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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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