTV, etc.) I was driving a beater car, but since I was taking the train, it didn't matter so much. In my new job, my debt is falling quickly and I'm driving a much newer car. I am still going out to eat a lot, but having obtained most of the crap that I wanted, I have extra money to pay down debt.

    All in all, I'm not sure that I am any happer >$75,000 than I was at $75,000. I do know that I have less time to practice tai chi and kung fu and that irks me. I have a lot more responsibility, but I saw that coming. I'm now the guy we all read about with his Blackberry going off at all hours of the night. In life we have the opportunity to trade our time for someone else's money. They have things that need to be done, and they get to the point where their own time is so valuable that they can pay other people to do it for them. The more money that you make, the more of yourself and your time that you have to give up for it.

    Based on my experience, $75,000 seems to be a good number (in Southern California) at least. A part of me thinks it is a little high. Someone who can content themselves with a simplistic life (as I wish I could, and I do half heartedly strive for), it is more than enough. Too far below it and you start having to make some sacrifices like living in not so great neighborhoods, driving older / less unreliable cars, not being able to go out whenever the mood strikes you. Yet once you get above it, you start giving up yourself. You enter that realm of responsibility where you are the go to person when things need to get done. You lose the ability to tell others, "I will deal with it tomorrow" in all but the most extreme cases. In Southern California the $75,000 mark seems to be the bottom of the "You can really do what you say you can do" pay scale. It only goes up from there as you continue to prove yourself, but you get more money at the expense of your free time.

    Personally, I think I reached a little too far. I would have rather stayed below $75,000 and enjoyed the slack.

  15. Re:Fucking great by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to break the news to ya AC, but guess what the tax rate on the 1%ers was during the boom years, aka 40s-60s? Hint, try 90%. You see you don't really need things like Glass Stegall when you take the pure unadulterated greed out of the situation. Now put Reagan lowering that to 25%, add in removing Glass Stegall and voila? One bubble after another. Look at how many bubbles we had from the end of the depression to Reagan, then look at how many after. Greed kills AC, it kills markets dead.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  16. Re:Money does not buy happiness, but ... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Money can't buy you happiness, but poverty can't buy you shit.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  17. Re:Too much money also means no trust. by Alarindris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    shut the fuck up and do not discuss your income

    Soooo... what you're saying is that you agree with him? Can't trust your friends eh?

  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction by Totenglocke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    *Disclaimer* I know I'll get modded to oblivion for this, but I feel it needs to be said.

    Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified and lawyers charge an insane amount (despite the acknowledged over supply of lawyers), I think I speak for most of society when I say I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest.

    The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong. There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.

    --
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  20. Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction by nomadic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not to be hurtful, but I'm baffled by the notion that anyone could look at our society and not see that there was an obvious oversupply of lawyers. That's why there are all the jokes (and non-jokes) about them being leeches, etc.

    The ABA and the law schools pretty much lie to prospective students. I don't mean mislead, or present incomplete information, I mean they will knowingly lie about employment prospects. I didn't want to rely on sort of "everyone knows" information like the supposed oversupply of lawyers, so I researched and tracked down statistics for my law school, without knowing that those statistics are intentionally twisted. Hadn't expected that; my undergrad school published their own statistics even when they made them look bad, so I thought law schools would do the same. Several schools have been caught lying, and blame "inadvertent" clerical errors, but for some reason the error is always in the same direction. I was also personally caught in another lie, that the JD degree is useful outside the law; it was sold as a more rigorous version of a degree in public policy/administration/government, though it in actuality pretty much forecloses you from being hired in any other field. This last thing is the most annoying, I actually make a good living as a lawyer, but if I had realized that the JD would make that the sole thing I would be able to get a job in, I wouldn't have gone.

  21. Re:Too much money also means no trust. by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this is why American workers get shafted so hard. Income is even more off-limits for discussion than religion (and that's saying a lot!), so you never realize that the guy working in the office next to your cubical makes ten times your salary, despite only providing maybe one or two times your value to the company (if that).

    Social mores like "never discuss your income" strictly benefit the rich.

  22. Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Took me 11 years. At times I went 40 hours without sleep and worked 55 hours and then did over 60 hours of homework in the same week.

    The changes it made to me as a person (not the education) were worth every minute.
    But it cost me very little financially (probably under $14,000) and I graduated debt free. It was kind of fun until year 8. Then I realized I still had 54ish hours to go out of a 130 hour degree (and 38 hours sunk on a change of majors).

    College for who it makes you as a person- worth it. For the income- not worth it any more.
    So choose a small inexpensive college- go 4 years. Graduate with little debt.

    Unless you have awesome connections.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  23. Please take note of this important number. by griffman99h · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if this is to be believed, then with a current world population of 6,697,254,041 (*75,000)

    It would cost 502,294,053,075,000 per year

    so 500 Trillion dollars a year for EVERYone to be happy.

    Current world gdp is 61 Trillion.

    My Utopian dream bubble has been popped.