
The money, job, marriage myth: are you happy yet? - cesidio
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/06/happiness-index-wellbeing-survey-uk-population-paul-dolan-happy-ever-after
======
afpx
As an outlier poor kid who made money, I can really relate to this. This is a
thought-provoking piece, and hits on a lot of things I think about often.

But, I think some of us aren’t necessarily in the hedonic treadmill game. Some
of us keep working to gain more wealth not be of higher social status but
because we fear being relegated back to poor-guy status.

Now, I often do want to be the non-rich guy again. I see many of my friends
making 30k a year and enjoying life. And, I often take time off to hang with
my old friends because it gets me out of my bubble and also because it’s more
authentic to me. I get tired of wearing a mask.

But, I keep driving myself for wealth because I find it gives me security. As
a poor kid, I can’t tell you how many times I was targeted by the power
hierarchy. Being at the bottom of the social ladder hurts. You get abused and
bullied. You have no voice or remedy when you (often) become the target of
those with wealth. It hurts mentally, emotionally, financially, and - as the
police are mostly paid to watch you - it can wind you in prison.

No, I can’t deal with that feeling. I want money because it gives me access
and it keeps the creepers away.

~~~
irrational
> as the police are mostly paid to watch you

Just yesterday I was talking to someone who's father contributed $10,000 to
the reelection campaign for the local sheriff. I asked him why he did that and
the response was so that the sheriff would feel obligated to the guy's father.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
Politicisation of the police seems like a terrible idea. We have been trying
to do it in the UK, fortunately it seems to be failing and will likely get
canned the next time we have a change of government.

------
vorpalhex
There is nothing which will make you happy. You must choose to be happy.

There is no job, no amount of money, no relationship, which will make you feel
whole and happy and content and done. The opposite doesn't hold - there are
jobs and relationships and financial strains which will certainly keep you
from being happy.

The goal isn't for a job or a relationship to make you happy. It's to enable
other things which are your goals, which may or may not be happiness related.

~~~
beat
Happiness is _not_ a choice. If you think it is, try learning more about
clinical depression.

~~~
Liquix
Some people's brain chemistry makes feeling happiness much more difficult.
Some people with clinical depression will physically never experience
happiness the same way others do. That's true and valid.

But does that really mean that being happy is _not_ a choice?

A paraplegic is unable to choose to move their legs due to a medical condition
- would they assert that 'moving your legs is _not_ a choice'?

~~~
chongli
I'm extremely skeptical of the brain chemistry narrative. It doesn't explain
why depression is growing rapidly in the Western world. It doesn't explain why
antidepressants vary so widely in their efficacy between persons.

I'm far more apt to believe that people's lives are getting worse and that
they're depressed as a result. People are lonelier than ever and society's
problems are bigger and more abstract than ever.

We're no longer even cogs in a machine, we're atoms in a cog. Meaning in life
has become extremely elusive.

~~~
Liquix
I completely agree. As Chamath Palihapitiya (ex-Facebook) eloquently puts it,
our technology culture is 'ripping apart the social fabric of how society
works' [0]. We're social creatures who thrive on human interaction and sharing
genuine moments - social media gives us the exact opposite [1].

The really insidious thing is that many of the big players and driving forces
behind these trends saw it coming, knew that what they were building may have
far-reaching negative consequences, _and then chose to do it anyway for the
sake of money_. What a time to be alive, right?

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78oMjNCAayQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78oMjNCAayQ)

[1]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853817/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853817/)

~~~
MaxBarraclough
Not trying to sound smart here, but if that's your position, why did you go
with _Some people 's brain chemistry..._?

~~~
Liquix
I believe that a small percentage of the population is born neurochemically
imbalanced (classic clinical depression), but also that the recent rise in
anxiety and depression rates is mainly caused by societal and technological
factors.

------
Raphmedia
Money gave me stability.

Stability allowed me to have time for introspection.

Introspection allowed me to target issues in my life.

Fixing those issues is lowering my discomfort in life.

Money won't fix anything for you but it will provide you an environment where
you can.

~~~
apohn
>Money gave me stability.

The lows are very different when you have money and when you don't have money.

When you are struggling financially and a single event (e.g. car breaking
down) can spiral into wrecking your entire life, you it's hard to "let go" of
that.

When you are financially stable there are a lot of frustrations (e.g. work
stress) you can learn to cope with, control, or let go of.

~~~
BrandonMarc
I always liked how Dave Ramsey explained it.

* If you're broke and the car breaks down, it's both a car crisis and an extra financial crisis (need money to fix the car).

* If you have enough money saved and the car breaks down, it's merely a car crisis ... and, given that you're capable of fixing the car, it's less of a crisis, at that.

The whole dynamic changes.

~~~
magduf
Even better is if you live in a place where you don't need a car, and can
happily take public transit to get to work because the local government
invested in subways. Then you don't have to worry about your car breaking down
and ruining your day or worse.

~~~
Raphmedia
This makes more sense for small countries.

For example, I live in Canada and unless you life in the capital of the
province everything is really far away.

A lot of people live in cheap apartment blocks of rural areas and it can be a
walk of pretty much an hour to get to the groceries store. There is public
transit but it's usually every few hours instead of a constant traffic, so you
have to plan your entire day around it.

I do agree with your main point that public transit should be one of the main
investment of a country.

~~~
magduf
Most people in the Americas live in cities, and that number is constantly
increasing with urbanization. With proper urban planning and funding, public
transit in the US/Canada could be far better than it is, and a useful way of
getting around. But there seems to be no political will to do this. Cities in
Europe are far better laid out and planned, with mixed-use development (shops
on the ground floor, apartments on top), but North America seems to be
allergic to this and wants subdivisions with McMansions instead.

------
dx87
Overall I agree with the article, and would gladly trade my high paying job
for one that I actually enjoy, as long as I could be sure that I can make ends
meet. The one disagreement I have is the assertion that we should be happy
making "just enough" money that we need. "just enough" can change due to
circumstances outside our control, so earning more than enough gives you some
cushion for when things don't go as planned. For example, a couple of years
ago I was laid off due to budget issues at the company, and since I had been
earning more than I needed, my wife and I were able to still live comfortably
off savings while I was unemployed for a few months. If I had been earning
"just enough", I might have lost my home when I suddenly started earning
nothing.

~~~
AznHisoka
I totally agree, and while a good % of HN readers probably are making a lot,
the vast majority of people (at least in the US) are living month to month.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I went mattress shopping yesterday. The fact that there's options for
financing a $2000 purchase is indicative that "just enough" is, in fact, not.

~~~
badpun
This is one of those crazy cases where parts of American population were
seemingly hypnotised by advertising and are spending insane amounts of money
on a commodity item. Here in Poland, the most I've paid for a mattress was an
equivalent of $130. I've never had problems with them.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
We ended up buy a model that was about $2000 just because we could tell the
difference between the $700 model. But yeah, why is it $2000? What value is
there actually in the mattress that justifies it? And if a cheaper option
exists that would allow one to exist within one's needs, why not get that
instead?

~~~
ericd
There are some very good mattresses online for much less than 2k. We recently
got some all-latex (normally very expensive) twins for $600.

------
djohnston
“Marry, and you will regret it; don’t marry, you will also regret it; marry or
don’t marry, you will regret it either way. Laugh at the world’s foolishness,
you will regret it; weep over it, you will regret that too; laugh at the
world’s foolishness or weep over it, you will regret both. Believe a woman,
you will regret it; believe her not, you will also regret it… Hang yourself,
you will regret it; do not hang yourself, and you will regret that too; hang
yourself or don’t hang yourself, you’ll regret it either way; whether you hang
yourself or do not hang yourself, you will regret both. This, gentlemen, is
the essence of all philosophy.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

~~~
fegu
Not advocating hanging yourself, but it is something you will never regret
since if done "successfully" you will cease to exist and therefore not be able
to regret anything.

~~~
postsantum
Quite a lot of people who survived a suicide attempt (especially by jumping
off bridges) tell how they regretted their decision the same moment they
jumped

------
rthomas6
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill)

We spend a lot of our time trying to add pleasure to our lives to
(temporarily) boost us above our baseline happiness level, when really we
should be spending that time learning how to change the baseline level itself.

Isn't it odd that there are monks who live with nothing who are probably
happier than any of us?

~~~
satokema
How do you know those monks are "happier"? How can you measure something like
that?

I can't even measure my own "happiness" most of the time, and it's a different
part of my brain giving that report (usually full of crap and not realistic)
from the part that actually experiences "happiness".

~~~
thedaemon
Contentment = happiness in this context?

~~~
watwut
How do you know they are content? They are literally not allowed to talk about
own unhappiness when it happens to them. Monk rules are pretty strict, they
have to deal with own crises without raising voice and are often not allowed
to talk to outside world in privacy or in public.

~~~
dangerkitteh
Where are you getting this data? I've known many monks (and nuns too for that
matter) and you are encouraged to discuss when you are unhappy. No abbot wants
a miserable monk, so they work with you to be sure you are happy and adjusting
well to the life. If not, then you mutually come to a decision about what to
do next, even if that means leaving the monastery. Implying that they are some
sort of prisoner is inaccurate.

~~~
watwut
Most I gathered from current catholic journals, interviews and forums. They
occasionally write about it, because it interest catholic. These are not
secrets, they are wrote about so that other catholics can appreciate how hard
it is to be nun or monk.

Catholics nuns and monks are supposed to live cloistered and contemplative
life, a lot (sometimes completely) isolated inside a monastery. Per
definition. Note that sisters and brothers are something a bit different, they
work in outside world and make different vows. The formation takes years, but
once it is over, they take solemn vows and that is supposed to be for life.
That is what you promises. The solemn vows make you nun or monk and you are
not supposed to change opinion after. Obviously it is possible to leave, it is
not even legal to keep you by force. But if you do that after vows religious
consequences do follow.

Whether road outside is easy or difficult for those still in formation depends
on monastery in question while it being easier now. I read both types of
accounts. But all in all, it is supposed to be hard and my understanding was
that every nun and monk goes through hard times (that is partly why they
really did not liked defections in past and punished them - defection makes it
harder on others in formation).

How hard final rules are depend on monastery. But most strict one limit your
ability to talk to up to two hours a day. It is called recreation - you
however do work at that time that requires talking and silent work otherwise.
Friendships are regulated, you are not supposed to have special relationship
with someone else, all should be treated the same including emotionally. In
another monastery I read about man did lonely work whole day not talking and
had one hour a day where they walked with partner and walked - you was told
who it will be and you switched so that they spent same amount of time with
everybody.

The way monks and nuns talk, without emotions is also because regulations,
rules and vow of obeisance make them so. Talking with anger is wrong for them,
content is how you are supposed to look like.

The vow of silence (useless and idle words are forbidden) and obeisance are
quite important when speaking of potential happiness, you are really not
supposed to say no to superior even if superior changed and is someone
different you may not personally fit. If you are unhappy after such change,
tough luck. Note the impact of vow of silence on your ability to discuss and
compare experiences with fellow monks.

Another interesting bit is that a lot of formation is literally about making
you as obeisant as possible, assigning you tasks that are useless while you
are supposed to gently smile, answer "yes brother" and fill the hole you just
dug. That is expected, just like in army training they have as purpose to fill
you into certain mold.

------
vinceguidry
Americans are becoming too rational and this is a major problem. When you
over-value rationality, you expect to be able to have a rational answer to
every question.

The hand-licking story that made the front page today illustrates this point
perfectly. Approached rationally, the mom could not solve the problem, no
amount of mental effort would yield a resolution or insight into the issue.
When the mind expects an answer to a problem that it can't solve, it applies
more and more 'force' until it breaks through. In this case, the force was
destroying her family relationships. But this is what frustrated rationalism
does. People don't or can't catch themselves before they create awful
situations.

It is only when she applied an _irrational_ approach to the problem,
surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally
understand what was going on.

I rail against excessive rationality on HN all the time, promoting a more
cautious, traditional outlook on certain things like office politics. I expect
coders to be exceptionally rational, I don't have any issue with it.

But Americans in general are succumbing to the trend of expecting to be able
to answer every question they ever have in their lives and throwing away their
emotional health on meaningless symbols and missing the true core nature of
what it means to be happy and healthy and whole.

Perhaps the starkest example of this phenomenon is when atheists lament that
there aren't any atheist churches. 50 years ago, if you were an atheist, you
still went to church. They were still the pillars that communities revolved
around, the very loom of the fabric of society.

Nowadays, we've thrown away every last bit of symbolism that brings people
together and wonder why we're so lonely. If things aren't perfectly rational,
people's minds rebel immediately and harshly, like it's my fault you don't
understand a concept requiring depth of study to really grasp.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the mind will create a
myth if it doesn't already believe in one. Money, job, marriage is the
American Dream myth. It stems ultimately from positivism and expecting to be
able to understand everything.

It doesn't have to be this way. You might not be able to fix everybody else
but you can fix yourself.

~~~
kemayo
> The hand-licking story that made the front page today illustrates this point
> perfectly. [...]

> It is only when she applied an irrational approach to the problem,
> surrendering the need to control the situation, that she could finally
> understand what was going on.

I feel like you have a somewhat idiosyncratic definition of "irrational" that
you're applying here.

What I took from the hand-licking story was that her initial attempt to brute-
force the issue without understanding it was irrational, i.e. "not logical or
reasonable", and that approach failed. Then, quite reasonably and rationally,
she backed off and established trust with her child, found out the underlying
cause of the issue, and provided a solution that resolved the underlying
issue.

~~~
vinceguidry
I think it's common for people, especially the overly-rational, to conflate
correctness with rationality. Yes, with hindsight it can be seen that the
actions she initially took were incorrect. But they seemed perfectly
_rational_ approaches at the time.

If you see your child doing something anti-social, then it's logical to try to
correct it because if you don't, it will cause problems for them down the
road. In fact, it would have been irrational to not do anything about it.

It was only when the logical brain got overridden by maternal instinct that
she could choose an approach that led eventually to a resolution.

The logical brain demands control over the situation. If she could have
surrendered control earlier, perhaps even in the first few times she witnessed
it, then she could have taken a less-combative approach.

~~~
nybble41
> Yes, with hindsight it can be seen that the actions she initially took were
> incorrect. But they seemed perfectly rational approaches at the time.

There was nothing incorrect or irrational about the actions the mother
initially took. Her approach was reasonable given the limited information
available to her. A slightly _more_ rational approach would perhaps have
placed greater emphasis on the value of empathy and her relationship with her
child, which was being undermined by some of the measures she took, and given
correspondingly less weight to the social pressure she was feeling from
others—but in the end she made the _rational_ decision in line with her own
principles and priorities and stopped trying to force the issue. Later, when
her son was both able and willing to discuss the matter, she was able to
analyse the root cause and suggest several rational alternative courses of
action which were readily adopted, thus putting an end to the problem for
good.

It's unclear from the write-up whether any maternal instincts were involved,
but the peer pressure which pushed her to force the issue was clearly
irrational and played on her instinctive desire for acceptance. Instincts and
emotions are a _good_ thing and shouldn't be ignored, but it's a mistake to
follow them blindly—they can lead you into trouble just as easily as they can
get you out of it. It's best to look at them as valuable inputs into the
rational process, to be evaluated alongside other data before drawing any
conclusions.

~~~
vinceguidry
Things are irrational until we understand the dynamics behind them. Then they
become rational. When she decided not to press the issue, that wasn't a
rational decision made on logic, it was an emotional one where she prioritized
one kind of truth, that it was _her_ hurting her child, over another kind of
truth, that it was the hand licking that was hurting her child.

Only in retrospect did the actuality of the situation make itself known. There
was no logical way to weigh one alternative against another. Sure, one later
manifested, but it didn't exist in the moment.

This is why I say she used irrational means to decide to lay off. I recognized
maternal instincts in her reasoning, which I'll quote here:

> Finally, I had this moment where I felt that my efforts to ramp up the
> pressure to force him to stop had crossed some line. I felt I was turning
> into an abusive parent.

> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his
> hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.

Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took
hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her
decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure,
she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.

Over-reliance on and unexamined belief in rationality drives this. Sometimes
there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to choose
between, with nothing to help to distinguish them. The over-rational mindset
will concoct meaningless and even counter-productive forms of "rationality" to
paper over their fundamental ignorance. The colloquial term at hand is lamp
posting.

~~~
nybble41
>> Finally, I had this moment where I felt that my efforts to ramp up the
pressure to force him to stop had crossed some line. I felt I was turning into
an abusive parent.

>> At that moment, I decided this had to stop. I didn't care if he licked his
hands the rest of his life. It couldn't be worse than this.

> Rational analysis failed, some other way of deciding how to handle it took
> hold. Notice the semantic shift here. She moved from articulating her
> decision-making process in a cold, logical fashion, then after the failure,
> she shifts to an empathic, emotional basis.

I see the same shift that you mentioned, but unlike you I see the original
exclusion of empathy and emotion from the decision-making process as
_irrational_. Up to this point she'd been reacting instinctively and
emotionally to the external pressure to make her son stop licking his hands,
without considering whether that was really a worthwhile goal or what it might
cost in terms of their relationship. Taking her empathy and emotion into
account was the _rational_ choice, and allowed her to set aside the peer
pressure and clearly see and evaluate how her actions thus far failed to
satisfy her own priorities and goals. At that point she _rationally_ chose to
stop forcing the issue.

> Sometimes there are multiple truths out there that you are going to have to
> choose between, with nothing to help to distinguish them.

The "colloquial term at hand" is _false dichotomy_. You are never forced to
choose one potential truth over another. "I don't know" is a perfectly
acceptable response. Naturally you still need to decide on a course of action
despite not knowing where the truth lies, but that doesn't require committing
to a particular version of the truth and rejecting all others as false.

> The over-rational mindset will concoct meaningless and even counter-
> productive forms of "rationality" to paper over their fundamental ignorance.

When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice;
proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version
of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would be
the hallmark of an _irrational_ mindset, not an "over-rational" one.

~~~
vinceguidry
> I see the original exclusion of empathy and emotion from the decision-making
> process as irrational.

This is because you're reifying rationality onto past events, conflating
correct with rational. When she made the decision to stop, she didn't have a
rational basis to make that decision, rational means you can connect a
decision to logic. She didn't discover that logic, those reasons, until a full
year later. That's when she finally had all the pieces.

> doesn't require committing to a particular version of the truth and
> rejecting all others as false.

This is a non-sequitur. Whatever you choose is going to have consequences. The
very course of action is what does the rejection of all the other forms of
looking at it, not your mindset. Your actions belie what you consider to be
important.

> When one is actually ignorant, admitting ignorance is the rational choice;
> proceeding as if one were not ignorant (for example, by choosing one version
> of the truth over another when there is nothing to distinguish them) would
> be the hallmark of an irrational mindset, not an "over-rational" one.

What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact
ignorant? This is how this ties back to money, job, marriage. You can have
these things, and be happy, or you can have these things, and be unhappy. I'm
arguing that the reasons why you chase them are important, and you have to
make the decision anyway.

If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like
listening to your gut, then you're way better off than trying to force
rational ones.

So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational
approach?

~~~
nybble41
> When she made the decision to stop, she didn't have a rational basis to make
> that decision, rational means you can connect a decision to logic.

She explained the rational basis in her write-up, which you quoted. The
rational basis _at the time of the decision_ was that her actions appeared to
her as bordering on those of an abusive parent, which was not her intent, and
consequently that stopping her son from licking his hands wasn't worth the
cost. Based on these facts she made the rational decision to stop.

> Whatever you choose is going to have consequences.

Choices do have consequences, but there is no need to choose between "multiple
truths"—only between multiple actions. If two or more "truths" are equally
consistent with the facts, equally valid, then there is no reason why you
can't defer judgement pending additional information. The fact that you chose
to act in a way consistent with one version of the "truth" and not the other
in a particular situation does not imply that you believe the first version to
be true and the other false. You could turn around and choose the opposite
action the next time without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.

The key point I'm trying to make here is that, having chosen to act in a way
consistent with one particular version of the "truth", one should not then lie
to oneself and pretend that this version _is_ true, excluding all other
possibilities, in the absence of evidence. It's OK (and rational) to admit
that your action was chosen arbitrarily, and that you still don't know which
version of the "truth" is real.

> What if you don't even know what you're ignorant of or that you are in fact
> ignorant?

Then the first step is to admit that you have a problem. Recognizing "unknown
unknowns" _is_ a hard problem, but it's an important skill to learn.

> If you are comfortable with irrational ways of gathering information, like
> listening to your gut...

If it has a history of providing useful information, it isn't irrational to
pay attention even if you don't know how that information was obtained.

> So is your next argument going to be that "going by your gut" is a rational
> approach?

Just "going by your gut" without considering other factors isn't any more
rational than acting purely on instinct or emotion. It is, however, one
component you can use as input to make a rational decision. Acting rationally
does not mean you disregard instincts or emotions or "gut feelings" or any of
the other hard-to-quantify aspects of our existence. These things are
important and exist for a reason. They aren't always _right_ , however, and
that's where rational thought comes in. Giving full reign to one's impulses
and emotions, without filtering them through the lens of reason, is harmful
both to oneself and to others.

------
ConceptJunkie
My job gives me a good paycheck, but isn't all that satisfying. It's varied
over the years with some jobs being better than others, but overall I can't
complain.

Marriage (because of the kids) has been much harder, and at times more
stressful. But while I would trade my job in heartbeat, I wouldn't trade my
family for anything.

I would definitely say that I'm happy. But like people have said above.
Happiness is something you choose. You have to choose to recognize the
blessings in life, of which I have many, and to deal with the stress and
problems (which I also have plenty) as they come, without letting them rule
you.

------
jondubois
>> happiness goes up with increases in income at the lower end of the scale,
but then it falls with higher incomes

Income and wealth are two completely unrelated concepts. Income doesn't mean
much because you usually need to work harder to get more income; so the
benefits are offset by the suffering of having to work harder.

Wealth, on the other hand doesn't require any suffering - It's just pure
happiness. Wealth can buy you anything. The only downside is that it erodes
your mental fortitude/willpower but if you have enough wealth, you don't need
any willpower anyway because wealth makes all personality traits redundant -
Everyone likes a rich person no matter what; to a rich person, personality is
useless.

------
bryanlarsen
Is happiness the right thing to aim for? Using words like "content",
"satisfied", "meaning", "engagement", "accomplishment" or "purpose" can result
in very different results.

The standard example is kids. Having kids, especially in a place without many
social supports, such as the United States, results in a drop in perceived
happiness, but an increase in satisfaction, which in the long term is better
correlated with mental health.

~~~
TheBeardKing
Exactly, happiness is so fleeting it's very difficult to describe your entire
being as happy or not. I certainly experience very happy moments, but also
sad, angry, frustrating moments. These short and temporary moments should not
be used to judge the general quality of your life.

------
sethammons
Two points jumped out at me: 1) > Contrary to what most of us might predict,
those earning over $100K are no happier than those with incomes of less than
$25K

And 2) > ... happiness and sense of purpose are both at their highest among
people working between 21 and 30 hours a week, and misery increases in tandem
with the number of hours worked thereafter. The results are consistent across
genders.

I can't say I agree with the first. I've gone from quite poor to upper middle
class. Money does not make one more happy per se, but your ability to reduce
stressors is much higher (and that can tip the balance to being more happy).
Food running out? Unexpected bills/repairs? Water heater broke? Several years
ago, that would mean I have cold water for the next few months (true story,
our on-demand water heater required manual lighting from outdoors for about 7
years - couldn't afford a new one. Wind, rain, snow, day, night, go outside to
light the pilot). With more income, that means I go out that evening and pick
up a water heater (which I did when I could afford it!). My ability to now
remove nearly all debts has made me feel so much better than I have for
_years_. This only happened because I was firmly on the higher end of the
middle class.

For the second part, I agree fully. All I want to do is work my property and
spend time with my kids. I do want to work too, but I want that to take up
much, much less of my time. If I could do 21 hours of work a week and maintain
a similar ability to fix a water heater at the drop of a hat (or car issue, or
whatever), that would be an easy sell.

As for happiness, you choose to be happy. And that is an easier choice when
stressors are less present.

~~~
horsawlarway
I think the two are more coupled than you're making them out to be.

In my experience, jobs that pay upwards of 100k require significant
time/energy investments. I make good money, but I have to be mentally engaged
all day long. I also have to deal with situations that come up
nights/weekends/holidays. My average work week is about 50 hours of time I'd
call "billable" plus another 20 hours of time spent on keeping current with my
field.

I would GLADLY trade half of my salary to work half the hours, but that's not
very easy to do: companies want employees on standard hours, and I still have
to keep up with what's changing in my field to be relevant and continue
pulling in the salary I have.

So I think there's a sweet spot where a job is good enough to avoid the
financial stressors like missing payments or not being able to replace
necessities, but not so demanding that the stress of the job itself approaches
the same level.

On the extremes: Stress from finances (low income), stress from very taxing
job (high income). I agree with you that I'd prefer the job stress, but not by
all that much. They both make me anxious, worried, drained.

------
b_tterc_p
The authors assertion that swearing isn’t bad annoys me. Swearing isn’t bad,
but that’s not the point. Not swearing in certain contexts is obviously just a
social norm, not a rational evaluation. It’s ok and natural for social norms
to change.

I would wager The overall thesis seems to be that non rationally proven social
norms are negative influences is naive to the fact that (I would guess) strong
social norms of any variety in a society lead to better community and
happiness.

I feel that by arguing we change a bunch of established norms because we can
be smarter than them, he’s unintentionally tripling down on the very effects
he’s advocating against.

------
Loughla
Like literally everything else, it's about balance.

No, you shouldn't let the world dictate your choices every single day.

But also you need to conform to some amount of societal standard. Social norms
exist sometimes to keep society working and moving forward.

As for happiness, if you are trying to 'get' happiness through external
forces, you're never going to be happy. That's not a secret.

~~~
kazagistar
And sometimes the social norm's arent helpful. In the article, he makes it
clear he rejects each norm mentioned specifically because he has reflected on
it and found it non helpful, and at least slightly harmful (if only to
individual autonomy and happyness). Saying norm's can help is a platitude, but
when considered individually you might find most are only actually more
beneficial then harmful very situationally.

~~~
Loughla
Obviously. Saying norms can help is a platitude. So is saying they don't help
with no thought. And that is what I believe most people take from articles
like this one.

My problem with these sorts of articles that pop up every now and then is that
folks tend to absorb less the 'evaluate your life in its own context' message,
and instead hear 'you can be a hot weirdo with no repercussions'. Which is
just flat wrong.

I fully agree with you that every person needs to evaluate their place in
society and see whether their role is their role or just what they believe is
expected. (completely separate tangent, I also believe more people should
experience psychedelic drugs for this very reason)

------
docker_up
Our combined income is about $600k USD, but funny enough we don't consider
ourselves "rich". We consider ourselves "upper middle class" at least for the
Bay Area, because we both work very hard, probably 10+ hours a day. Our
mortgage on our house is less than 1 year's income so it's relatively low
compared to others in the Bay Area. If one of us lost our jobs, we could still
comfortably afford our mortgage but we would have to cut back on a lot of
things.

Our children go to a private school that is close by, and our commutes are
less than 20 mins away each. My wife makes 2x more than me and she works hard
but loves her job. I'm a lot more relaxed with my job even though I'm older,
but I get to spend a lot more time with the kids (ex. pickup from school every
day, make dinner for them, etc).

We have enough money such that we don't have to think about it, which is a
luxury. We have never fought over money, but we have fought over other more
mundane things like over how we raise our children. But overall, not having to
worry takes a lot of conflict off the table that many other people ave to
endure, so we consider ourselves very lucky.

So yes, I'm pretty happy these days. It hasn't always been this way but once
we both started making > $400k combined, things got easier and easier. A lot
of our happiness these days is predicated by how our children behave, are they
fighting, do they have issues at school, etc.

~~~
assblaster
If your mortgage is $600k, you should work towards paying that off more
quickly, depending on the interest rate, so that you can be free from that
burden. Once your house is paid for, then your daily work can decrease if you
want, or have extra savings available for earlier retirement or maybe doing
more fun things. I won't be "happy" until I'm debt free with $10mil in
savings/investments, but I am definitely happy regardless because I genuinely
look forward to every day of working towards that goal.

~~~
nazgulnarsil
paying off a debt under 4% faster at the expense of putting that money into a
portfolio that is expected to earn 6%+ is making your overall assets less
diversified. You're trading down on both variance and return expectation.

~~~
assblaster
You make more money paying off debt earlier, instead of investing that same
money at a possible return of 6% per year, I've done the calculations myself
for my situation. You should do the same.

~~~
InitialLastName
What?

If I have $100 in an investment at 6% yearly and $100 in debt at 4% yearly,
after 1 year I have $106 in the investment and $104 in debt, so $2 more than I
had a year ago. If I pay off the debt now, I have exactly the same amount of
money I had a year ago.

------
babygoat
Happiness isn't a state you can reach and just dwell in. As soon as you
realize you're happy and start to think about it, it evaporates. It's a
byproduct that sits in your periphery when you're experiencing life to the
fullest, whatever that means to you.

------
TheBeardKing
I think your ability to be content is just a personality trait, and some have
that ability to a much greater extent than others. For example, the saying
"ignorance is bliss" seems to have some merit - many highly intelligent people
just cannot be happy. It's an unfortunate product of your brain chemistry, and
it's nothing you can choose to escape given average circumstances, as much as
we romanticize the idea of "finding happiness."

~~~
metabagel
We are all able to be content. Meditation is the most straightforward way to
learn how. It teaches you to live in the present moment, which teaches you
that the present moment is enough - you can just be. Another approach is to
learn to recognize when you are making thinking errors:

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-
strong...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-mentally-strong-
people-dont-do/201501/10-thinking-errors-will-crush-your-mental-strength)

Thinking errors get in the way of contentment.

------
howard941
Why the great disparity in job satisfaction between UK and US lawyers? 64% of
UK lawyers are satisfied compared to (unequal measures, yeah) Associate
Attorneys who were at a 2.89 "Bliss Score" the unhappiest profession
([https://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ehffl/no-1-unhappiest-...](https://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45ehffl/no-1-unhappiest-
job-associate-attorney/))

As for myself I am generally unhappy. I left the law and back to engineering
which I love, I'm married but spend too little time with my wife because we're
in different cities and live apart most of the time, I'm sad most of the time
when I'm not working, I don't have any life battering chronic diseases, I take
home enough money that I'm not indebted other than for my house and FFS am I
grateful for that. So no, I'm not happy, but I've stopped expecting happiness
so there is some satisfaction in not experiencing repeated disappointment.

------
angarg12
Coming from a Mediterranean culture I can sympathise with the 'money doesn't
mean happiness' maxim, but the opposite narrative is not much deeper.

In my life I moved from both extremes, from a poverty level wage in a dead
beat job with a friend and family support network, to a high stress, high
earning job, and something in between.

In all those situations I had sources of happiness and sources of unhappiness.
As you move in life you make tradeoff that think will make you better off,
some work and others don't. Ironically my current high stress job makes me
happier than the previous one, because I am able to learn, grow and do great
things. I traded a bit of work life balance for something else and that's ok;
it might work for me and not for others.

So by all means avoid the rat race and live a more relaxed life, but also
don't be afraid to try different things and see what works best for you at
each point in your life.

------
majui
I don't seek money, have a job, or got married, or other social markers of
success, to be happy.

I did it to thrive in society; it increases my and my family's chances of
survival.

I'd be happier by myself, with enough money to live with, and without a job.
Happiness is not the most important thing in my life.

------
rconti
Am I happier not having to worry about money, having the stability of a life
partner, and having something to do every day?

Yes.

I don't have a control group for myself, though, but it's sure a lot better
than the turmoil of teens and twenties life.

------
triviatise
The path to true happiness is to want for nothing.

~~~
bitxbitxbitcoin
“Attachments are just resentments waiting to happen.”

------
Konnstann
The only time I'm concerned about money is when I think about the future. I
make a lot of money when you consider that I live alone and don't really go
out much, but if I ever want to raise a family in a house that I own, what I
make right now won't cut it. I love my job, even though I'll have to leave it
and get a PhD later.

The only other reason I want more money is to be able to eat out whenever I
want, and not feel bad about spending the money instead of saving it.

------
whitepoplar
"Money might not buy happiness, but I'll take my fucking chances."

~~~
deathanatos
"All I ask is for a chance to prove that money won't make me happy."

(At least, that's the way I usually hear that expressed.)

------
momentmaker
"Everything in moderation, even moderation itself"

Walk The Middle Way

Your natural state is bliss and peace but your mind's thoughts and heart's
vibration pull you out of that state because the real you, the soul, the
observer, the atman become identified with them.

That's the great illusion - Maya.

------
oldboyFX
The benefit of wealth is not happiness but freedom to spend your time and
resources as you please. That allows you to focus on what matters which in
turn gives you meaning and amplifies your ability to affect the world around
you, for good or bad.

------
ffwacom
Sebastian Junger’s work is relevant to this, and after a decade of thinking
about happiness and looking back on my own experiences and others, he lays out
explicitly what I couldn’t put into words. His book Tribe is worth the read,
and he has two documentaries on Netflix, Restrepo and Korengal that touches on
the issue lightly.

It answers the question of why cancer patients can miss being sick, why
soldiers miss being on the frontlines and why I was happiest living in a third
world hole in a beat up apartment vs the luxury I’m living in now.

------
mlcrypto
All I need is a skateboard, a magic the gathering draft, a chart of the S&P
500, a game of Halo, and a good pizza and I'm pretty happy

~~~
InitialLastName
Oh boy, you from the future would like to have a word with you about your
oncoming knee arthritis, fading friend group, recession, cataracts and
heartburn.

------
mmsimanga
If only people who are happy would shut up enjoy their happiness without
telling the world. Okay you can tell your wife and brother but leave the rest
of us out of it. I think this creates pressure on the rest of us to emulate
you to be as happy as you or even worse some people fake happiness and this
makes situation even worse because we are chasing fake happiness.

------
squirrelicus
It's not clear that happiness ought to be the goal. I mean, sure, we were bred
by schools and culture to aim for happiness as if it was the goal, but being
stressed and discontent isn't necessarily bad. I believe that finding meaning
in what you do ought to be the goal. Meaning is what fulfills, not happiness.

------
tixocloud
Relative happiness places emphasis on external factors and tend to wear off
after the initial attainment of these factors. True happiness comes from
within and from the insight that regardless of whatever situation or problems
you face, you have the means of overcoming them and you’re able to be happy
just as you are.

------
village-idiot
Happiness is a process, not a destination. I have seen far too many of my
colleagues get the spouse, the house, and the children and then go ".... oh
shit, now what?".

------
scrumper
Well he might not like conforming to the stereotype of a middle class
university professor but he sure as hell enjoys having a massive chip on his
shoulder about it.

------
hamilyon2
This is the part that is new to me:

> When we look again at the ATUS, happiness and sense of purpose are both at
> their highest among people working between 21 and 30 hours a week

------
advertising
The pursuit of happiness is the most unhappy pursuit of all

------
chasd00
Nature really hates things out of the ordinary. If you want to be out of the
ordinary don't expect it to be easy and pain free.

------
dawhizkid
happiness is not the goal. meaning is.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
What's the point if you're not happy? Fulfilling your meaning and being
utterly miserable seems like a goal I want to avoid. Unless meaning will lead
to happiness, at which point happiness is again the goal.

~~~
thedaemon
Life is suffering. Life is not happiness. Best you figure that out now.

We have birthday parties and celebrations all the time. Why? Because life is
miserable and we should take every opportunity to celebrate when we can.

~~~
leesec
Damn, hope you can find some happiness bud. I assure you not everyone thinks
'life is miserable'.

I think life is awesome.

~~~
metabagel
Life is both awesome and miserable.

~~~
ionised
It is, but to me it seems heavily weighted in favour of the miserable side.

------
agumonkey
maybe the 'get more' is mostly a dynamic adaptive limit sensing mechanism.
'get more until you feel satisfied' as opposed to 'dont ever try'

