
Money Really Does Lead to a More Satisfying Life - mpweiher
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/business/money-satisfaction-lottery-study.html
======
ghthor
It isn't money. Its agency over your own life. Money is how we currently
regulate and monitor the agency our citizens have over there lives and those
around them. Finding better ways to grant and assert agency over one's own
life is the key to happiness AFAICT.

~~~
rayiner
We don't use money to "regulate and monitor the agency" people have over
_their own_ lives. We use money as a medium of exchange enabling people to get
_other people_ to do things for them. Money doesn't make you happy. Being able
to pay a doctor to take care of you when you're sick, pay a private school
teacher to heap attention on your kid, pay a chef to prepare nice meals for
you at a restaurant--those things make you happy.

If all people wanted was agency over _themselves_ most people could do it--
living off the land in the middle of nowhere is still pretty cheap here in the
U.S.

~~~
joe_the_user
" _We use money as a medium of exchange enabling people to get other people to
do things for them._ "

How does money get other people to do things for you? Well, there has to be
this group of individuals who are just dying for that money and will do all
manner of things to get it. That flexibility comes from desperation and _not
having agency over your own life_.

" _If all people wanted was agency over themselves most people could do it--
living off the land in the middle of nowhere is still pretty cheap here in the
U.S._ "

You mean if people wanted to trade nature having control of their existence
for an employer having control over their existence, it should be easy in the
US. Even that is hardly true - even subsistence agriculture requires skills
that can't easily gotten and moreover, all land owners have to pay taxes so
you can't have true independence, a best growing your own food and hopefully
selling the surplus to pay your property taxes.

It's not that any of this is impossible. Rather, it's a "way out" but so is
getting a lot of money so you're a labor buyer rather than the labor seller.
But all this does add up to _lack of money_ actually being a force to
"regulate and monitor the agency" of most people today.

~~~
nostrademons
Doctors are generally not "just dying for that money". It's pretty nice to
have, though, and they still want to be paid for treating you. And if they're
going to spend their time treating a patient anyway, why would they not spend
it treating the patient who could pay them over the one who can't? (Barring
the warm fuzzies of helping people who can't afford it...many doctors do in
fact do volunteer work, but they divide that off into a separate block of time
and spend the bulk of their time helping folks who can pay for it.)

~~~
manicdee
The Mercedes and mansion aren’t going to pay for themselves.

~~~
pen2l
You should become an orthodontist or a specialized kind of doctor (like
plastic surgeon, brain surgeon, heart specialist, gasteroentrologist, or some
such thing). Ideally, own and operate your practice, because that's where the
multimillionaire-money is -- otherwise, being a doctor in this age is not
_that_ lucrative of a job. Some of my doctor acquaintances have trouble making
the bill (whilst most of my software engineer acquaintances are doing
exceedingly well).

~~~
manicdee
Yeah, as Josh Frydenberg commented recently, "how does anyone survive on under
$100,000 a year?"

Not _that_ lucrative … by whose standards?

------
DoreenMichele
Survey is of Swedish lottery winners. Results may not generalize.

 _By some estimates, two-thirds of lottery winners are broke within seven
years._

[https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/lottery-curse-claims-
an...](https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/lottery-curse-claims-another-
victim-with-ontario-man-broke-and-in-jail-after-5m-win)

Nearly One-Third of U.S. Lottery Winners Declare Bankruptcy

[https://wolfstreet.com/2018/04/17/nearly-one-third-of-u-s-
lo...](https://wolfstreet.com/2018/04/17/nearly-one-third-of-u-s-lottery-
winners-declare-bankruptcy/)

~~~
greenhatman
I suspect the reason why many lottery winners end up broke soon is because
most rational well adjusted people don't play lottery.

So it's not so much the winning that make people go crazy. It's just what
happens when people who don't understand money get lots of it.

~~~
cperciva
Something I've always wondered about, which HN might be the only possible
place to get an answer to: Does the "lottery winners' curse" afflict founders
of wildly successful startups? (Say, people who walk away from an acquisition
with $10M+ -- on par with "winning the lottery".)

~~~
Axsuul
Not as much because the success of a wildly successful startup happens over a
longer period which gives you more time to adjust.

------
astrodev
I think denial is the only reason why one might find this result surprising.
Everything else being equal, almost any life path will be enriched by extra
money up to a certain point. That point is field-dependent, but it’s rarely
low.

~~~
sixstringbudha
> Everything else being equal, almost any life path will be enriched by extra
> money...

I don't think so. If you have a lot of money, there will be constant pressure
upon you about ways to spend it or invest it "wisely". And you ll always will
have the fear of "ruining everything". If you choose to do nothing with it,
you ll be blamed for not investing it or making it grow.

Not to mention that you will have a hard time differentiating associates who
are just there for a piece of the cake.

~~~
throwawaymath
I have a lot of money and none of what you mention afflicts me. I don't feel
"constant pressure" to spend or invest it wisely, and I don't recall ever
fearing "ruining everything." I doubt I would be blamed (by who?) for not
investing it; even if I was I don't think I'd care.

This might come across as condescending, but everything you're saying sounds
like the typical cliches about what it's like to have wealth from people who
don't actually have it. It comes with its own challenges but I would not
include the ones you've mentioned. Clearly some people with money do struggle
with some of what you've said, but in my experience it's rare for it to be a
dominating focus in their lives, and it's rarer still for it to cause the
wealth to become a net negative on their health and well-being.

The reason why I'm saying this is because frankly I find it frustrating when
speculation like this is promulgated so confidently despite its disconnect
with reality. Of the people I personally know earning over seven figures in
annual income, none of them struggle with what you've said. Your
generalization has a very brittle foundation.

Unfortunately there are two obstacles in combatting generalizations like this:
1) most wealthy people don't talk about what their life, aspirations and
challenges are _actually_ like, 2) hearing wealthy people say they in fact
_are_ mostly happy and fulfilled makes for a boring story without a lot of
draw.

~~~
sixstringbudha
> I have a lot of money and none of what you mention afflicts me.

Sure. Some people are afraid of public speaking. But some people on the other
hand, can't wait to get in front of people. But I think it wouldn't be too off
to say people are _generally_ afraid of public speaking.

So generally, the more you have to lose, the more you will worry. Simple. If
you want to refute that, argue logically why it might not be the case, instead
of just "I am rich, and you are wrong". Please.

~~~
throwawaymath
If you want me to "argue logically", you should start with defending the
points you've made for which the burden of proof is on the positive. My point
is that you're generalizing without any substantive support for the
generalization. For example:

 _> So generally, the more you have to lose, the more you will worry. Simple._

This is not simple and I don't follow that it's true _a priori_. Moreover I
don't necessarily agree that it's the correct _characterization_ , either. I
don't know anyone with wealth whose approach to thinking about wealth is that
they have "more to lose." That strikes me as begging the question. I can
understand why a _given_ rich person might feel that way, but I don't see why
the _modal_ rich person would feel that way.

The essence is that you're asking me to refute a statement that you have not
actually supported. Had you supported with something grounded I'd agree that
my anecdotal reply isn't much of a refutation. But so far it's my direct
experience and observations against something which boils down to intuition.
Intuition is misleading.

~~~
sixstringbudha
>This is not simple and I don't follow that it's true a priori.

Is it not?

1\. Having something comes with the risk of loosing it.

2\. with risks comes the potential to add worry.

3\. People with more to lose have more potential to be worried about it

How is my reasoning flawed?

The only thing you cannot lose is your past. You might lose the memory of it,
but that does not nullify it's existence.

~~~
jezclaremurugan
1\. Having more of something - gives one the tolerance to lose some of it
without feeling the pinch.

2\. Again - the ability to take risks increases - this is one reason the rich
get richer - they can make riskier investments while the poor can't make such
bets

3\. People with more to lose - are the people who lose a greater percentage of
their savings - a rich person losing $1000 vs a poor person losing $1000 - a
poor person loses more

~~~
sixstringbudha
I am talking about prospect of losing everything. Not some of it...

~~~
antidesitter
But the probability of loosing your life savings is greater if you’re poor
(since the quantity is smaller), so you have more to worry about.

~~~
sixstringbudha
But loosing a million bucks is going to hurt much more than losing 100 bucks.
Apart from that, it is much easier to sit on 100 bucks, not doing anything
with it, than to sit on a million dollars. Doing nothing with money is less
worrisome than taking risks with a lot of money..

------
yters
I grew up without much money in a third world country. My memories from that
time are much more vivid and meaningful than once I moved to the US and lived
a well educated, middle class life. Money and comfort are good, but I seem to
have lost something amidst the greater control and predictability of things
here.

~~~
adventured
Youth produces vivid, seemingly magical memories. The time relativity of
having had fewer experiences and how that amplifies every experience you do
have. When you're 10, every year seems like a small lifetime. Small or simple
things seem extraordinary. On top of that, we usually end up over-glorifying
the past because most negatives and how they made us feel fade with time.

Not to mention having a lot fewer responsibilities and knowing a lot less
about the world.

I grew up relatively poor in the US. My childhood seems magical compared to
this bullshit. Now each day vaporizes in a blur, feeling not very memorable
compared to any other. I love what I do work-wise as an adult, and it still
just doesn't remotely compare to spending all day roaring down a snowy hill on
a sled at ten years old. I'd probably struggle to recall something memorable
from ~100 days ago, but I can recall a hundred memorable things from my
childhood. I don't think it was money that made the primary difference, it was
the nature of every new or semi-new experience and what it means to a younger
brain.

~~~
yters
It is something also about the lack of control. I have vivid adult memories of
Afghanistan and trekking through the Tibetan plateau. I also have vivid
memories of deep discussions during college that I have failed to reproduce
under my own control.

------
alexgmcm
I think while technically true its not really the spirit of the saying.

Of course free money (from lottery winnings) is better than no money.

But for most people it's a choice between more money or a less stressful job,
or a shorter commute, or less hours etc.

And then it's a much more complicated equation.

------
hnaccy
_People are often reproached because their desires are directed mainly to
money and they are fonder of it than of anything else. Yet it is natural and
even inevitable for them to love that which, as an untiring Proteus, is ready
at any moment to convert itself into the particular object of our fickle
desires and manifold needs. Thus every other blessing can satisfy only one
desire and one need; for instance, food is good only to the hungry, wine only
for the healthy, medicine for the sick, a fur coat for winter, women for
youth, and so on. Consequently, all these are only relatively good. Money
alone is the absolutely good thing because it meets not merely one need in
concreto, but needs generally in abstracto._

------
massysett
"This research is able to reliably disentangle causation and correlation
because a lottery effectively provides a randomized control trial."

False. The sample size is limited to those who buy lottery tickets. Of course
people who buy lottery tickets think they will be happier if they have more
money; otherwise they would not be buying lottery tickets.

~~~
gwern
Even if you criticize the _external_ validity of the results, the _internal_
validity of the randomization is still there.

~~~
topmonk
I can see that's true, but what are you trying to get at?

------
tsomctl
To quote my grandpa, who started out with nothing and retired as a
millionaire, money doesn't buy happiness, but it sure makes it easier.

~~~
derekp7
Or to quote Weird Al, money can't buy happiness but it can rent it.

~~~
seibelj
To quote Daniel Tosh, jet skis are proof that money can buy happiness. No one
has a frown on a jet ski.

~~~
omgbananas
Edit: My original post was irrelevant and not enough karma to delete. Sorry.

~~~
falcor84
How is death by accident related to happiness? Seriously, I know many people
who got injured doing a sport they enjoy and then immediately went back to it,
without being particularly unhappy. I don't personally know anyone who died
from an accident like this, but I imagine that someone can absolutely die
while doing something that makes them happy. I'm not sure what I feel about
this. On the one hand, it's definitely a kind of a Darwin award, but on the
other hand, I see this as exemplifying living life to the fullest.

------
phaedryx
I think it depends entirely on how you spend your money. For example, if you
buy a nice bed and get good sleep you are going to be happier. If you can
afford healthier, higher quality food you will be happier. If money helps you
spend more time with friends and family you will be happier.

------
awocs
It makes a lot of sense in today's Sweden. Sweden is still a functioning
welfare state, but egalitarianism is decreasing. A couple of hundred thousand
dollars will be a major difference to your success rate in getting a good
quality of life. Or to put it another way there is a lot of people in Sweden
today who are denied opportunities because they don't have that kind of money.
Which can be seen by the large amount of private debt.

------
nrb
> (Free) Money (Awarded To Lottery Winners) Really Does Lead to a More
> Satisfying Life

------
menzoic
"This research is able to reliably disentangle causation and correlation
because a lottery effectively provides a randomized control trial"

This doesn't sound true. Many high earning workers never play the lottery, yet
have the same economic power as those who only win hundreds of thousands like
in the study. I imagine their lifestyle choices are different.

Lottery winners are an extremely small percentage of the population. They
don't have the same responsibilities, anixities, or "golden handcuffs" that
the majority of high earners have because they didn't need to go through that
to achieve their economic level and don't need to maintain it.

------
siruncledrew
Given how often studies like this float around, here's what I've learned from
past comments I've read:

\- Those who don't have money, and are therefore forced to be more self-
reliant, generally would like the opportunity to have more money because they
envision how it would make their lives easier.

\- Those who have a lot of money tend to downplay the importance of having
money, generally because it's more about what the money gets you than the
money itself - having options to not deal with things you don't have to.

\- Money is the vehicle to providing life-enhancing value for yourself in the
sense that it can be exchanged for what you want/need. This is what provides
happiness. I could have 1 trillion Zimbabwe dollars, but if I can't gain
anything meaningful I want with it, then just the number alone isn't going to
make me happy (aside from a blip of an ego boost).

------
akeck
"Money can't buy happiness but it solves 95% of the problems that make you
unhappy." ~ GSElevator

------
mbroncano
“Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.”

[https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/240944-lottery-a-tax-on-
peo...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/240944-lottery-a-tax-on-people-who-
are-bad-at-math)

------
sebringj
Our biological instinct when freedom is restricted is to resist the force
binding us. Try having a young child watch a long movie or trap a moth in a
jar. We all panic or bolt or wig out. Give a thing maximum freedom and the
very opposite happens. That's what a ton of money does to humans...although
those that are perverse or have extreme addiction or simply have odd
personalities, are able to amplify those traits extremely so. This says
nothing for those that lose all their money later as that is a separate
concept which has nothing to do with financial literacy and conflates
negativity with having large sums of money, which is idiotic IMO, like the
sour grapes allegory.

------
bcaulfield
Well, now they tell me.

------
jaclaz
Lottery wealth is a (tiny) subset of wealth.

It is possible that besides the material part there is some form of
psychological effect, "I have won in a 1 to a zilion chance, I am better (or
the fate, or God preferred me), I am special".

Inherited wealth or hard worked for wealth may well produce different
happyness levels.

And of course whar happens in Sweden may (or may not) be "universal".

------
zakum1
A sample of lottery players is hardly a representative sample. I think people
who don’t enter lotteries, besides understanding statistics better, are more
likely to believe money is not the source of their success and fulfilment.

------
sytelus
Money can’t solve all your problem, but it will solve most of them.

------
D-Coder
Intuitively, this sounds correct. The class "Problems that can be solved by
throwing money at them" is larger.

------
ja66awockeez
Money is just another tool, we need to know how to use it as well.

------
wetpaws
I found personally the best factor contributing to my satisfaction is to
maintain a usual modest lifestyle with combined knowledge of being financially
secure and not worrying about money.

~~~
dredmorbius
Works great until it doesn't.

~~~
loco5niner
a "modest lifestyle" is one of the most likely ways to continue to be
financially secure.

------
syndacks
Who plays the lotto? Idiots, that's who. Idiots who want to get rich.

So I'd say this is a flawed study with tremendous selection bias, we all know
money can't buy happiness :)

